Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 4/22/03 | Kathy Barrett Carter

[Incorrigible]

Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey

In courts and Legislature, gay couples push to expand legal rights

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

BY KATHY BARRETT CARTER
Star-Ledger Staff

[Trenton, NJ] -- After 32 years together, Chris Lodewyks and Craig Hutchinson want to get married. And they want their marriage to be legal.

The Pompton Lakes couple are among a growing and increasingly vocal group that want New Jersey to become the first state in the nation to recognize same-sex marriages for lesbians and gay men.

"This is the next chapter in our lives," said Hutchinson, 52. "We want to show that gay relationships are not frivolous but grounded in love and commitment."

New Jersey has become a key battleground in the fight over recognition of gay marriages, with battles being waged simultaneously in the courts and the Legislature. Gay-rights advocates are heartened because the governor generally supports domestic partnerships, and the court system has recognized gay foster parents, adoptions and visitation rights.

Opponents of gay marriage are just as eager for battle, figuring that if they can win in New Jersey, they can beat the issue down in less-moderate states.

Brian Fahling, a lawyer for the Law and Policy Center of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., which has opposed state and federal efforts to recognize same-sex marriages, was rejected in an attempt to intervene in a New Jersey court case.

He puts New Jersey at or near the top of the list of states where the courts are likely to recognize gay marriage.

"Regrettably, New Jersey is a good forum where they have the best opportunity for success," Fahling said.

Since the 1970s, there have been a series of unsuccessful attempts across the country to gain recognition of gay marriages. Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in any state, but in April 2000, Vermont approved landmark legislation recognizing "civil unions" between gays -- a status just short of marriage.

The state's top court in Hawaii issued a ruling in 1993 compelling the state to give marriage licenses to gay couples, but the next year voters promptly amended the state constitution to override it.

Allowing gay marriages would be disastrous, Fahling said.

"For one, it is the total legitimization of a lifestyle that is dangerous and inimical to culture at large," Fahling said.

He said it is remarkable he finds himself arguing that marriage is a union between a man and woman.

"That's like saying water is wet. Marriage by definition is a man and woman," said Fahling. "Men and women marry, not men and men or women and women."

John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, said redefining marriage would undo 2,000 years of recorded history. To do that, he says the debate should take place in the Legislature, not the courtroom.

Some lawmakers like Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) share that point of view. He has introduced legislation banning same-sex marriage.

Still, gay-rights advocates have not been discouraged. In a passionate and aggressive fight, they are eagerly awaiting a decision from state Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Mercer County. On May 23, she is scheduled to hear a motion to dismiss the same-sex marriage lawsuit filed on behalf of seven couples who were turned down when they sought marriage licenses. Lawyers for the couples are arguing that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

Whichever way Feinberg rules, her decision is certain to be appealed, which sends the issue on its way toward definition in the higher courts.

On the legislative front, Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) and Assemblyman Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) are preparing an 80-page bill that would revise 500 individual New Jersey statutes to recognize domestic partners, Roberts said.

Under the bill, any two people who live together, related or unrelated, including siblings or a parent and child could file an affidavit indicating they are domestic partners.

Expected to be introduced early next month, among other things, the bill will allow gay couples to visit each other in hospital intensive care units, require both private companies and the state to include gay partners as beneficiaries on health plans and allow gay partners to make critical health care decisions for their partners.

"This bill has four prime sponsors. I'm proud to be one," said Roberts, speaking earlier this month before more than 500 supporters of the legislation at a packed town meeting in the basement of the First Presbyterian Church in Haddonfield, Camden County. "We're making progress, but it is not going to be easy."

Sen. John Adler (D-Camden), who is still undecided about whether he will support the bill, said it is unlikely the measure will pass any time soon.

"The reality is, it is not going to happen this year. We don't have the majority of votes," Adler said at the same town meeting. "It's up to you to make this happen," he urged the crowd. "You have to come to Trenton. You have to reward your friends and punish your enemies. You have to tell us why this is right. You have to agitate and aggravate and spend money to be a force."

Senate Co-President John Bennett (R-Monmouth) does not support the bill.

McGreevey opposes same-sex marriage but has told gay-rights advocates that he would sign a bill recognizing benefits for domestic partners if it reaches his desk.

Steven Goldstein, who is leading the campaign in New Jersey on behalf of Lambda Legal, a nonprofit legal advocacy group for gays, organized the Haddonfield meeting.

He said the normally sleepy, scattered, apolitical gay community in New Jersey has been galvanized and energized over this issue.

"What's happening in New Jersey is nothing short of a demographic revolution. In the six years since I've worked in New Jersey politics, the population and power of the lesbian and gay community has literary boomed off the charts," said Goldstein.

Since January, Lambda Legal has also sponsored town meetings in Morristown, Newark, Trenton, Jersey City, Teaneck and Maplewood, attracting more than 2,000 people -- over double the original estimates, according to Goldstein.

The gay community in New Jersey is politically potent because it is not solidly Democratic as it is in many states, he said. There is a sizable number of independents and a fairly high percentage of Republicans, according to Goldstein, who has worked for both U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine of New Jersey.

For many of the couples, the politics is illusory.

Mark Lewis, who along with his partner of 12 years, Dennis Winslow, are two of the plaintiffs in the case. As Episcopal ministers, they perform marriages for other couples but are themselves denied that legal document, he said at the town meeting.

Two other plaintiffs, Karen Nicholson-McFadden, and her partner, Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, tearfully described the thicket of paperwork they must navigate to make sure their young children have medical coverage. Each woman has conceived a child through artificial insemination, but their children do hot have all the same legal rights of a family. For example, the woman who is not biologically related to the child cannot claim the child on health insurance until after going through an adoption.

A nurse and mother of five, Marilyn Maneely, 53, and her partner for the last 12 years, Diane Marini, are also part of the lawsuit.

Marini said her 86-year-old mother has witnessed women get the right to vote in 1920, the desegregation of schools in 1954 and the passage of Title 9, which gave women greater opportunities in sports, in 1972.

"I am hoping during her lifetime, she'll see marriage for gay couples," said Marini. "When New Jersey passes, this we'll all have large weddings," Marini said.

Kathy Barrett Carter covers the New Jersey Supreme Court and legal issues. She can be reached at kcarter@starledger.com or (609) 989-0254.

Not for commercial use.  For educational and discussion purposes only.

[Incorrigible]

"You have to come to Trenton. You have to reward your friends and punish your enemies. You have to tell us why this is right. You have to agitate and aggravate and spend money to be a force."

Sounds like a call to arms to me.  However, as much bravado as State Senator Adler wants to invoke, it wont pass the legislature since they wont want to really deal with it.  Where it will pass is with the same Christie Whitman (R) appointed Supreme Court that enabled Lautenberg to get on the Democratic ticket for Senator after the date had passed.

"The Supremos" will force yet another decision upon the people of New Jersey and the politicians will do nothing to stop them.

[goldstategop]

I would hazard a guess the corrupt Sopranos will force gay marriage upon New Jerseyans. The law means nothing to the Trenton Seven.

[Alberta's Child]

He puts New Jersey at or near the top of the list of states where the courts are likely to recognize gay marriage.

Correction -- New Jersey is at or near the top of the list of states where the courts are likely to recognize anything that even the most irrational, fouled-up person could possibly come up with, regardless of whether it has any basis in law.

[Mears]

The whole topic of gay marriage gives me a big,fat headache.

[Kuksool]

The MA Supreme Court is hearing a similiar case as the one in NJ. First VT and now MA and NJ. What is it with the Northeast?

[Incorrigible]

Puleeeaasse...

Even the Boston Globe doesn't try to sell that tripe.

"Breaking with public opinion nationally, Massachusetts residents, by a slim majority, say they favor allowing gays to marry, a new Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll shows.

In the survey, 50 percent supported legalizing gay and lesbian marriages, while 44 percent said they oppose it. Those figures are in sharp contrast to national polls in recent years. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2000 found that 55 percent of Americans questioned opposed gay marriage, while 39 percent supported it. A Pew Center poll in 2001 showed only 35 percent of people favor same-sex marriage."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/098/metro/Support_for_gay_marriage-.shtml

 

[Alberta's Child]

Just look at the 2000 electoral map and the pedophile priest scandals of the last couple of years. The states that are dominated by Catholic voters are the most fouled-up states in the nation.

[Alberta's Child]

I know a few gay people, but I don't know any happy ones. Are they telling me something?

[CatoRenasci]

Maybe the way to deal with the fudge packers is to legalize gay marriage, and then start enforcing the laws against fornication, adultery, bigamy, polygamy, etc. Most of what's dangerous about gays is their lifestyle: the promiscous sex, the recruiting by chickenhawks, etc. Even if you made queer marriage legal, most of those behaviors might still be prohibited under current law in many jurisdictions.

I have known a lot of gays over the past 40 years, coming from San Francisco, and have seen both the ruinous effects of the lifestyle and a few committed homosexual couples who minded their own business and went about normal lives, save for what they did in private.

I am a lot less troubled by the latter than the former. Of course, this would never work, but it's an intriguing thought to cut into their set of arguments and focus on behavior.

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, and watch how quickly the whole concept of "gay marriage" loses its appeal once gay couples have to start dealing with issues like alimony, child support, custody battles, etc. The problem with personality disorders is that nothing can ever be done to make them "normal" in any sense of the word despite any attempt to use the legal process to pretend otherwise.

[eastsider]

Lawyers for the couples are arguing that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

If the law says that each citizen has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex -- or conversely, that no citzen has the right to marry a person of the same sex -- then I don't see where there's an equal protection violation.

I'm encouraged by the increasing desperation of the arguments.

[AAABEST]

You folks can either become enlightened on this issue or you can become further marginalized and be relegated to the trash heap of history.

Your brain is in a liberal "trash heap" as is your moral compass. You're not "enlightened", you live in darkness like a worm.

Not only that, your contention is bogus. The majority of Americans are repulsed by the idea of gay marraige. Many polls have shown this, no polls support the idiocy you espouse.

[goldstategop]

Yup. Not all marriages are created equal. And gay marriage is upheld, why not do the same for polygamists - or male pedophiles who want to marry a 10 year old little girl. I mean where do you draw the line? The advocates for gay marriage think they're being clever. A civil rights proposition it ain't. Anyways no every one is suited for marriage and many heterosexuals are perfectly happy being single. There's no "right to marry."

[eastsider]

"Here is a news flash for those of you who think your opposition to gay marriage is a majority view in America:

"It's only a majority view among right-wing, intolerant Christian conservatives.

"Your view that homosexuality is a "sin" or "unnatural" is a minority view in this country today, and it's becoming more marginalized every day.

"At some point in the not-too-distant future, gay Americans will be fully integrated into the mainstream of society (they're just about there now) and sexual preference will be seen as a non-issue.

"You folks can either become enlightened on this issue or you can become further marginalized and be relegated to the trash heap of history."

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Here is a news flash for those of you who think your opposition to gay marriage is a majority view in America:

You're wrong. The majority oppose gay marriage. And I'm one of the few Freepers who think that gay marriage or something equivalent in everything but name should have legal recognition.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yup. Not all marriages are created equal. And gay marriage is upheld, why not do the same for polygamists - or male pedophiles who want to marry a 10 year old little girl. I mean where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at consenting adults, not related by blood. In other words, gay marriage and polyamorous marriages are fine with me. Marriages involving children, animals or blood relations are not.

[Alberta's Child]

You can look at almost any statistical indicator of "social health" (alcoholism, drug abuse, exposure to violent crimes committed by friends or family members, mental illness, exposure to preventable diseases, etc.) and you'll find that homosexuals have a substantially higher incidence of these pathologies than heterosexuals. This isn't just an issue of who you know and who I know.

[Alberta's Child]

Why are the lines that you draw any more legitimate than the ones that I draw?