NJ: 5 Moderate Republicans Will Not Vote for Gay Marriage
Five moderate Republican state senators who have been under pressure to support gay marriage said yesterday that they would not vote for a bill allowing same-sex couples to wed in New Jersey. Instead, they favor strengthening and enforcing the state's civil-union law, which they said gives gay and lesbian couples the benefits of marriage without the title.
Advocates for same-sex marriage say civil unions confer a status that is separate and not equal. Opponents say the Legislature should not alter the traditional definition of marriage.
"I really appreciate their recognition that civil unions are not working and do not provide equal protection under the law," said Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D., Union), a cosponsor of the gay marriage bill. "I think we can convince these well-intentioned senators that separate can never be equal."
Full Story from Philly.com: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/79707947.html
Click here for gay marriage resources in New Jersey.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.
Labels: civil unions, Gay Marriage, new jersey, nj, republican senators
posted by Mark & Scott at
12/19/2009 07:49:00 AM
2 Comments:
The term, "separate but equal," was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented by LGBT folk to obtain the benefits of marriage when most of us viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any inequalities. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.
All civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. Our struggle is no different. But, what if I am wrong and separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only "almost" equal? At this point in time, I would still love to be "almost" equal because, as of today, we are nowhere near equal! Let us get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once we have achieved that, we can start to worry about possible inequalities. We may not find any. Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont "proving" that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.)
Anecdotal reports of inappropriate or anomalous implementation of New Jersey's civil unions & California’s domestic partner laws would not be solved by changing the titles to marriage. Lesbians and gay men in Massachusetts have reported problems with their state’s implementation of same-sex marriage. Like California & New Jersey, the Massachusetts legislature is having to plug holes because these policies are new. Any new and comprehensive policy, no matter how well written, will have bumps along the road to implementation. (The Gay & Lesbian Review 5/2007 page 6, Marriage Equality Not a Reality In Massachusetts by Dale Mitchell, Cofounder, LGBT Aging Project, Boston, MA) Additionally, there will always be inequalities, regardless of title, until the federal government grants federal marital rights to same-sex couples. A grant of federal marital rights could be given to any or all the legal unions a state may choose to recognize, be they marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home