New Jersey Legislature Votes to Allow Civil Unions
Posted on December 14, 2006
The New Jersey Legislature voted this evening to allow civil unions between same-sex couples, quickly settling an emotionally fraught issue but frustrating advocates on both sides.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who has supported civil unions, he would give the measure careful review but added, “I think we’re doing the right thing.â€Â
New Jersey would be the third state, after Vermont and Connecticut, to establish civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Same-sex marriages are allowed only in Massachusetts, which has a residency requirement, although many gays and lesbians have married in Canada.
The civil union law was written under pressure, in response to a directive by the State Supreme Court seven weeks ago to assure that gay and lesbian couples are guaranteed the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples.
The court left it to the Legislature to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry or placed on a separate, parallel track. Both houses settled on the civil union route, sending it through in just 10 days from introduction to voting.
Republicans in the Senate tried but failed to amend the legislation to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, so a pathway still remains open for allowing full marriage for same-sex couples. Many legislators said they hoped and expected to enact a marriage bill eventually.
Advocates of same-sex marriage said they would pursue that goal immediately.
“We’re planning a massive rally the day the civil union law takes effect to pre-empt the idea that this is a day for celebration,†said Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, an organization that has campaigned for same-sex marriage.
“While we continue to push the New Jersey Legislature to do the right thing by the many same-sex couples in New Jersey and pass a marriage bill, civil unions are a giant step toward greater fairness for same-sex couples,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “Same-sex couples throughout the state will now have access to hundreds of family protections that were previously available only to straight couples.”
“But civil unions are a temporary fix,” continued Jacobs. “We are going to keep pressing until same-sex couples and their families have access to the dignity and respect that only comes through marriage.”
Of course this is no surprise, as the judicial branch had commanded the legislature to create laws giving gay couples a way to get the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. And of course, this isn’t good enough for the gay activists. They are determined to change the definition of what marriage means. The main problem I have with all of this is the problem I had with the original ruling…it comes down to the judicial branch stepping outside its boundaries and into the realm of creating laws…or demanding that laws be created. It wasn’t decided by the people, it was decided for the people…and by an unelected elite few in black robes. Whatever. It isn’t a surprise. I would say congrats to the gays, but it looks like they aren’t satisfied yet.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “New Jersey Legislature Votes to Allow Civil Unions”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
No, but it’s enough to erode the vast majority of their heterosexual support.
I think a civil union law is a good thing (assuming it is written properly), but I won’t support them in pushing any further. At this point, they’re just fighting over semantics.
Indeed, and I don’t have a problem with them getting it defined as “marriage” as long as it is the people of the state that decide that and not some unelected judges forcing it on the people.
Like you said, this only erodes the heterosexual support when it is forced on them. If they want this so bad they should convince the people it is right. They only hurt their cause when they force it through the judicial branch.
I should have been more clear. I meant the fact that they now have rights analogous to marriage would erode support for the rest of their agenda. There are a lot of heterosexuals that don’t believe homosexuality is inherently wrong and those people sympathize with the drive for legalized unions. Now that they have achieved that in some states, they will find that they have significantly less support as they pursue the more extreme parts of their agenda.
I’m not well versed in the ruling that lead to this legislation, but I’m inclined to agree with it. Marriage, in our society, confers a number of benefits on the couple. It is not unreasonable to consider it discrimination if nontraditional couples don’t have similar opportunities.
I expect that last statement will draw a lot of fire, but I really don’t have any more time to spend today, so go ahead and kick me while I’m away.
All the people for New Jersey have to do is Amend their state Constitution to forbid civil unions. They should consider voting for conservative governors also. Courts have no business legislating whether at the state or federal level as it is a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government.
When is a state going to say, “Fine, if everyone has to be equal then we’ll stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight.”
When is a state going to say, “Fine, if everyone has to be equal then we’ll stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight.â€Â
It’s not often that I get to use a verse for two different posters, for two consecutive days.
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
I didn’t say the government should forbid marriage. I just said they shouldn’t issue marriage licenses.
For most of the history of the United States, people married without the benefit of a marriage license issued by the government. Marriages were recorded by the church and in family Bibles. The idea of issuing a marriage license was originally put in place to prevent whites from marrying blacks, a very un-Christian thing to do.
When my wife and I got married, I asked the Preacher if he’d marry us without a license. He said he would, but the government might throw him in jail if he did.
The family won’t fall apart if the government doesn’t issue marriage licenses. No-fault divorce is a bigger threat to the family. I don’t hear a whole lot of conservative politicians speaking out the same way against divorce.