Sezme points out that Loretta Weinberg has an article in today's Record about the Civil Unions bill (S-2407) that she is co-sponsoring with Senate President Richard Codey. She claims that the bill will "provide same-sex couples with all the rights of heterosexual marriage as mandated by the October ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court."
The purpose of her op-ed piece is to explain why it is politically expedient to create a whole separate (but allegedly equal) infrastructure to confer a set of rights on gay couples rather than simply letting them get married like everyone else.
Weinberg has always been a champion of gay rights and I appreciate her pragmatic approach to getting these rights on the books as quickly as possible, however, it doesn't seem fair to me that a whole class of families should be treated differently under the law mainly because certain traditionalists have some proprietary claim over the word "marriage" and "spouse".
This raises the question of whether heterosexual couples intending to be married in a civil ceremony as I was, should be permitted to elect to have "civil union" rather than "marriage" status. It seems to me that the real test of whether civil unions are the same thing as marriage is to permit heterosexual couples to opt for civil union status and see if they lose certain rights as a consequence.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
well if you married a man (assuming you are a woman) or if you married a woman (assuming you are a man) than you have a "marriage"...regardless if you married by the JOP of by the Clergy.
If gays want a "marriage" they can have that by all means...they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex...otherise it is a "civil" or "gay union"..as to their families they should of thought about that before living in sin :) that is the price they get to pay for their elders mistakes!
Of course, the price the children of gay-headed families would pay for their elders NOT making their "mistake" would often be life as throwaway kids or (as in the case of the Vice President's daughter), non-existence.
I read an article in the last week (I can't remember where) about heterosexual couples who have decided not to get married out of solidarity with homosexual couples. They're boycotting the institution.
There are some who have suggested, and it does have its logic, that the civil sphere should totally retreat from granting "marriages" and only grant legal unions. Those who wish to get married would have to get their religious institutions to perform that ceremony. Of course, as of now unless you belong to a handful of religious denominations, gay couples would still be out of luck. But at least the state's hands would be clean.
My partner and I have talked about having our marriage be "downgraded" in solidarity with gay families. We were not married a priest, rabbi or imam. We were married by the Mayor of Woodcliff Lakes. The piece of paper we received from the state of New Jersey at the time, is a legal document conferring rights on us not a testament to our love or the recognition that our relationship is sanctioned by some supreme being in the sky.
I believe that all married couples, whether they're married by a civil official or a clergyperson, receive that same document from the state. I think we both agree that the state should grant those basic legal rights to everyone and let the religious institutions worry about sanctioning "by some supreme being in the sky."
One way to keep that distinction clean would be for the state to get out of the "marriage" business altogether and only grant civil unions. Those getting married in houses of worship would still need the civil union, but those tying the knot in the courthouse wouldn't need the "marriage" to enjoy all the rights you and I and everyone should enjoy.
I'm not actually endorsing this course, mind you. I'm just saying it has its logic.
swurgle I assume your parnter is your wife or husband...what you got when you "married" is a marriage certificate...all couples in the state of NJ get this piece of paper...well except for gays.
I have a feeling though that there are too many religious people, me being one, that will not allow this garbage to pass in NJ...give the gays a "union" but keep "marriage" where it belongs between a MAN AND A WOMAN :)
Here's an article in last Sunday's New York Times about straight couples who are boycotting the institution of marriage in solidarity with their oppressed gay bretheren and sistherin.
Since I'm already married, I can't join the boycott, but I can reclassify my marriage as a "civil union" and refer to my husband as my "partner"...
go for it swurgle you and your partner that is :)
the rest of us that view this as a mockery of the meaning of what a marriage is can just laugh at you guys :)
Are you going to picket along Cedar Lane? I think this may help your cause..HAHAHA!!!
i think this discussion makes it very clear why civil unions are not enough. NJ should grant full legal marriage to gay couples so that it's clear that it's equal. for those citizens that want to believe in fairy tales like being gay is a sin, they're free to believe that. and then hopefully their gay sons and daughters will not commit suicide, but will find that there are many communities religious and otherwise that will welcome them with open arms with no interest in changing them.
and sign me on for any necessary cedar lane protests.
i think this discussion makes it very clear why civil unions are not enough.
Oh please.
NJ should grant full legal marriage to gay couples so that it's clear that it's equal.
NJ should grant full legal UNIONS to gays...and that is more than likely what they will get!
for those citizens that want to believe in fairy tales like being gay is a sin, they're free to believe that.
Being gay is not the sin..homosexual acts are the sin..DUH!
and then hopefully their gay sons and daughters will not commit suicide,
totally agree,,,but a few less gays is not a bad thing in my book.
but will find that there are many communities religious and otherwise that will welcome them with open arms with no interest in changing them.
well all religious organizations welcome them as a person we just do not welcome their sexual acts..any main line religion (catholic, Jew, Muslim )and many religious cults view gay sexual acts as a sin.
and sign me on for any necessary cedar lane protests.
just let us know so we on the other side can demonstrate too :)
Swurgle, you should blog exclusively about gays in New Jersey. I think it makes anonymousk's blood boil, maybe she'll die of a stroke.
ANON-
LOL!!
Sorry no such luck...I just cant stand when a group of fags think they are equal to heterosexuals....they are not!
If they want their own word for their union they can have the term GAY UNION.... :)and swurgle can have a civil union if she wants to join in and be like the fags :)
anonymous,
i think you should print out this entire exhange of comments and bring it to your priest to get his/her opinion on this conversation. my guess is that many of your views and comments also may be considered sinful. such as:
"a few less gays is not a bad thing in my book." (referring to suicide)
and this beauty:
"I just cant stand when a group of fags think they are equal to heterosexuals"
so holy.
and also let me point out that Jewish conservative organizations just voted this week to OK both gay rabbis and gay marriage, so don't be so quick to lump all religions in with yours.
jewish conservatives are just as bad as Protestants...they hold no weight :)
Teaneck used to an open-minded, liberal community. I certainly hope these comments represent a small, amoral minority.
The anti-gay comments are all made by one individual who paradoxically devotes an inordinate amount time to thinking about gay sex.
Does my gaydar detect a closet case?
swurgle...
there are many of us anti-gay marriage folks out there...as to me being gay, LOL! that is a good one.
I have no attraction to other woman..I do prefer my husbnads cock inside me :) not some womans fist!
mac-
there is nothing amoral about not supporting gay marriage...it is actually VERY MORAL to not accpet it :)...but since you probably are not a religious person I guess it does not matter.
Post a Comment