Posted on 12/21/2006 9:18:45 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(CBS) TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey will become the fifth state to grant gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage when Gov. Jon S. Corzine signs a civil unions bill on Thursday.
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.
"We join the ranks of the leaders in the nation in reflecting equal rights for everyone," said Corzine, who is scheduled to sign the bill at 11 a.m. The law will take effect Feb. 19.
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 have welcomed the law, but some have argued 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. Still, she isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, even as 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 law 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 civil union ceremonies could look a lot like weddings.
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.
Despite the law going into effect, some of the state's Mayors won't perform the unions.
Mayors aren't required under state law to perform marriages, and the civil unions bill doesn't alter that discretion. Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has said he will not perform the ceremonies and vowed not back down.
"This is the first time in history an American is being told to perform a ritualistic ceremony no matter what you believe in," Lonegan said. "I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it."
Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer with expertise in marriage law, said mayors who perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples but refuse ceremonies for gay couples won't violate the civil union law but may violate anti-discrimination laws.
"It would not be equal treatment," Hyland said. "Mayors have a right to conduct wedding ceremonies or not to conduct them, but I think to say we're only going to conduct certain types of ceremonies opens the door pretty widely. It does raise discrimination questions."
Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the organization that represents mayors and municipal officials was reviewing the bill. He said his group is looking into what penalties mayors might face if they refuse to perform civil unions.
"We have asked our attorneys to look into it," Dressel said. "But nothing will be definitive until the governor signs the bill into law."
Among the benefits to be conferred on gay couples under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.
It's never been about civil unions, it's always been about destroying traditional marriage and forcing society to accept their disgusting lifestyle.
"it's always been about destroying traditional marriage and forcing society to accept their disgusting lifestyle."
Another clear sign of a disintegrating America/society.
If the law allows civil unions for gay couples, then surely it must allow them for non-gay couples also.
Good point.
Oh great.....now they'll be a "wedding" card passed around in my office.....I work with a woman who is so excited that she can now marry her "partner"......how gross and degrading......
Look, I think we're missing the most salient point here. Using the term "civil unions" is a backdoor (pardon the pun) entry to marriage. Essentially, if the liberals are able to reduce this argument to semantics ("union" instead of "marriage"), the government is still facilitating and validating the idea of a homosexual family unit. So, while it seems like a "compromise", it really isn't. The leftist media will just start referring to these people as being "married", and so, whether or not the gov't issues a "marriage" certificate, for all intent and purpose, society will consider these people wedded.
At the end of the day, legislating "civil unions" is an insidious building block to eventual granting of "marriage" certificates to any and all. If society will accept "civil unions", then what's the argument against "marriage"?
Not a big surprise - it's New Jersey!!.
But, here is a bigger question, if New Jersey wants to let gays get married, does another state that does not recognize gay marriage have to honor it?
Except for the adoption bit, I'm actually fine with this. There are a bunch of big legal messes that are easily cleaned up with this, generally the situations where a spouse normally gets legal power in case of the death or incapacitation of the other. I'm just thinking in a practical sense, as there's no need to drain the resources of the courts when one half of a gay couple drives into a bridge pylon.
Then stop.
Not in Virginia. The newly-passed constitutional amendment states "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions." [Emphasis added, of course.]
I hope none, although legally they may be required to.
These are required by the NJ Supreme Court to be exactly equal to marriage, and they are.
All states in the union will be required to enforce these.
The Virginia Constitution will not be recognized.
The Virginia Court of Appeals just ruled that a custody agreement between two Vermont sodomites must be recognized because of federal law.
All aspects of these "unions" will have to be recognized and enforced by other states- whatever their constitution says. Federal law will require it in the few instances- if any- it doesn't already.
And, I repeat from above, the NJ Supreme Court required these unions be exactly equal to marriages.
It's over, publicly officialized sodomy is an endorsed state of marriage throughout the US.
I wouldn't sign it!!!
I like the incremental steps used by Castro and his fellow communists, line your enemies up against a wall and shoot them.
Corzine and his wretched kronies are more dangerous than the ragheads.
Interesting. Thanks, Fox.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.