Yay New Jersey!!!
Dec. 21st, 2006 09:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charliesmumTRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage as the state moves to become the fifth in the nation to institute civil unions.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine was to sign a civil unions bill on Thursday. The law will take effect Feb. 19.
New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Once joined in civil union, gay couples will enjoy adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making and alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court.
The civil unions bill passed the Legislature on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably obtain a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood*, have been together for 20 years and have a 3-year-old son.
They had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally, so Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.
"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.
Gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.
The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-Essex, who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.
"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
What do you all think of calling it Civil Union instead of Marriage? personally I think it falls under the 'rose by any other name category.
*I know these guys! They live in my part of town, and are friends with my friends, Jennifer and Melissa. Their son is adorable.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine was to sign a civil unions bill on Thursday. The law will take effect Feb. 19.
New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Once joined in civil union, gay couples will enjoy adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making and alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court.
The civil unions bill passed the Legislature on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably obtain a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood*, have been together for 20 years and have a 3-year-old son.
They had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally, so Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.
"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.
Gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.
The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-Essex, who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.
"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
What do you all think of calling it Civil Union instead of Marriage? personally I think it falls under the 'rose by any other name category.
*I know these guys! They live in my part of town, and are friends with my friends, Jennifer and Melissa. Their son is adorable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2006-12-21 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-12-21 04:43 pm (UTC)In the case of same-sex marriages under religious law, I think that it should be up to the individual churches to decide, just in case you were wondering. I wouldn't imagine, though, that a homosexual person would subject themself to an unaccepting church/temple/whatever.
no subject
on 2006-12-22 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-12-21 08:07 pm (UTC)Furthermore, the term does have connotations of partnership and commitment not found elsewhere, which apply equally to believers and atheists, gays and straights. I think by settling for "separate but equal" (shades of apartheid, much?) we're doing everyone a disservice. On the one hand, there are gays who wouldn't get married if they could (like John Barrowman); on the other, there are many who would. Denying them that because it would upset a few bigots is wrong.
But, as I said, civil unions are a good first step.
no subject
on 2006-12-21 08:10 pm (UTC)As long as ALL the same rights are included in civil unions, I think it's fabulous!
And hey, why not just call yourself "married"? "Civil union'd" doesn't sound right.
At any rate, hurrah for NJ!...and I'm pretty sure those two CWood guys visited my GSA a few years ago.
no subject
on 2006-12-21 09:12 pm (UTC)My solution? Make every governmentally licensed personal partnership a "union" and save the word marriage for that which is created in a spiritual ceremony (church/Native American/etc).