Posted on 04/23/2003 7:29:20 AM PDT by Incorrigible
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.
That is a load of cr-p. You guys are going to end up on the ash heap of history. Know why? The left wing media structure is crumbling. And with it the indoctrination device that has bamboozled people into thinking that homosexuality is a value-neutral lifestyle for the last thirty or so years. Social conservatives will be able to paint an accurate picture of this depraved lifestyle for once.
Let's get all the facts out, and then vote on it. But you guys don't want to get the facts out, do you...
I believe that individual liberty demands that consenting adults be allowed to arrange their lives as they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Part of that arrangement would include making contracts with each other -- which is basically what marriage is in a legal sense (as opposed to a religious or personal sense, which the government has and should not have any control over).
We are free to praise or condemn, as we see fit. But the government should not be permitted to prevent consenting adults from arranging their life.
Are you saying that all of these social pathologies among gay people would disappear if gay people would only read "The Road Less Traveled"?
Oh, really? Then how do you explain this little item from your previous post . . .
I draw the line at consenting adults, not related by blood.
Like I said, even those of us who cosider ourselves "principled" wil always draw hypocritical lines somewhere.
I'm more than sure most Americans would agree with what you just said.
Homosexuality is abnormal. Abnormality, however, is (or at least shouldn't be) sufficient to put legal sanctions on abnormality.
In any case, I know more than a few religious conservatives who view homosexuality as morally wrong, but a matter between God and the sinner. They believe there will be sanction in the afterlife, but should be no legal sanction in the temporal.
Oh, really? Then how do you explain this little item from your previous post . . .
I draw the line at consenting adults, not related by blood.
Like I said, even those of us who cosider ourselves "principled" wil always draw hypocritical lines somewhere.
The nature of blood relationships is such that consent cannot be presumed.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
I think that's the right thing to do in the legal sense. I'd even drop the term marriage is a legal term, in favor of "civil union" or some such. What such a relationship is called in religious terms is a matter for the interpretation of each religion. What such a relationship is called at a personal level is a matter for individuals and society.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It's similar to statutory rape, where a child is presumed to be too young to give consent. Blood relationships create psychological bonds and pressures (in most cases) by which consent for sexual intercourse cannot be assumed to have been obtained.
You can't serve as the executor of your father's estate, you can't serve as the witness at your brother's wedding, you can't co-sign a car loan for your child, or serve as a co-owner of a piece of property with anyone in your immediate family, etc.
You've got to be kidding me.
a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
Any state legislature or court that wants to recognize "civil unions" among same-sex couples is perfectly free to do so. But anyone who presumes to call such a thing a "marriage" may as well issue an edict stating that 2+2 equals 38.7, or that the earth is flat.
Nope. What I'm saying is that in a legal sense, to borrow from Hamlet, "We will have no more marriages." I think the civil union between homosexuals should have the same legal term as that for heterosexuals. I think using civil union for all such unions solves that nicely.
What gay people are seeking from society is the recognition that their relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships.
That's up to society as a whole and the legal system should have no role in it. Personally, I accept gay relationships as valid as heterosexual, but I admit to being in the minority at present. While I may try to convince others, I cannot nor should not compel anyone to agree with me.
Sodomy, sticking one's penis in another man's rectum is NOT NORMAL. What's your point!
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.