From Blue Jersey, a statement from Garden State Equality
With today's vote in the state Senate, the New Jersey legislature defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples in New Jersey equal protection....
In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court told the legislature it could enact marriage or another structure that provides the equal protection of marriage. But the civil union law failed to do that. Too often, civil union couples too often cannot visit loved ones in hospitals, make medical decisions for their partners or receive equal health benefits from employers. Hospitals and employers have treated civil union couples differently because they've been labeled differently. Children have been treated differently at school because their families are labeled differently.
In 2006, New Jersey enacted an experiment called civil union. In 2010, New Jersey has a mountain of proof that the experiment has failed.
In recent months, including today and at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in December, New Jersey legislators publicly recognized these failures. They publicly acknowledged that the civil union law has not provided equal protection. That's important. New Jersey legislators themselves said it. Our opponents in the legislature said it.
.... Now let's talk about what happened politically.
Things didn't go our way in the legislature because of one factor: Governor Corzine lost reelection.
After his win in November, Governor-elect Christie persuaded a number of legislators to reverse their support of the bill. Before the election, nearly every neutral observer in New Jersey thought marriage equality was certain to become law in lame duck. It became the zeitgeist in Trenton, with good reason. In contrast to today's outcome, before the election we had votes to spare in the Senate, including from a number of Republicans.
But the election changed everything and our national opponents changed nothing. They didn't do much or spend much in New Jersey. As you saw from our thousands of members at the State House these past few weeks who symbolized the massiveness of our campaign, we overwhelmed our opponents on every front - but one. Our opponents had the Governor-elect on their side, and that's all they needed to have. It's ironic given that marriage equality wasn't even an issue in the election, and that the candidates who favored marriage equality together won a majority....
No political party should write off any constituency. And no party should take any constituency for granted either. Our fundamental right to equality should never have been left to sudden death overtime by the party to which the LGBT community and our allies have been unstintingly loyal and have given so much. ... Marriage equality stopped being just a gay issue long ago.
Read the emphasis: they KNOW and ADMIT that separate is not equal. Testimony from many "unioned" couples show that they are still not given equal rights to which they are by theory entitled. A state commission found, unequivocally,
the civil union law "invites and encourages" harm to same-sex couples and their children. The commission cites "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law will never provide equality with the passage of time
But separate and unequal is what they want us to be.
Civil unions and Domestic partnerships are not the same.
There was a story in the AP last month questioning whether the GLBT community should focus on getting civil unions rather than on marriage.
In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.
At some level this makes sense; what does it matter what you call it? HOWEVER, what we know is that it matters. Here are my reasons:
- Civil unions (or domestic partnerships; DPs) vary widely from state to state in the rights and protections they provide, from WA and CA where they are supposed to be "just like marriage" to other states where their coverage is incomplete.
- In fact, even in those states where they are supposed to be complete, they aren't. In CA you don't even get a DP in the same way; a $20 notary form is not the same as a marriage license and personal interview. There are numerous stories about legally registered partners STILL being denied health care access. If you are a state employee, your DP is not coveredby the state long-term insurance plan. You have to litigate every single piece of coverage to be sure they are the same. This is why in NJ a commission found that civil unions are NOT the same, and the only remedy is civil marriage.
- DPs and Civil Unions don't cross state lines or international boundaries. They only exist within the state for state law.
- I resent like hell the notion that I have to "earn" my rights by some sort of probationary period. "Maybe when they see that the sky doesn't fall," people say. Well, the laboratory of Massachusetts shows that marriage equality has no ill effects on the society at large. I am not a 2nd class citizen and I don't have a 2nd class relationship.
- The bad guys aren't any happier with DPs. Look what they did in WA: they tried to defeat a law that gave generous provisions to DPs, "marriage in all but name", and they almost succeeded. In Nevada and elsewhere, Republicans have opposed civil union laws. Indeed, they are so eager to outlaw any benefits, that in Virginiayou can't even draw up a private contract protecting your partner.
"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."
Virginia is not for lovers. It's a state of hate.
The fact is, it isn't about the name of "marriage" or the concept of "marriage". It's about any recognition of our partnerships and families.
So, no, we shouldn't settle for civil unions. Separate but equal in this country is only separate, never equal.
So, good luck Garden State Equality, going back to court. The courts in New Jersey told the legislature to fix the problem. Today, the legislature REFUSED to do it. So the fight goes on.
Remember, the Prop8 federal trial begins Monday! Follow the news atGay Married Californian