Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battle over same-sex marriage takes shape in Jersey
Newark Star Ledger ^ | 4/22/03 | Kathy Barrett Carter

Posted on 04/23/2003 7:29:20 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: benny; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; lesbian; newjersey; nj; samesexmarriage; weinberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last
To: GW in Ohio
If those indicators of social health are valid for homosexuals, part of the reason is the stigma that some members of society attach to the gay lifestyle.

If your sexual preference, or your lifestyle, were described as "abnormal" by a segment of society, and if you suffered discrimination as a result of your lifestyle, you would probably experience a higher incidence of alcoholism, mental illness, etc.

The lifestyle is the illness, the alchoholism, suicide, etc are just side effects.

61 posted on 04/23/2003 10:04:10 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
They can, but it has to be done piecemeal. Marriage/Civil union is the package deal. Individual items are probably also easier to challenge in court.
62 posted on 04/23/2003 10:09:13 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (No more will we pretend that our desire/For liberty is number-cold and has no fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
They can and always have been able to arrange their individual lives as they see fit. They can create private cohabitation contracts, powers of attorney and healthcare surrogate declarations. It is only the institutions that affect all of society that there is limitations. Marriage is a social institution not a private institution. Homosexuals will never have the ability to procreat via an institution. (adoption is a legislative creation and use of science is artificial intervention) As a social insititution, it is between a male and a female regardless of sexual behavior of the individuals. We do not allow sex slave contracts regarless of the "consent" of the individual (regadless of orientation).

We do not allow marriages of convenience in order to pass through immigration paperwork regardless of the consent of the parties. Sorry, this society has core rules which must be respected by all. Homosexuals do not respect that their conduct has consequences and limitations. (you can't dress as a punk in an orchestra performance)

There is no legislative or common law right to homosexual sex. Society does not have to suffer the tyrany of the minority sex fetish.
63 posted on 04/23/2003 10:09:48 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: eastsider
RE: your #15

LMFAO!!!

65 posted on 04/23/2003 10:18:40 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I don't understand why same-sex "couples" can't simply use existing laws, such as wills, powers of attorney, etc., to provide for each other.

_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _


Because the homosexual movement is not interested in providing for each other, the homosexual movement is interested in normalizing same sex sex. They are interested only in normalizing their ability to pursure and recrute new members in their fetish. Its a lifestyle of selfgratification. Enforceable cohabitation contracts would be valid in all states. Vermonts domestic partner "thing" is enforcable in none (recognition was struck down in NJ, CT, and GA)

Homosexuality is not an immutable trait. It can be and has been changed in individuals. While there are arguments, there is no proof in humans. The issue of sexual behavior neutral alternatives to "couples" needs to be adressed and publicised. It exposes the hipocracy and real agenda of the homo-agenda.



66 posted on 04/23/2003 10:21:22 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Did I say you were queer? No I said you spoke like one. You mu8st be listening to them because you have their speel down pat.
67 posted on 04/23/2003 10:41:07 AM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Vermonts domestic partner ... recognition was struck down in NJ ...
I hope this means that the "Battle over same-sex marriage [taking] shape in Jersey" is over before it's even been joined!
68 posted on 04/23/2003 10:42:42 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

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

Well at least they got their infamous Boy Scouts decision thrown back at them by SCOTUS.

Maybe the same will happen with this.

69 posted on 04/23/2003 10:57:26 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I come from Vermont and I can tell you that the civil union law has had little or no effect on life in our state. To be sure, some gay and lesbian residents have applied for and received licenses for civil unions and out-of-staters have come in for civil union ceremonies (that are not valid in their home states). But strangely, the plague of flies or whatever nonsense we were promised hasn't taken place. The bottom line is that our state has merely decided to recognize the legal rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. It's no big deal.
70 posted on 04/23/2003 11:16:24 AM PDT by streamline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Do you have these outbursts often?
71 posted on 04/23/2003 12:26:33 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Until I can be convinced that homosexuality is anything more than assisted masturbation, I see no reason to codify it.
72 posted on 04/23/2003 12:34:57 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
"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. "

This whole thing just makes me sick. I think the argument is simply that marriage BY DEFINITION is a union between a mand and a woman. Are we going to throw out 2000 years of morality because we are now so 'enlightened'?

73 posted on 04/23/2003 12:45:34 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
I'm still waiting for one of these "gay marriage" lawsuits to be filed by co-plaintiffs named Henry Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzhenry.
74 posted on 04/23/2003 5:39:07 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Bump for an interesting article.
75 posted on 04/23/2003 5:42:58 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"For one, it is the total legitimization of a lifestyle that is dangerous and inimical to culture at large," Fahling said.

Marriage by definition is a man and woman," said Fahling. "Men and women marry, not men and men or women and women."

Exactly. I was just reading Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality. It's really good.

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _ LINK

76 posted on 04/23/2003 5:58:10 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Didn't you bring up the idea that blod relatives should not be allowed to marry? You've done a good job making Alberta's Child argue your position. LOL
77 posted on 04/23/2003 6:09:00 PM PDT by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
That's an excellent quote. One of the most destructive myths in the modern world even aside from homosexuality is that marriage is all about the spouses. It's not -- its primary focus is the creation of an environment conducive to raising children.
78 posted on 04/23/2003 6:14:36 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: briant
Actually, my arguments in favor of marriage by blood relatives were intended to refute his "libertarian" position -- he clearly was not interested in allowing all consenting adults the freedom to do what they please. He just chose to draw his line at a different place -- but he did draw a line.
79 posted on 04/23/2003 6:16:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I know, but he made an argumnet limiting marriage but ended up arguing the opposite position. E.g., the incest genetic thing being overated. Let's not talk about the royals lol.
80 posted on 04/23/2003 6:22:34 PM PDT by briant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson