New Jersey Marriage Ruling

[morningrob]

The NJ Supreme Court sort of just allowed gay marriage. Basically it said that all of the rights that straight married couples have must be given to same sex couples. However, the actual name of what to call the union of same sex couples is up to the legisture.

[keltic63]

no not Dash, our beloved, it's our hopes that have been dashed!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

What's your opinion? Will the NJ legislature create equality for lgbt couples?

[morningrob]

In one sense it is interesting about how the media is presenting this ruling. I found out about the ruling from the local TV station- I live in NJ. The title on the web page says "Court Affirms Gay Marriage."
THerefore, it is helpful to read the actual decision. The actual decision says that there is no compelling state interest not to allow same sex couples to marry based on the NJ and Federal constitutions. It notes that changes in attitudes over the years makes it the court's opinion that the argument that heterosexual marriages protects the institution or is for the children is wrong.
In essence the court said that it is irrelevant what the institution is called as long as the rights are the same. This is a little bit different from the Yahoo article that you cited. In other words, the court essentially told the state to get over itself.

[suzer1013]

Well, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't care if my partnership is called a "marriage" or a "civil union" or something else -- if it carries the same rights and benefits of marriage, they can call it a "rhinoceros" (to steal from another thread) for all I care. However, if it's really the same thing, why not call it marriage? The reason why is homophobia -- maybe if they call it something else, the fundies won't get their knickers in such a twist (at least, I think that's their reasoning behind using different names for the same thing).

Whether they call it marriage or civil union or domestic partnership, etc., it still looks like bliss from here in Georgia. Congrats to NJ GLBT folks!

Susan

[morningrob]

It should be noted that as of this time it is called nothing. In other words, the court said that the title is the the proper area of the leg. branch. As of this time we do not know what it is going to be called. Perhaps we will neither have marriage nor civil unions but rhino. (OK, not going to spell that out becasue it is too difficult to spell out) In other words, the legislature may decide to just call it marriage or not, nobody knows yet.

The following is the link to the supreme court decision
www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

[keltic63]

It's interesting that the ruling/nonruling allows the court to "wash their hands" of it. I think the court was trying to avoid being labeled as "activist judges"

[suzer1013]

I haven't had time to read the entire opinion, but what I did read gives me much hope. Basically, they're saying "call it whatever you want, but you must give the same rights and benefits." This is so nice to read, after the travesty of the NY opinion earlier this year (or was it last year - I've lost all sense of time!).

"A rose by any other name...."

Susan

[BruceChris]

If a union had exactly the same definition and rights as marriage, in New Jersey, it could still be disallowed as not being technically the same thing in any political jurisdiction in the U.S., or in the world, unless there were a test case, or unless legislation were passed, one jurisdiction at a time.

Until I read Keltic's link, I was unaware that a civil union in Vermont was "exactly" the same thing as marriage.

Unfortunately, it seems that we need the title "Marriage" every bit as much as the 'phobes fear our having it.


Edit. But N.J. and Vermont couples could, and can as of now, get married in Massachusetts and lay claim to the legal title of "married". This could possibly give gay couples from those states critical standing, and allow the gay rights movement to get it's foot just that much furhter in the door. I am still looking for legal advice on this end; do we have any lawyers out there who might express an opinion on this?

Peace, Love, and Hope, Bruce Chris

[morningrob]

I think the court was trying to avoid being labeled as "activist judges"

I disagree with this statement. This court has been known to be highly activist. It is even said that the chief justice wanted this decision to be her last decision before she retired as to be a defining part of her legacy.

My own personal opinion as to why the corts left it to the legislative branch is that it did not want to influence the election in a few weeks.

[Giancarlo]

Just another half measure in my opinion. I don't know what is wrong with this country. In Spain we granted full marriage to gay and lesbian couples. This country really treats us as second class citizens. Civil unions aren't, and never will be the same thing. They are a half measure intended to appease. I'm sorry but I'm not falling for it.

[keltic63]

I disagree with this statement. This court has been known to be highly activist. It is even said that the chief justice wanted this decision to be her last decision before she retired as to be a defining part of her legacy.

My own personal opinion as to why the corts left it to the legislative branch is that it did not want to influence the election in a few weeks.

fair enough. I posted that statement before I had a good handle on the ramifications of the decision.

[Mia14]

The following is the link to the supreme court decision
www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

Here's a quote from that link that I adore:

"At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples.
Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the
unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.""

[Dash]

Separate is not equal.

Brown v. Board of Education taught us that.

They know separate is not equal.

And that's why they prefer it for us.

I want equal.

Period.

[suzer1013]

Separate is not equal.

Brown v. Board of Education taught us that.

They know separate is not equal.

And that's why they prefer it for us.

I want equal.

Period.


I want equal, too. However, I also see this as a long journey, of many steps. NJ has come amazingly far, especially when compared to other states who are codifying anti-gay bigotry into law and even into state constitutions.

I wish we could gain equal rights with one fell swoop. I wish the Supreme Court would simply decide it unconstitutional for heteros and homos to be treated differently when it comes to marriage. What do they say -- if wishes were horses?

I do not see the NJ decision as a bad thing. Now, our GLBT brothers and sisters in NJ will have the same rights and benefits as married heteros. No matter what the NJ legislature ends up calling it (remember, it is not ruled out that they could call it "marriage"), I rejoice that we are a step closer to equality.

I fear sometimes that an "all or nothing" approach will get us nothing. I am frustrated, too, at what seems like such a clear example of inequality, and I get angry over how long it is taking our country to bestow the same rights on GLBT folks as heteros. (In fact, I know I've expressed that anger and frustration on these boards before! :o ) But the fact is that the NJ court insisted that same-sex couples get the same rights and benefits -- the only difference is in what will be the term used to describe same sex marriages. ALL the rights and benefits folks -- that's a lot!

At this moment, I will rejoice and be glad. We will continue to work toward full equality. Perhaps it's just from my vantage point here in Georgia that this decision seems so positive (I was pleased with the positive way in which the court viewed same-sex relationships -- the court seemed very enlightened compared to, say, the good ole boys down here in "Jawjuh"). Or perhaps I'm just in a good mood today, for some inexplicable reason. It's much better than my recent negativity and surliness. ;)

Blessings...

Susan

[Zerbie]

What is up with the timing here?? I'm sitting at home in Arizona listening to right-wing radio proclaim the threat of judicial activism proclaiming the NJ decision is precisely the reason why we "need" Prop 107 before "activist judges" completely re-define marriage and "force" 'counterfeit marriage' on the people. In other words, they are milking this for every ounce of panic and reaction factor they can muster. Why couldn't this decision wait 3 weeks? There was no way they were going to avoid influencing the election if handing down the decision now.

Do you have any idea how much I hope this timing doesn't tip the scales in favor of the opposition, not only in AZ but in all the other states battling these initiatives? Latest poll showed our NO campaign ahead with 56% of polled voters OPPOSED to 107. I hope like MAD that doesn't change.

[Daniel]

Do you have any idea how much I hope this timing doesn't tip the scales in favor of the opposition, not only in AZ but in all the other states battling these initiatives? Latest poll showed our NO campaign ahead with 56% of polled voters OPPOSED to 107. I hope like MAD that doesn't change.

I get your point Zerbie and hope that this decision doesn't tip the vote against your efforts.

There are quite a few articles at NYTimes.com this morning dealing with this issue, one interesting thing being that Republican-appointed judges being in favor of the appellation of 'marriage' while some Democractic-appointed ones were not. Just goes to show that decisons always don't fall along party lines.

I am with Dash on this one: separate is not equal. And I fear that this only concretizes (I seriously doubt that the word 'marriage' will prevail though I am open to being dead wrong!)) matters further. Liberal's perceptions in this matter may prove to be prescient.

[BruceChris]

And Suzer, we love you, but I want to go with Dash on this one. And, this still does not give us the very important financial advantages of being married for federal tax benefits, or Social Security survivor benefits, or inheritance rights. I feel a need to repeat myself here, but I really want some answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a civil union has exactly the same definition and rights as marriage, in New Jersey and Vermont, it could still be disallowed as not being technically the same thing as marriage. This could be true in any political jurisdiction in the U.S., or in the world, unless there were a test case, or unless legislation were passed, one jurisdiction at a time. Lawyers just love to pull this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, it seems that we need the title "Marriage" every bit as much as the 'phobes fear our having it.

But N.J. and Vermont couples could, and can as of now, get married in Massachusetts and lay claim to the legal title of "married". This could possibly give gay couples from those states critical standing, and allow the gay rights movement to get it's foot just that much further in the door. I am still looking for legal advice on this end; do we have any lawyers out there who might express an opinion on this?

And N.J. and Vermont couples can do this right now, they don't have to wait for the N.J. legislature to do anything.

Zerbie, you are so right. We may have shot ourselves in the foot here.

Peace, Love, and Hope, Bruce Chris
__________________

[Zerbie]

Oh yeah, I'd'a been all for civil unions granting the same rights as marriage without the name, except for the point that y'all have raised here - that such status can be challenged as not "really" a marriage, and used against the couple (such as in custody cases, for one example). That's why I am ultimately for complete marriage equality (that and general principles too, of course.)

I just SO lament this crappy timing. All those marriage amendments passed in 2004 in large part as a reaction to Massachussetts - the last thing we need right now is to solidy losses in 8 states because of this decision. Which I agree is a step in the right direction. It's just sad that so many people react to it like the end of the world and a crying shame that I even thought to react with worry instead of joy that NJ is moving in the right direction. But boy oh boy did our local bad news CAP react to the decision as if the apocalypse was starting.

[dewdrop_world]

Interesting viewpoint from Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102600537.html

No Dissent on Equal Rights

By Andrew Cohen
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 26, 2006; 9:27 AM

Supporters of same-sex marriage, no doubt a little disappointed that the New Jersey Supreme Court didn't go a smidge further and order the state legislature to recognize same-sex marriage as such, should take solace nonetheless in the language, rationale and voting math of the ruling. This was a very good day for their cause, even if they didn't get precisely what they wanted.

I'm sure that most people, when they saw that the case came down to a 4-3 vote, figured that the four-Justice majority represented the Court's more liberal or progressive wing. I also suspect that most folks figured that the three dissenting justices were against the idea of same-sex marriage in general and against the idea of equal rights for same-sex couples in particular. Wrong. Those three dissenters weren't the Scalia, the Thomas and the Alito of this story. Turns out they were the ones who would have immediately conferred upon same-sex couples in New Jersey the right to be married.

This means that the majority ruling in Lewis and Winslow et al v. Harris represents the Court's most conservative voice -- and it also means that every single one of the seven justices believes today that New Jersey may not discriminate against same-sex couples when they decide to commit their lives to one another. For same-sex advocates, that is progress by any measure, especially when compared with the way similar arguments have been received by high court justices in other states. Wednesday's ruling isn't perfect. But it could have been a whole lot worse.

Part of the reason for the result here was the difference in tone of the legal debate. New Jersey's long and distinguished record of recognizing civil rights seeped into the arguments offered by the Attorney General's office. For example, tucked away on Page 48 of the 90-page ruling, the Court's majority noted that the "State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children." New Jersey's decision not to make these arguments made seem like common sense to you. But it is an astonishingly different argument from the one made, say, by New York state attorneys when they fought their battle over this soil earlier this year.

In the New York same-sex marriage case, the Court's majority made a number of conclusions based upon the arguments of state attorneys. For example, the New York Justices declared that: "The Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." New York's highest court also stated: "The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." Not surprisingly, given this rationale, same-sex marriage proponents did not fare as well in June in New York as they did Wednesday in New Jersey.

There was more in the New Jersey decision to mark its distinction from most of what we have seen before in same-sex marriage law. On page 54 of the ruling, for example, the Court's majority wrote: "In protecting the rights of citizens of this State, we have never slavishly followed the popular trends in other jurisdictions, particularly when the majority approach is incompatible with the unique interests, values, customs, and concerns of our people." The four Justices in the majority made this observation in response to the best argument that New Jersey state lawyers had made against affording the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples now get-- that it would make New Jersey's marriage laws different from almost every other state.

And on page 51 of the ruling came the most poignant passage of all -- one that ought to make same-sex marriage supporters grateful, if not completely satisfied, and one that ought to make same-sex marriage foes worried about what might happen the next time this issue makes to this court. "Gays and lesbians work in every profession, business, and trade," the majority Justices wrote. "They are educators, architects, police officers, fire officials, doctors, lawyers, electricians, and construction workers. They serve on township boards, in civic organizations, and in church groups that minister to the needy. They are mothers and fathers. They are our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends." Imagine what the dissenters would have said.

It's true that the result of Lewis and Winslow et al v. Harris for same-sex marriage proponents isn't the total victory that same-sex marriage advocates had hoped it would be. I'm fairly sure they are a little worried now about all the language near the end of the majority ruling that oozed judicial "deference" to the legislature as it begins now to pick up the pieces left by the case. And now while fighting this rearguard action they almost may have to contend with a push by same-sex marriage foes to amend the state constitution so that Wednesday's ruling would be rendered obsolete.

But it's not like they'll be fighting these next fights alone. In the shadows of the coming debate, lurking like the Ghosts of Landmark Rulings Past, will be each of the seven justices of the state's highest court. And any legislator who feels as though the Court has gone as far as it will ever go, and will go no further in requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage, will be venturing forth at his or her own peril. End result aside, this is a Court that is unanimous about equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Andrew Cohen writes Bench Conference and this regular law column for washingtonpost.com. He is also CBS News Chief Legal Analyst. His columns for CBS can be found online here.

[Vanessa White]

I am not usually very politically savvy, although maybe I should be, but, I am amazed that every single justice, all seven of those individuals, agreed that gay couples cannot be discriminated against/ not given the same rights as heterosexual couples. To me, even though it does not clear up the "marriage" vs. "civil union" discussion, encourages me about what we are entitled to as couples, as per interpretation of the constitution. That seemed to override conservative and liberal thinkers alike. Without diminishing the impact of having marriage vs. civil unions, I am not sure how I feel about having the whole enchilada. Not that I wouldn't want it, for sure, but I am at least encouraged by this step. Timing? Again, my politically un-savvy self wondered the same thing, Zerb, not sure for the same reasons or not. WHy two weeks before elections that could be quite significant to the future of our communities, and this country? Hoping to anger those that don't want it for sure?

[BruceChris]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=700005

Just click on any of the blue highlites.

P&L, BC

[Daniel]

It should come as no surprise to anyone that this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27marriage.html?hp&ex=1162008000&en=bb70e8d08855d229&ei=5094&partner=homepage

is ample evidence for what Karl Rove was saying about 5 weeks ago. The point is that Rove has consistently uses gay baiting as an election strategy. And we should know by now that, despite assertions to the contrary, this administration really does intend to 'stay the course'. Hey! Why change a 'winning' strategy? Let's just hope that our nation cares more about real issues than fake ones.

[BruceChris]

After hearing a Bush spokesman say that W. had used the phrase "Stay the Course" in public -- only 8 times -- , One reporter did some digging, and came up with at least 29 such usages. If I were to suggest that the man has told more lies than any other 3 American presidents, would anyone seriously dispute me?

Sometimes being this honest begins to feel almost unChristian.

BC

[cbob66]

Hey everyone,

I live in New jersey and I feel like I've been getting some people who I thought were supportive of me telling me they don't see Marriage between same sex partners as "equal". Maybe I have been extremely naieve, but that has affected me. My parents are like that. I guess I shouldn't be suprised by this but I am. and I am also feeling hurt.

How do others deal with this? Have others run into this as well? I know it's not God telling them this and it's their own Fear and Ignorance, but that doesn't seem to help.

Thanks.

Bob

[Zerbie]

Hi there Bob, pleased to meet you and welcome to the forum.

I'm sorry to hear about the "surprises" from your family and friends. Sometimes people are not as supportive as we think, and I believe they usually try to conceal that from us. I'm not sure I understand what's behind that - but I've often heard from folks who vote against LGBT interests "Oh well I don't want to hurt you personally, I hope I haven't hurt your feelings." Er, well, I don't know how they expect not to, quite, and it's inconsistent and confusing.

It's interesting to find out to what extent our friends are actually "with" us - and sometimes disappointing.

I grew up in NJ, so while I'm upset with the timing on this and the fact that it's being used as a "wake up call" to motivate those in my new home state (AZ) to vote for a constitutional marriage ban/domestic partnership ban, I nevertheless can't help feeling a little proud that the next step towards equality came from my home turf. :cool:

Hang in there Bob. This forum is a good place to come visit when we're feeling we've had it with some of the junk out there in 3 D-land. Lots of wonderful caring folks here. :)

[Dash]

Hey everyone,

I live in New jersey and I feel like I've been getting some people who I thought were supportive of me telling me they don't see Marriage between same sex partners as "equal". Maybe I have been extremely naieve, but that has affected me. My parents are like that. I guess I shouldn't be suprised by this but I am. and I am also feeling hurt.

How do others deal with this? Have others run into this as well? I know it's not God telling them this and it's their own Fear and Ignorance, but that doesn't seem to help.

Thanks.

Bob

Me? Here's how I'm dealing with it...

I just finished The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell. In our world most people have forgotten that less than two decades ago we were tearing down walls in Europe. Now we are building new ones around the world. There's no way they can know that same-sex marriage is a part of Western history, and has not always been as foreign to the imagination of culture as it now is. The documents that record Christian Church blessings of gay marriage still remain as a testament to more "Christian" sentiments of a different millenia.

Now when the subject comes up. I'm like, "Did you know..." and people say, "Oh really!..."

So there you go. Facts trump foolishness everytime!

[Daniel]

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/12/120706njUnions.htm

NJ Civil Union Bill Heads To House Vote
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: December 7, 2006 2:15 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) Ignoring the pleas of same-sex couples the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee approved a bill granting civil unions to gay and lesbian couples, voting to send the measure to the full Assembly for a floor vote.

It is likely the measure will become law before the end of the year.

Dozens of gay rights supporters rallied at the Capitol on Thursday in an attempt to convince lawmakers that civil unions are not an acceptable alternative to marriage.

It seems our dear friend (where art thou?) Liberal was right: the USA is turning, pretty quickly it seems, towards civil unions.

Like the protesters in Trenton- I agree that separate is NOT equal.

Meanwhile, in Canada, where Liberal and Spouse are from, efforts to turn back gay marriage were rebuffed.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/12/120706canVote.htm

Canadian Lawmakers Rebuff Bid To Reconsider Gay Marriage Law
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: December 7, 2006 3:22 pm ET

(Ottawa) A motion to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage was quickly rejected by Canada's House of Commons Thursday afternoon leaving LGBT rights advocates jubilant and opponents accusing the minority Conservative government of betrayal.

Go Canada! Leave it to our neighbors to show us how it's done. Love you guys.

[pnggrad79]

Maybe someone has already said this, but has anyone drawn a similarity in gthe way this is shaping up politically with how the issue of slavery polarized the US in the lidisast century? With Mass. allowing gay marriage, Vermont and NJ allowing civil unions, and AZ voting against a ban on gay marriage, it seems like the US is picking sides on this battle and we may see a civil war of sorts on this issue. It is truly dividing this country. Does anyone else see this similiarity or am I just dreaming up stuff?

[pnggrad79]

Sorry my computer wouldn't let me edit. My wife likes my nails long and they sometimes hit keys I don't mean for them to hit. I meant last century, not "lidiast".

[sammy1980]

Maybe someone has already said this, but has anyone drawn a similarity in gthe way this is shaping up politically with how the issue of slavery polarized the US in the lidisast century? With Mass. allowing gay marriage, Vermont and NJ allowing civil unions, and AZ voting against a ban on gay marriage, it seems like the US is picking sides on this battle and we may see a civil war of sorts on this issue. It is truly dividing this country. Does anyone else see this similiarity or am I just dreaming up stuff?


Pnggrad,
I wholeheartedly agree with you, our country is becoming divided over the issues of gay marriage. I just hope, we will avoid a secession, like it was in the 1860s, over the slavery issue.

Sammy

[novaseeker]

Pnggrad,
I wholeheartedly agree with you, our country is becoming divided over the issues of gay marriage. I just hope, we will avoid a secession, like it was in the 1860s, over the slavery issue.

Sammy

That seems very, very unlikely to me, given the very different power balance today between the federal and state governments as compared to the situation in 1860, as well as the reality that for the most part the divisions on this issue are not strictly state vs. state, but are also within states. It's not nearly as monolithic as it was during the run-up to the Civil War, where more or less entire states were polarized on the issue of slavery.

That isn't the case on gay marriage. To take a pertinent example, the state where I live, Virginia, which is the home of many fundamentalists (including Falwell and Robertson) is in reality fairly divided on same sex marriage. The anti-crowd is larger, but when looking, for example, at the recent vote on the amendment to the virginia constitution banning gay marriage, the state was really divided on the issue, with the populous Northern Virginia counties, Richmond, and Albemarle (where UVA is located) voting against, and virtually all of the rural counties voting for. So while I agree that the population appears to be divided on issues relating to this, I do not think that the divisions are along *state* lines as they were relating to slavery, but the dividing lines are more complex and tend to run within states. Hence I think it's extremely unlikely that this kind of issue, which divides people *within* states, is really very similar to the situation that led to 1860.

[pnggrad79]

Nova,
I know things are quite different now than they were in 1860. My point was, there seems to be a stark polarization of politics shaping up the political schematic in this country over this issue. I was just wondering if there could be a "civil war" of sorts- not the bloodbath of 1860-1864. Lord, I hope not! However, we must not forget, the Jews of Germany also thought that a Holocaust couldn't happen in a constitutionally democratic Germany. All it takes is for some disaster to strike, a lunatic to assume power and you have a recipe for denial of civil rights and the slaughter of innocent people because of an ideology. Mel White asserts that this threat is a very real danger in his book. I don't think it is all that far-fetched. There are powerful people out there that without the Constitution-something that doesn't really help us anyway-would seek to destroy the gay and lesbian population in this country. Hitler used false propaganda to villify the Jews and turned a suspicious population into murderers. Hmmm-Falwell-"The gays are responsible for 9/11", Dobson-"It is a well-known fact that gay people are pedophiles"... Need I say more? Many people say it couldn't happen in this country-I'll bet 6 million Jews thought the same thing all the way to the concentration camps...

[novaseeker]

Oh I agree that there are certainly risks relating to the attitudes and political behavior expressed by the right at the moment. My point was that these conflicts and divisions are along very different fault lines than was the case in 1860, so that it isn't really along state lines, but within states ... making state secessions a lot less likely, but overall conflict within states much more likely.

An interesting book was written about this by New York Times columnist David Brooks entitled "On Paradise Drive". Essentially he describes a journey from the urban core to the urban/suburban border, to the inner suburbs, to the mainstream suburbs, to the exurbs and then to the smalltown/non-urban areas, and demonstrates that these geographic zones are becoming increasingly disimilar in terms of values, lifestyles, demographics, and that new fault lines are forming within our society around these new zones. It's a very interesting and worthwhile read (and quite funny as well, if you enjoy Brooks' sense of humour, as he is constantly poking fun at people who stereotype the demographic of each "zone").

[Daniel]

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_347093338.html

NJ Senate Bans Anti-Gay Marriage Pastor
(CBS/AP) TRENTON New Jersey's Senate is banning a pastor who spoke out against same-sex marriage in the invocation that starts the Senate session.

The Reverend Vincent Fields made the remarks on the same day that a Senate committee approved a bill that would allow gay couples to have civil unions.

Fields prayed -- in his words -- "We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage. We ask you to just look over this place today, cause them to be shaken in their very heart in uprightness."

Invocations are not supposed to be political.

Senate President Dick Codey tells The Star-Ledger of Newark Fields was out of line and the pastor will not be invited back.

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/nyregion/15union.html?hp&ex=1166245200&en=4201828902b533be&ei=5094&partner=homepage

TRENTON, Dec. 14 — The Legislature voted on Thursday to make New Jersey the third state in the nation to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples. In doing so, it moved quickly to fulfill a court mandate to provide equal rights to gay couples but frustrated people on both sides of the emotional issue.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign the measure into law, said, “I think we’re doing the right thing.”

But gay-rights advocates continued to contend Thursday that the separate institutions were inherently unequal and promised to keep pushing for nothing short of marriage itself.

“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, a gay-rights group.

No. Mr.Corzine, you are not doing the right thing.

Separate is not equal. Maybe in your mind you think it is, but it isn't. Yes. This is big step forward for GLBTQ Rights in New Jersey. I applaud you for getting this far.

Now Go The Distance!

It's about Marriage!

(PS- Liberal-our beloved dear friend, was prophetic regarding this issue.)

[keltic63]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/nyregion/15union.html?hp&ex=1166245200&en=4201828902b533be&ei=5094&partner=homepage



No. Mr.Corzine, you are not doing the right thing.

Separate is not equal. Maybe in your mind you think it is, but it isn't. Yes. This is big step forward for GLBTQ Rights in New Jersey. I applaud you for getting this far.

Now Go The Distance!

It's about Marriage!

(PS- Liberal-our beloved dear friend, was prophetic regarding this issue.)

I seem to recall emproph or some other sage here saying that rights granted cannot be taken away. so perhaps this is the "foot in the door." NJ offers civil unions, a precedent has been set for "separate is not equal" in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. It would appear that now, lgbt couples in NJ need to join together and take this to court and have their unions honored as marriage.

[novaseeker]

Well, they wouldn't win in a New Jersey court, I think, because the NJ Supreme Court just said that it was more or less neutral as to what the legislature called the relationship, as long as the relationship had the same rights and privileges under NJ law as marriage. I don't think that the NJ court would go against that ruling anytime in the near future, so that would mean a federal challenge. On that point, while I think the case for the federal courts/Supreme Court finding a fundamental right to get married is a good one, I can also very easily see a scenario whereby they do what the NJ court did, which is make a distinction between the "name" and the "content", as a kind of political compromise that makes neither side very happy.

Still, New Jersey's law is a step in the right direction. It's true that once you confer rights, it's very hard, politically, to take them away, so it's an important advance. Looking at the map now, we have a nice line forming along the East Coast at least with MA, VT, CT, NJ all having some kind of recognized relationship, and NY likely to have one soonish due to Spitzer's election. MD's gay marriage case was also argued last week and is now pending before the MD Court of Appeals, and if MD were to go the way of New Jersey, it would be a nice string of states there where same sex relationships have some kind of recognition.

[Daniel]

If Civil Unions confer the same rights upon gay couples as marriage confers upon straight couples... in what way is it NOT marriage? just the word? Wasn't it the Bard who said "a rose by any other name...?"

Ain't the same by any means.

Civil Unions aren't portable and have no federal application, meaning, those who obtain civil unions do not have the case that those in Mass do in fighting for actual equal rights like ss benefits.

Civil Unions are, in the end, a barrier to full equality. As such, civil unions say more about fearful heterosexuals than it does gay people. The New Jersey legislature is making this about them, not us. If this matter really was about true equality, the designation of marriage would a non-issue.

Separate is NOT equal. (hope that didn't hurt!)

To borrow a metaphor here: sitting halfway from the back of the bus isn't the same as sitting in the front of the bus. Civil Unions say, in effect, we're uncomfortable with you guys up here with the rest of us. Do you mind hanging back a bit? Yes...I mind very much. Move over and make some room. There are plenty a seats available.

[Vanessa White]

Daniel: there are times that I, too, wonder if civil unions are enough for me, for us. I mean, at least then I could legally, and publicly if I wanted to, have a ceremony and acknowledgment of my love and commitment to my future partner. However, when I think in that manner, I deny it being a way to say to myself "At least they gave us that much, so I should stay happy and satisfied with that". I lose sight of the equality aspect of it, which is critical, and only then can we have marriage as an inherent right. The way of civil union keeps the spin, in my mind, of marriage being for the priviledged heterosexual crew. You help me to help myself not to "settle", and I need to hear that every now and again to wake me up from my stupor of this is the best its gonna get. You are absolutely right, I deserve, we ALL do, the whole enchilada. Thanks. Love and peace, Vanessa :love:

[Daniel]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/052207njunions.htm

NJ Companies Continue To Thumb Noses At Civil Unions
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 22, 2007 - 7:00 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) A growing number of companies are refusing to recognize the state's civil unions law, denying benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

The state Department of Health and Senior Services said Monday that 852 same-sex couple had applied to enter civil unions in the three months since the law took effect.

The low number took some lawmakers by surprise but LGBT rights advocates say it shows a dissatisfaction with the law. Garden State Equality's Steven Goldstein said that most same-sex couples are holding out for full marriage.

Although the civil unions law gives same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage it is not recognized by a growing number of companies - all with federally regulated benefit plans.

Under the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. The law allows those insurers to reject same-sex couples.

Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits Goldstein said.

Among the cases that have come to Garden State Equality, said Goldstein is one involving a woman who told her employer she and her partner had a civil union and was told by the company, "We're not going to provide benefits. We still need the word 'marriage' and you two aren't married."
Goldstein said the couple have been together 16 years and have adopted three special needs children.

"New Jersey should be celebrating such couples," said Goldstein. "Instead, civil-unioned couples across New Jersey are still being denied equal protection of the law."

Goldstein said it is time the Legislature amended the law to provide for marriage.

"For those who ask, 'So long as same-sex couples get the rights, who cares what it's called?' the New Jersey experience has answered the question once and for all," Goldstein said.
"Unless a couple's relationship is given the imprimatur of marriage, that couple may never see the rights. Marriage is the only admissions ticket to equality universally recognized in the real world. It's the only currency of commitment the real world always accepts."

©365Gay.com 2007

Does this happen to married folks? I don't THINK so! These companies are flouting the law. How Christian is that?

[antonyh]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/052207njunions.htm



Does this happen to married folks? I don't THINK so! These companies a flouting the law. How Christian is that?

That is terrible. Shows why you do need marriage...and a few law suits for now.

[Freespirited]

Oh now I get it!!! since the law came into effect I have only lesbian civil unions performed in my court where I work!! no gay male couples have even called for an appointment to get married! why is that?


LEANDRO

[keltic63]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/052207njunions.htm



Does this happen to married folks? I don't THINK so! These companies are flouting the law. How Christian is that?

not only does this not happen to married folks, let me tell you that having been in a straight marriage, I NEVER had to produce my marriage certificate for spousal benefits, anywhere!

[Zerbie]

not only does this not happen to married folks, let me tell you that having been in a straight marriage, I NEVER had to produce my marriage certificate for spousal benefits, anywhere!

Yep. My experience too, so far. I feel safe taking it for granted, too.

That's why having the status recognized as "marriage" is so critical. Why we need the *word.*

[pnggrad79]

History may have taught us that separate but equal is not equal, but hey, it took how many years for Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's to change all that? We here in Texas would love to have some measure of equal rights. Right now that is not even possible. So much of what we want is not going to happen overnight, so I will take what I can get seeing the light at the end of the tunnel so to speak and hoping that this tidal wave of gay marriage in the Northeast will spill over to the lazy, rigid, self righteous South.:)

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/118386914994430.xml&coll=1&thispage=1


UPS Policy Demonstrates Inequality of New Jersey's Civil Unions

The "separate but not equal" status of New Jersey's civil unions has been reinforced once again, this time by the United Parcel Service, who says it won't offer benefits to the same-sex partner of one of its employees, even though they are registered in a civil union in the state.

Why? Because the language does not recognize the partner as a "spouse".

The Star Ledger reports: "In its letter denying coverage, UPS said it does provide health benefits to its employees' spouses, including spouses of the same sex who are married in Massachusetts. But it said New Jersey's decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions rather than marriages tied its hands. Gay rights activists called it the starkest proof to date that New Jersey's civil union law has failed to deliver on its promise to provide all the benefits of marriage, but by a different name."

New Jersey gay rights group Garden State Equality says it has received 176 complaints of civil unions not being recognized.

Chairman Steven Goldstein told the paper: "This is a problem the Legislature created. Civil unions are never in our lifetime going to be respected by employers like marriage. We've heard from many legislators that this is something they want to deal with in 2008. They know it's a disaster. In the real world, civil unions are to marriage what artificial sweetener is to sugar. It's not the same thing and it leaves a bad aftertaste."

[mjules]

This is all very interesting. (Though I don't think I've absorbed most of it, since I am dead on my feet from having traversed a good 80% of San Francisco walking today.) The friend I am staying with is a family law attorney and we were discussing civil unions vs. marriages yesterday, actually, since I mentioned something about going to Hawaii to get married, and she said that I'd have to go to Massachusetts because Hawaii never went all the way to calling it marriage, and neither did San Fran.

That led to a discussion about the differences between them, and she mentioned that she really thinks the word "marriage" is a misnomer, even for heterosexual unions, since it was something that originated in religion, but tradition has melded it into a legal term as well, which it was not originally supposed to be.

But yes, I agree with everyone that separate is not equal, and whether any of the unions should be called 'marriage' or not (which, the religious thing offers fun implications in the realm of same-sex marriages - ie, we'd have to convince the church to recognize us) they should all be the same thing, in all ways, at all times. I mean, really, what's so difficult about it? Crazy control freaks wanting to run other people's worlds as well as their own.

[Progo35]

Actually...I think that this has more to do with the UPS giving people CRAP than it does with the intent of NJ law. UPS does not have it's "hands tied" by that law, there is no law forcing them not to give health benefits to same sex civil union couples, USPS is just using that as a stupid excuse. I think that USPS should simply be sued by whomever is in charge of LGBT rights in NJ..or the ACLU. Unless this is some sort of ploy by USPS to change the language of the law...which I really think is a semantic, not legal, issue. USPS should be sued.

[Zerbie]

Actually...I think that this has more to do with the UPS giving people CRAP than it does with the intent of NJ law. UPS does not have it's "hands tied" by that law, there is no law forcing them not to give health benefits to same sex civil union couples, USPS is just using that as a stupid excuse. I think that USPS should simply be sued by whomever is in charge of LGBT rights in NJ..or the ACLU. Unless this is some sort of ploy by USPS to change the language of the law...which I really think is a semantic, not legal, issue. USPS should be sued.

Sure it is about UPS being buttheads.

But the better solution is to get the civil situation fixed so that gay couples have parity under the law, not to sue each and every business or outfit that uses civil union status as a loophole to selectively deny some of their employees partner benefits. We could either sue each and every group one at a time, or get the problem fixed at the root - the root of the problem is that civil union status IS indeed a separate and very unequal status that can be used and abused by any homophobic institution that wants an excuse for denying homosexuals the same decent treatment they would extend to heteros.

The same mumbledeygook has been given as a reason for denying gay parents custody over a child - because the parent is in a civil union, the parent is denied custody - and why? Because the parent is not "married," and so the civil union status still constitutes in the eye of some judges a mere shacking up, thus giving the judge an excuse to withhold custody. It's complete garbage. Not to mention that gay partners (unless in MA) have NO better option than a civil union (and so many places they aren't even "allowed" that much). It's a way of keeping down an ENTIRE class of people.

[Steven E. Webster]

This is all very interesting. (Though I don't think I've absorbed most of it, since I am dead on my feet from having traversed a good 80% of San Francisco walking today.) The friend I am staying with is a family law attorney and we were discussing civil unions vs. marriages yesterday, actually, since I mentioned something about going to Hawaii to get married, and she said that I'd have to go to Massachusetts because Hawaii never went all the way to calling it marriage, and neither did San Fran.

That led to a discussion about the differences between them, and she mentioned that she really thinks the word "marriage" is a misnomer, even for heterosexual unions, since it was something that originated in religion, but tradition has melded it into a legal term as well, which it was not originally supposed to be.

But yes, I agree with everyone that separate is not equal, and whether any of the unions should be called 'marriage' or not (which, the religious thing offers fun implications in the realm of same-sex marriages - ie, we'd have to convince the church to recognize us) they should all be the same thing, in all ways, at all times. I mean, really, what's so difficult about it? Crazy control freaks wanting to run other people's worlds as well as their own.

I think you are mistaken. "Marriage" did not begin with religion--it is not essentially religious. Historically marriage is primarily a legal and civil matter. In the Middle Ages the Church gradually came to have a role in legal matters. There was a time in England when church courts decided probate questions (ajudicating wills), for instance.

We have a strange mixture of church & state in this country, where clergy have the legal authority to marry people (as long as they do so according to the law of the state and fill out the proper forms with the Country Clerk). But clergy have never had exclusive authority over marriage--marriage is governed by the law of the state, not the law of the church.

Some people propose that maybe we should throw the word "marriage" out of the law altogether and call all "marriages" "civil unions." But I think that's just playing with semantics and ignoring the historical fact that religion did not always have a monopoly on "marriage."

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

I guess I don't understand what the difference is between the legal status of a "marriage" and a "civil union." There are lots of heterosexual couples that get married by the state and are recognized as a "civil union" by the law. I don't understand why the word "marriage" has anything to do with the rights guaranteed by a gay civil union/marriage. If the law says that a civil union entitles the couple to the same benefits, than businesses have to recognize it, and they are the ones at fault, not the law. The law shouldn't have to call it "marriage" to be effective. Now, if the law wants to refer to "civil unions" as "marriage" instead, than that's fine with me. I would think that the religious defintion of marriage would be retained within the religious sphere, and that in the political sphere, "marriage" would have a broader definition.

I don't know if this is an issue in terms of the law, but I do feel that as in the situation with Catholic Charities and adoption, individual churches have the right to practice their beliefs without being hassled by the government. I don't want to hear of a church being closed down because it refused to marry a gay couple. That decision may not be the one I'd make, but if there were ever a law that charged churches with discrimination for not marrying gay couples, I'd be P.Oed on the church's behalf, because that is supposed to be seperate from the state's authority. In using CC as an example, I will point out that I am adopted and that my parents were not accepted as potential adoptive parents because they weren't Catholic. Thus, they adopted me from another agency. They could have sued CC for religious discrimination, but they went to another agency. If a gay couple were living somewhere where there was only ONE church, or only ONE adoption agency, and that agency was both religious and funded by the state, than I think that a lawsuit or change in the law would be justified, but I do think that churches have to be allowed to decide what they are going to recognize as marriage and what they aren't, as long as the secular law allows gay couples to get married and have the same benefits. As Stephen writes, marriage is a civil and legal matter. It is also a religious sacrament, but many words that denote relgious activity, such as "communion" apply to a breadth of spiritual activities. Now, hopefully with continued work, churches will be more and more supportive, but no one should be forced.

[Zerbie]

I guess I don't understand what the difference is between the legal status of a "marriage" and a "civil union." There are lots of heterosexual couples that get married by the state and are recognized as a "civil union" by the law. I don't understand why the word "marriage" has anything to do with the rights guaranteed by a gay civil union/marriage. If the law says that a civil union entitles the couple to the same benefits, than businesses have to recognize it, and they are the ones at fault, not the law. The law shouldn't have to call it "marriage" to be effective.

Because, Progo, laws are interpreted by people and institutions, some of which CHOOSE to interpret civil unions as NOT marriages because they are not CALLED marriages.


I don't know if this is an issue in terms of the law, but I do feel that as in the situation with Catholic Charities and adoption, individual churches have the right to practice their beliefs without being hassled by the government. I don't want to hear of a church being closed down because it refused to marry a gay couple. That decision may not be the one I'd make, but if there were ever a law that charged churches with discrimination for not marrying gay couples, I'd be P.Oed on the church's behalf, because that is supposed to be seperate from the state's authority.

I do think that churches have to be allowed to decide what they are going to recognize as marriage and what they aren't, as long as the secular law allows gay couples to get married and have the same benefits. As Stephen writes, marriage is a civil and legal matter. It is also a religious sacrament, but many words that denote relgious activity, such as "communion" apply to a breadth of spiritual activities. Now, hopefully with continued work, churches will be more and more supportive, but no one should be forced.

No one here disputes that in any way. As I recall the case of the Catholic agency in MA, they received state funding, and as such were required to comply with the law. Rather than comply with the law and place children in loving homes where they would be wanted, they chose to close the agency. Their choice in that case. The key difference between that and a completely private agency being that they were beholden to the state as long as they received that funding.

I thought it was quite clear no one is interested in "forcing" churches to marry gay couples. If I were looking for a minister to officiate at my wedding, you better believe I wouldn't want the wedding ruined by having it performed at a disgruntled church that didn't want me. So why would gay couples want that? Even if someone did, that's not how it works. Churches and ministers can refuse to marry couples - hubby and I had to be interviewed by the minister we chose, since he might have refused to marry us if he believed we were a bad partnership. I don't see your point in bringing this up, unless you really weren't aware that we've been over this subject many times and it's been clearly stated that SF members are not the least bit interested in forcing churches to marry them.

[Progo35]

Hi, Zerbie,
I guess I hadn't seen this issue discussed specifically in the SF forums, except that when people assume that not officiating over a gay marriage is always motivated by hatred, I get a little concerned that, as with CC, the government. some diocese, and other agencies might start closing down churches that refuse to do this.

Also, I'm feeling kind of frustrated over how the debate over Bishop Robinson has impacted the Episcopal church. To date, several churches in the Wenham area have been shut down by the archdiocese, meaning that congregants aren't allowed in the building, because they dissented from Bishop Robertson's appointment. This is a church issue, not a legal one, but some of these churches did a lot of good in other areas despite their dissent with his appointment. Because of this, I feel that the dioceses' actions amount to pigeonholing Christians who attend those churches, and thus allows for persecution. As I've said, some Christians take that position even though they don't particularly like it, and since they don't feel that they can justify or invalidate the few references to gay relationships in the Bible, they don't want to sanction what may be a sinful behavior because society pressured them to. A lot of this is based on the ethic of not conforming to the world, even if the world seems to make more sense. Also, some people don't want to hurt others by telling them it is okay to do something that they feel the Bible says is not okay to do.

But, in terms of the Catholic adoption issue, it was my understanding that while CC closed their agency, they would have been forced to by the state of MA if they hadn't allowed gay couples to adopt. So, they did close their agency before MA closed it for them, but they wouldn't have closed it in the first place if the state of MA hadn't threatened them. Yes, it was federally funded, and I am surprised that the Catholic church didn't come to bat and fund the agency privately, but even with this being so, it was a religious agency, and I feel that it being clsoed down probably hurt a lot of children who were in the process of being placed in homes, who then probably had to transferred to other agencies, where they could get lost in the cracks more easily because of the confusion caused by the shift. As I've said, gay individuals weren't the only ones that CC excluded from their adoption pool. In short, I'm just saying that I don't want to see anyone being unfairly treated for their beliefs...unless they are advocating outright hated or violence, which CC was not, at least not intentionally.

Also, I honestly don't remember what the name of the site was, but shortly before SF came to our school I read about the visit on a diversity website that was advocating making it a hate crime for preachers to say that homosexuality was a sin, and also indicating that those churchs who refused to marrry or ordain homosexuals be investigated for possible hate crimes. So, that is also were I got this concern from. I wish I could find the website that said all this, but I haven't been able to find it again. But, I'm not making it up-I really saw it. Like I've said, I'm all for censoring or theologically ostracizing those like Phelps, but that is still different from articulating an unfortunate doctrinal position.

As you point out, some people have used the civil union distinction to deny people benefits, and that is a serious problem, but I guess I don't understand how changing "civil union" to "marriage' would impact this sort of bigotry itself. By current law, USPS HAS to give benefits to same sex couples. RIGHT NOW, they are in violation of the law. By all means, call it a marriage in the law. But, I guess what I mean is that in the meanwhile, it would seem that those who are using semantics to deny people their rights should be immediately called to task by the state. The fact that lawmakers are now debating about the semantics of the law instead of punishing those who break it bothers me. I'm not saying that the law shouldn't change if that would help, but I would think that USPS would be called to task in the meantime. I feel like ignoring appropriate punishent and only discussing semantics just lends false legitimacy to their attitude, ie, they may actually be justified because it was the lawmakers' fault for calling it a civil union instead of a marriage. The people at USPS aren't stupid: they know what the law is talking about. So, I just would like to see the blame levied in their direction, rather than only the law.

[Steven E. Webster]

I don't want to hear of a church being closed down because it refused to marry a gay couple. That decision may not be the one I'd make, but if there were ever a law that charged churches with discrimination for not marrying gay couples, I'd be P.Oed on the church's behalf, because that is supposed to be seperate from the state's authority.

That's a red herring. Clergy ALWAYS have a choice to marry or not marry any couple. No law gives any one the right to be married in a church--and I agree that no law should. Our opponents try to frighten people with the idea that marriage equality laws would force clergy to perform marriages--it won't do any such thing.

On the other hand, County clerks and other civil authorities have to allow people to marry who meet the legal requirements for marriage.

Steven Webster

[Zerbie]

Hi, Zerbie,


Also, I'm feeling kind of frustrated over how the debate over Bishop Robinson has impacted the Episcopal church. To date, several churches in the Wenham area have been shut down by the archdiocese, meaning that congregants aren't allowed in the building, because they dissented from Bishop Robertson's appointment. This is a church issue, not a legal one, but some of these churches did a lot of good in other areas despite their dissent with his appointment. Because of this, I feel that the dioceses' actions amount to pigeonholing Christians who attend those churches, and thus allows for persecution.

Persecution - sigh. . . I strongly suggest finding another word - unless they are tying up Episcopals and setting torches to kindling. The word is far too strong. You might find it sets off all kinds of alarm bells from other forum members.
No, it's not persectution - it's punishing the bystanders because of the ideological fight the bystanders are caught between.

As I've said, some Christians take that position even though they don't particularly like it, and since they don't feel that they can justify or invalidate the few references to gay relationships in the Bible,


I hear you telling me some people take a position they do not like because someone else TOLD them to. Well, if they're much older than 10 or 12 years old, they must use their God-given intelligence to evaluate this position for themselves and either own it, or develop an alternative position that they CAN own. It must be THEIRS. Not their parents' or neighbors'. How is this not "societal pressure," which you say they should not succomb to?

they don't want to sanction what may be a sinful behavior because society pressured them to.

I'll tell ya what society pressures people to do: it pressures people to ostracize, fear, and look down upon gay people. It does not pressure anyone to stand up for the human dignity of gay persons - that's a precious few brave loving souls who ask the world to do that. No, the church's position IS the worldly position, it is the POPULAR position. Gays = eew, in the world's view.


A lot of this is based on the ethic of not conforming to the world, even if the world seems to make more sense.

Sorry Progo - what you just said here is, there is an 'ethic" of not following sense. In other words, an ethic of mindlessly avoiding what makes sense in favor of blindly following what someone else instructs. That's nothing if not an ethic of stupidity.

Also, some people don't want to hurt others by telling them it is okay to do something that they feel the Bible says is not okay to do.

Okay, finally something that doesn't set up alarm bells for me. I can understand that IF one truly believes there is something harmful to the participants in a relationsip, that one might not want to lend support to that relationship. But what it always comes down to is that everyone has the right to self-determination, the right to make mistakes. Who are we to know? They might *not be* mistakes. This is where "live and let live" comes into play. Americans are good at doing that.


But, in terms of the Catholic adoption issue, it was my understanding that while CC closed their agency, they would have been forced to by the state of MA if they hadn't allowed gay couples to adopt. So, they did close their agency before MA closed it for them, but they wouldn't have closed it in the first place if the state of MA hadn't threatened them. Yes, it was federally funded, and I am surprised that the Catholic church didn't come to bat and fund the agency privately, but even with this being so, it was a religious agency, and I feel that it being clsoed down probably hurt a lot of children who were in the process of being placed in homes,

I am sure it did. But WHO closed the doors to ALL children rather than let some few of them be lovingly adopted?! The agency did that - the agency would rather deprive ALL its children of homes than let loving gay couples adopt. The church agency chose to punish all the little children in its care, rather than accept the terms of state funding and follow the guidelines BY OFFERING THEM TO PARENTS.

, I'm just saying that I don't want to see anyone being unfairly treated for their beliefs...

Intentionally depriving children of homes is not a belief, it's an action.


Also, I honestly don't remember what the name of the site was, but shortly before SF came to our school I read about the visit on a diversity website that was advocating making it a hate crime for preachers to say that homosexuality was a sin, and also indicating that those churchs who refused to marrry or ordain homosexuals be investigated for possible hate crimes. So, that is also were I got this concern from

That's too bad.

As you point out, some people have used the civil union distinction to deny people benefits, and that is a serious problem, but I guess I don't understand how changing "civil union" to "marriage' would impact this sort of bigotry itself. By current law, USPS HAS to give benefits to same sex couples. RIGHT NOW, they are in violation of the law. By all means, call it a marriage in the law. But, I guess what I mean is that in the meanwhile, it would seem that those who are using semantics to deny people their rights should be immediately called to task by the state. The fact that lawmakers are now debating about the semantics of the law instead of punishing those who break it bothers me. I'm not saying that the law shouldn't change if that would help, but I would think that USPS would be called to task in the meantime. I feel like ignoring appropriate punishent and only discussing semantics just lends false legitimacy to their attitude, ie, they may actually be justified because it was the lawmakers' fault for calling it a civil union instead of a marriage. The people at USPS aren't stupid: they know what the law is talking about. So, I just would like to see the blame levied in their direction, rather than only the law.

Good points. Of course, it could all be fixed if the derned law just said "marriage." I think the lack of enforcement of benefits and the failure to smack UPS upside the head for failing to provide them are symptoms of the same institutional homophobia. Until we rid our systems of homophobia, we are going to have problems like this.

[pnggrad79]

I have heard all the arguments, but I still go back to it is better than what we have here in Texas which is a governor that wants us all to just go away, and a state legislature that has constitutionally banned us from getting married. NJ has a lot more than we do. I only wish we had as much.
Good for NJ! Texas may catch up in say 50 years!

[Progo35]

the doctrinal issues surrounding gay marriage, adoption and the gay community all go back to not encouraging others to engage in behaviors that the Church holds to be wrong-that is immoral, which is the position of al the people I know who hold this belief but aren't doing so to be bigoted or hateful. Now, obviously, there are people out there who do use this as an excuse to be bigoted an hateful, but the Christians I look up to who hold this belief are NOT.

What I mean by not conforming to society is not that today's society encourages tolerance towards gay people, but that today's society wants to give the appearance of tolerance on all fronts. Like, there are no rules regarding right and wrong, and if you think that there are, you must be a bigot or a racist or something, even if you never articulate anything that indicates such positions. So, sometimes I get the feeling that some people in our society outwardly support the gay community because it's the "right thing" to do, not because they would actually do this if there weren't a broad base of supporters around them. So, when I mention not conforming to the world, it goes back to the issue of not telling someone that it is okay to do something wrong, if in fact it is wrong. In my own life, I know that my own theological positions on things, and my decision to support the gay community regardless of what may be an inpenetrable theological conumdrum, have come through individual Bible reading, meditation, and prayer, not because someone I actually respect told me that I would go to hell or else. So, that's what I mean.

I agree with you that by closing its doors CC contributed to chilren being hurt, but I still feel that CC was motivated by the principal mentioned above-not encouraging behvaior that it truly believed was mentioned in the BIble as a sin. On the same principle, if the Church isn't going to encourage others to have gay relationships because it believes that this is wrong, it CERTAINLY isn't going to put innocent children in an environment where the wrong thing is going on, regardless of how loving the potential parents are. Given this fact, I believe that CC should have been allowed to continue its adoptions and its policies, although I can see the argument for the state not funding it. The state not funding it, though, was not the only issue: the state endowed CC with the authority to make placements, and since CC was going to strick to the aforementioned principles, MA said that it would take their license away. So, I do feel that the final result was the State of MA's Fault. CC could have placed kids in Catholic homes and all the other adoption agencies in the state could have serviced those loving gay couples who wanted to adopt. I don't feel that CC should have been forced to choose between making a theological decision and losing its license. That, in my opinion, is the state oppressing the catholic agency. Now, persecution may seem strong-but if you ran an adoption agency that was geered towards gay parents, would you want straight people to sue you because they weren't allowed to adopt from you? Would you want to be labled as a hate monger because of a theological position that you, yourself, had decided to take? If you were one of those children, would you have wanted the state of MA to put so much pressure on the agency that it closed its doors, rather than putting children in an environment were relationships that they felt were harmful to the people involved were going on? If you were a Jewish person, would you want others to hate you and try to close your synogague because you refused to recognize the authority of rabbis who ate pork? (Now, in saying this, I want to put a disclaimer: I am not comparing gay people to ham steaks in terms of worth. If worth were equal, than we wouldn't need to have these discussions-it would be non-issue. The fact that gay people are God-created individuals makes the issue involved totally different. But, dotrinally, I see it as the same thing. Jewish people don't abstain from eating pork because they "hate" pigs, pork, or pig farmers-they do it because they feel God told them to do so. That may not be a valid law for me or you, but they do have the right to feel that eating pork is a sin, even if they don't have ill-feelings towards pork.) I don't think so, and that is why I strongly feel that what happened with CC was wrong.

[u-dog]

the doctrinal issues surrounding gay marriage, adoption and the gay community all go back to not encouraging others to engage in behaviors that the Church holds to be wrong-that is immoral, which is the position of al the people I know who hold this belief but aren't doing so to be bigoted or hateful. Now, obviously, there are people out there who do use this as an excuse to be bigoted an hateful, but the Christians I look up to who hold this belief are NOT.

Bigotry and hate come in all kinds of packages. Some packages look like fred Phelps... some are much more subtle. So subtle, in fact, that they can look to others and even to the bigots and haters themselves, like love. I find it helpful to remember that "hate" stems from unresolved anger and unresolved anger is born of fear and the thing that people fear more than anything is uncertainty and change. GLBT people are asking for a big change in how everyone understands reality (male and female complimentarity is an important paradigm in how we understand the world). the prospect of that change is frightening to many and they reach DESPERATELY for something to hold onto in the midst of that change. The bible is one of the things that fearful people cling to. That, in and of itself is not a bad thing. I do it too. If one looks objectively at the passages that seem to condemn GLBT people and their experience, one finds that the argument is tissue paper thin and very fragile. but frightened people don't look objectively. They see what they NEED to see to keep them feeling safe. what they choose to see is that God doesn't love or honor gay people as gay people. Some frightened people merely try to convince others to believe as they do. THE REALLY REALLY frightened people are willing to do violence to keep the world from changing.

What I mean by not conforming to society is not that today's society encourages tolerance towards gay people, but that today's society wants to give the appearance of tolerance on all fronts. Like, there are no rules regarding right and wrong, and if you think that there are, you must be a bigot or a racist or something, even if you never articulate anything that indicates such positions.

This is the thing that they FEAR. "if GLBT people are accepted as OK people and if society blesses their lives and loves then ALL the rules will disappear! Nothing will be VALUED! The world will become a swirling moral toilet that has just been flushed and I and my children and everything I love will be sucked down into the whirlpool!" THIS IS AN IRRATIONAL FEAR but it is the seed from which the anger and hatred grow!


So, sometimes I get the feeling that some people in our society outwardly support the gay community because it's the "right thing" to do, not because they would actually do this if there weren't a broad base of supporters around them. So, when I mention not conforming to the world, it goes back to the issue of not telling someone that it is okay to do something wrong, if in fact it is wrong. In my own life, I know that my own theological positions on things, and my decision to support the gay community regardless of what may be an inpenetrable theological conumdrum, have come through individual Bible reading, meditation, and prayer, not because someone I actually respect told me that I would go to hell or else. So, that's what I mean.

And This, Proga, is what we love about you! It is a sign of a) your emotional maturity (your ability to differentiate your own attitudes from your community's) and b) your Spiritual maturity and commitment to the REAL truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This maturity is not universal in the Christian community -- especially not in the more conservative corners of the Christian community. The irony is that if you read the Gospels without an agenda what you see is the story of a man who ON EVERY OCCASION used teaching, storytelling, healing, miracles, confrontation, resurrection of a dead friend, his own sacrificial death, and his own world shattering resurrection... to undermine and deconstruct the safe little status quo of the Pharisees, the sadducees, the scribes, the Essenes, The Romans, the rich upper classes in order that the Realm of God might erupt into reality.

:love:

[Progo35]

I agree with you, u-dog, in everything you say, except that I continue to think that the issue with CC goes beyond the idea of worrying about a moral vaccuum. There's a saying that goes, "a religion of convienence is not a religion at all." So, what I'm saying is that just as Jewish people don't keep abstaining from pork because they're afraid of change, I don't feel that CC necessarily did what they did because they were afraid of change. Also, despite the fact that the agency recieved federal funds, it needed the state's okay to place kids and the money they recieved helped suppport that. Similarly, Gordon College has a policy that people must make a statement of faith in Christ to be accepted and they must attend chapel three times a week. Thus, the school anticipates that those of other faiths will not go there. Gordon also recieves federal funds, but the state hasn't threatened to take this away if the school does not admit atheists, or those who don't want to make a statement of faith in Christ. To me, this is because we have freedom of religion in America. I feel that when MA threatened to take CC's license away and incited them to shut down, they violated that principle. CC no longer had the right to exercise freedom of religion, which, I feel, is very wrong-and hurt the children involved, which makes me angry-I feel that everyone involved was selfish-including the state of MA and the gay advocates who, like CC, were trying to do what was right. In the end, no one did the right thing, and that's a shame.

[BrentRichards]

Also, I'm feeling kind of frustrated over how the debate over Bishop Robinson has impacted the Episcopal church. To date, several churches in the Wenham area have been shut down by the archdiocese, meaning that congregants aren't allowed in the building, because they dissented from Bishop Robertson's appointment. This is a church issue, not a legal one, but some of these churches did a lot of good in other areas despite their dissent with his appointment. Because of this, I feel that the dioceses' actions amount to pigeonholing Christians who attend those churches, and thus allows for persecution.

Hold the phone! Just exactly what churches have been "shut down" and by whom (there is no such thing as an "archdiocese" in the Episcopal Church USA)? I am not aware of ANY church, ANYWHERE in the ECUSA being "shut down" because of their views on the consecration of Bishop Robinson. What HAS happened is that some churches have chosen to leave the ECUSA, and there has been significant dispute over whether church law allows them to take their property with them when they go. Other churches, in protest of Robinson's consecration, have withheld funds they are canonically required to pay to the denomination or the diocese, and one or two have had rectors removed or operations suspended on this basis ... it's not unlike a "civil disobedience" in a sense ... don't take the action if you're not prepared to take the consequence.

I think someone is feeding you inflammatory information on this one. Can you point me to specifics?

[Progo35]

The property disputes were in the Boston Globe-which is were I've gotten my info from. I don't think that the diocese should be reposessing the property of these churches or forcing them to pay dues when the situation revolves around an ideological conflict. Also, the people trying to break away from the American Episcopal church were recently denied their request to remain Episcopal but be under the leadership of the Episcopal/Anglican church in Africa, so they are being hedged in. The churches involved haven't necessarily left the Episcopal denomination, they are exercising their right to disagree with the actions of the diocese. What are the people serviced by these churches supposed to do? Meet in someone's living room? Doing what it has done had forced undue pressure on these churches, and I firmly believe that it is wrong to do this. A lot of the time, people who have used a particular area of land have the right of posession-they can keep the land if they've been using it for five years or more. Also, look at it this way: would you not consider it hatred if the situation was backwards and the diocese was reposessing the land of churches that were supporting thee gay community? I think that if that were the case, this entire discussion would be quite different. Tonight I'll see if I can find the Boston Globe article.

[BrentRichards]

The property disputes were in the Boston Globe-which is were I've gotten my info from. I don't think that the diocese should be reposessing the property of these churches or forcing them to pay dues when the situation revolves around an ideological conflict. Also, the people trying to break away from the American Episcopal church were recently denied their request to remain Episcopal but be under the leadership of the Episcopal/Anglican church in Africa, so they are being hedged in. The churches involved haven't necessarily left the Episcopal denomination, they are exercising their right to disagree with the actions of the diocese. What are the people serviced by these churches supposed to do? Meet in someone's living room? Doing what it has done had forced undue pressure on these churches, and I firmly believe that it is wrong to do this. A lot of the time, people who have used a particular area of land have the right of posession-they can keep the land if they've been using it for five years or more. Also, look at it this way: would you not consider it hatred if the situation was backwards and the diocese was reposessing the land of churches that were supporting thee gay community? I think that if that were the case, this entire discussion would be quite different. Tonight I'll see if I can find the Boston Globe article.

Again, not knowing the specific situation makes it impossible to comment. "Exercising the right to disagree" is not the same as refusing to abide by the rules of the denomination ... we Presbyterians are used to a high degree of congregational autonomy ... we own our own buildings, without any control from "above" for example... that's just not true for a hierarchical church like the ECUSA, and no, it's not legit to just decide to opt out of the rules because you disagree... not unless you're prepared to take the consequences of doing so, which were already laid out.

As to "what if the situation were reversed" ... um, it has been, most of the time! Shall we count pastors that have been disciplined, removed, defrocked, people refused membership in churches, and so on, and so on, and ... I'm not buying the "poor oppressed us" bit from the churches who dissent on this. If you dissent, if you must leave, leave. If you leave, nothing says we have to break our rules to make it easy for you to go. The majority of the ECUSA leadership is just as firm in their conviction that to swerve on this matter and allow the minority to force the denomination "back in the closet" as it were, would be gross injustice. The church has a system for deciding doctrine, policy, and ethics. It has done so. Some do not wish to abide. Fine. But the church is under no obligation to change their rules to "make nice" with those they believe are acting unjustly. The ECUSA has NOT taken a neutral stance on homosexuality. They have said that excluding the LGBT community from any part of the life of the church is WRONG. They believe the dissenting congregations are WRONG about this, every bit as much as the dissenting congregations believe that homosexuality is wrong. An anti-gay church is not going to bless my marriage to a man. Neither is it reasonable for me to be asked, or required, to "bless" their ongoing anti-gay teaching. Not with resources and property that belong, by church law, to the ECUSA, which is committed to stopping that injustice.

Beliefs have consequences. Always ... there's a discussion in another thread right now about Bishop Carlton Pearson, and what happened to him when he had a change of heart about homosexuality and other issues ... it cost him his church building, the majority of his income, the biggest portion of his congregation, many of his friends, and so on ... he didn't stand for his beliefs because it wouldn't be costly. He stood for them in spite of how costly it was. Those in the ECUSA who dissent from the current decision of the church may just have to do the same.

I'm not ECUSA, but I have strong leanings in that direction, and if I ever do decide to pursue ordination, it will almost certainly be with ECUSA (my own denomination says I can't be ordained, and though I disagree with them, I can't therefore ignore there rules and have it my way unilaterally). I may well have to leave my denomination because of a disagreement. Fair? I dunno. Real? Yeah.

OK. Rant over for now. Imagine if I were actually Episcopalian! David? Any thoughts?

[Progo35]

I guess that if I were in charge of the churches that are dissenting, I would just pay my dues and remain in the denomination and continue to articulate the same beliefs as before, whether for or against the ordination of gay individuals. So, I don't think that I would have taken the route that many of these churches have. But, I still disagree that the churches involved are hate mongering congregations who want to oppress the gay community, and my question of the issue being reversed goes to this. Obviously, when LGBT individuals are not allowed to participate in the same things that everyone else in a denomination or church is allowed to do because of who they are, everyone (?) here agrees that this kind of behavior on the part of the church persecutes LGBT individuals....but when the situation is reversed and people who are articulating a different belief have to face the consequences, everyone thinks that this is okay. So, one could make the same argument that people who "choose" to disclose their sexual orientation are "facing the consequences" when they are not allowed into a church, not allowed to be married, etc, but we agree that this is wrong. Given the fact that LGBT people and their allies hope for increased cooperation from the Church on gay issues, I don't think that it is fair to excuse the same behavior against another group of people who have other gifts to contribute despite their interpretation of those particular verses in the Scripture.

[Zerbie]

I guess that if I were in charge of the churches that are dissenting, I would just pay my dues and remain in the denomination and continue to articulate the same beliefs as before, whether for or against the ordination of gay individuals. So, I don't think that I would have taken the route that many of these churches have. But, I still disagree that the churches involved are hate mongering congregations who want to oppress the gay community, and my question of the issue being reversed goes to this. Obviously, when LGBT individuals are not allowed to participate in the same things that everyone else in a denomination or church is allowed to do because of who they are, everyone (?) here agrees that this kind of behavior on the part of the church persecutes LGBT individuals....but when the situation is reversed and people who are articulating a different belief have to face the consequences, everyone thinks that this is okay. So, one could make the same argument that people who "choose" to disclose their sexual orientation are "facing the consequences" when they are not allowed into a church, not allowed to be married, etc, but we agree that this is wrong. Given the fact that LGBT people and their allies hope for increased cooperation from the Church on gay issues, I don't think that it is fair to excuse the same behavior against another group of people who have other gifts to contribute despite their interpretation of those particular verses in the Scripture.

Would you say this about congregations that believed being black, disabled, or left-handed were morally inferior? Would you say that blacks and disabled people were just facing the consequences of being how they are?

[Progo35]

Just to clarify: I AM NOT SAYING THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE JUST "FACING THE CONSEQUENCES" I'm saying that given the fact that that attitude IS WRONG, I don't want to act that way towards those who dissent in the Epis. Church, because the people doing this don't feel that they have a choice, either.

Well...as to other minority groups, although I feel that the Church needs to change its attitude toward gay individuals, there are not Biblical passages In The New Testament that say that being black or disabled is a sin and that such people "will not inherit the kingdom of God." In fact, there's a passage in John where Jesus talks about disabilities being used to show God's glory and not benig the result of sin, which is different from what the OT says.

So, if such churches were articulating those beliefs, they'd really have to screw up the Bible to come up with it, because there are no NT passages that could be interpreted as saying that.

The thing with the NT and homosexuality (this being a technical term and not my intended reference to the gay community), is that Paul does tell the Corinthians that their homosexual relations were sinful, but, this may apply to the kind of things homosexuality was associated with at the time: that is likely why he was referring to that. For instance, Corinth, like other Grecian nations, celebrated the feast of Bacchus (or Dionysius) with wine, dancing, singing, and ORGIES, many of which were associated with homosexual activity. This contextual information differentiates that kind of behavior from comitted, two person gay relationships/marriages. I.e, "gay" as a reference to a sexual orientation didn't exist in Paul's experience. But, some feel that contextualization is picking out what one likes from the Bible and leaving what one doesn't like. My reasons for supporting the gay community, besides the simple fact that everyone is human and deserving of equal rights, is that it is nearly impossible to completely contextualize or completely literalize the Bible and come up with a consistent message, some things clearly have metaphorical significance.

And, there are also BIblical verses that many churches who hold that gay sex is wrong have contextualized, such as the passages in Timothy that tell women not to wear braids. Generally, it is believed that at the time, braids were a sign of promiscuity, just like tight knit fish net stockings and mini skirts are associated with promiscuity today, which is why many Christians today choose not to wear either article of clothing. Also, when Paul says, "a woman should not speak in church" most people I know take that to be a reference to some sort of specific problem that was going on: what my NT teacher at Gordon argued was that the church had borrowed the Jewish custom of having women and men sit in different places during worship meetings, and that the women were sitting in back of the church, which made it hard for them to hear the speaker. My NT teacher believes that these women then started asking their husbands, who were sitting in front of them, what the worship leader was saying and that this caused distraction in the worship meeting. So, Paul said, "women should not talk amongst themselves or to their husbands while someone else is talking, then it distracts everyone, women who cannot hear because they are sitting in the back should ask their husbands what was said when they get home." But, my NT teacher feels, this does not mean that the worship leader was always a man, or that women did not play an important leadership role in the early church. Thus, if we are going to contextualize this, there is a very good argument for contextualizing Paul's statements on homosexuality. It's really a shame for us humans that the Bible doesn't record any clear instances of being gay as we understand it today. I think that when Paul was thinking "homosexual" he wasn't thinking of it as an orientation and wasn't faced with examples of commited, monaganous gay relationships. Since the Bible doesn't mention this, it's hard to make a definitive decision regarding what the Holy Spirit was trying to convey through Paul's words. What we do know is that God told us to love each other.

I do, however, feel that when LGBT support shutting churches down, they provide fuel for the fire in terms of the Christian community feeling that being gay isn't a natural orientation and that it is destroying society, and that the LGBT persons or organizations invovled are being hypocritical. So, I would think that everyone, including the LGBT community and the Episc. diocese, would want to work on cutting each other a bit more slack.

[tdogg]

I dont know of any churches being shut down because of gays and lesbians, but I do know there have been more than a few gays and lesbians 'shut down' because of churches. Churches are supposedly charged with taking care of people, spreading love and good news. Not causing havoc, teaching people to hate others, teaching people to hate themselves.

As far as the issue of same-sex marriage - the word isn't what's important. The ability to receive exactly the same rights, priviledges and benefits as the next person is the point. What we have currently in the vast majority of states, even the liberal state where I live, isn't even close to what my heterosexual married neighbors get.

Words = semantics and excuses. Zerbie said it right, no one in their right mind would get married in a church that didn't want to marry them. Why would a person let someone deliberately ruin a very special moment. We will seek our marriages where we are welcomed and affirmed and believed in. The law is the law, and should be equal - gender, orientation, race, these should not be a factor in determining who gets what.

[Daniel]

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5250


Civil Unions An All Around Failure
by: Juan Melli
Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:50:41 PM EDT

The New Jersey Civil Unions Review Commission met today for the second time. According to the state, 1,359 couples have civil unionated in the five months since the law went into effect. During that time, Garden State Equality has received complaints from 191 civil unionized couples whose employers have refused to recognized their civil union. Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, commented on the nearly nearly 1 in 7 failure rate.
"What society would tolerate a law's failing 1 in 7 times? If New Jersey's Civil Unions Law were a person, it would be arrested for committing fraud."
Not only does this discriminatory law fail the couples it was supposed to protect, it's also failing our already financially strapped state.
The refusal to pass true marriage equality legislation represents a lost economic opportunity for New Jersey. While the state must provide civil union couples the same benefits (tax, medical, etc) as straight married couples, it misses out on the economic boom that would result from allowing gays to marry. A UCLA study found that "revenue from weddings and wedding tourism alone would add nearly $103 million per year in business to the state for at least the next few years."

The law already says that gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. It's just not working, and changing one simple word could fix that, while giving the economy a badly needed boost. Our legislators should ask themselves: Is holding the word "marriage" hostage worth giving up $500 million?

[BenL]

The law already says that gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. It's just not working, and changing one simple word could fix that, while giving the economy a badly needed boost. Our legislators should ask themselves: Is holding the word "marriage" hostage worth giving up $500 million?

The real problem is the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA. Because the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions OR marriage of same-sex couples and because a lot of pension and employee benefit rules are governed by U.S. law, companies based out-of-state don't have to follow the NJ law and provide health insurance to partners.

Even here in MA, where marriage is legal, we only get part of the benefits. No filing U.S. income tax as a married couple (tho' you can under MA state income tax), no spousal Social Security benefits ... so our law isn't working full-time either. Gay spouses do have rights at hospitals here, but the minute we step out of state, and particularly into states with state versions of the DOMA, they all go out the window, sometimes even if you have legally executed health-care proxies in hand.

Second-class citizenship exacts its price, my friends.