N.J. gov. signs gay civil unions law

[brooklynite]

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law — but not the title.

...snip...

"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.

The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.

Gay couples welcomed the new law, but argue not calling it "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution. Even some same-sex couples who attended the bill signing remained lukewarm about the law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_10

Kudos to Governor Corzine. I know most people here (myself included) would like to see "marriage" open to all adult couples, but we might be more successful in the long run by getting civil unions in place first, and then asking opponents "what's the difference?"

[krispos42]

1. (boom) (splat) Freeper's heads exploding left and right n/t

[customerserviceguy]

9. Actually

other than the really far fringy Freepers, who would recriminalize homosexuality (lest their own kids be tempted to "turn" that way), some are breathing a sigh of relief. They know that civil unions are not transportable, other than to the states that already have civil union. Their biggest fear was that NJ would legalize full equal marriage, which then would have to be recognized across state lines under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

I've done enough reading over there to know that they feel they dodged a bullet here. Frankly, I see this country dividing into two parts, some two-thirds to three-quarters of it having state constitutional bans on equal marriage, or anything resembling it, and the rest having civil unions. When the US Supreme Court finally takes up this issue head-on, it might just decide that "separate but equal" is the best way to go, given the political climate of the time.

I hope not, but that's what I see shaping up. One more Bush nominee, and that's the likely outcome, in my opinion.

[CTLawGuy]

15. actually no

under DOMA, no state is required to recognize ANY gay union, including marriage.

Also, DOMA defined "marriage" as between a man and a woman, and "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex, for ALL federal matters.

So, even gay couples in Mass. cannot file joint tax returns, and no other state has to recognize their union.

It's quite sad really.

[customerserviceguy]

16. You're partially right

Gay married couples in MA file jointly when it comes to their state tax returns, but of course, not their Federal ones. DOMA has not been tested at the Supreme Court level, nor have the various recent amendments to ban equal marriage. That's coming, but it will take years for the various legal actions mired in lower courts to reach the Court that gave us Lawrence vs. Texas. Even if you figure that Alito and Roberts are going to vote against gay people, we'd still have a 5-4 margin. I have no reason to believe this, but as the Court's youngest Justice, perhaps even John Roberts has known enough gay people in his life to not necessarily vote against them.

But, you are right, today's state of affairs is quite sad. It's a good thing that the civil rights of people of color were not put to a popular vote in the 1960's, we would have seen similar results to the outcome of amendments to ban equal marriage. I have to believe that even a Court appointed by Nixon would have saved us from the tyrrany of the majority in this matter, perhaps it will happen in this situation, and soon.

[GrimReefa]

21. If they feel they dodged a bullet...

...then they are missing the Big Picture, as always.

Every little victory like this one repreesents the snowball getting a little bit bigger, and picking up a little more steam. A civil union is now the lowest level of legal recognition devoted homosexual couples will ever have in New Jersey. It's been established, so it won't be taken away. And as many on this thread have noted, the fight is far from over.

But that's always the case. The fight is never over. That's the whole point of being a liberal. Life keeps getting better, because we keep driving it. Today, there are gay marriages in Massachusetts and civil unions in New Jersey. Tommorow (figuratively) there will be gay marriages in New Jersey and Massachusetts and civil unions in Virginia. Then there will be gay marriages in MA, NJ, and VA, and civil unions in Texas. Then you'll see gay marriages in Texas and civil unions in Utah. And eventually, even the Utes will come around.

Soon gay marriage will be as commonplace as interracial marriage is today. And we'll move onto the next fight, whatever that is. A fight that we will, inevitably, also win.

[Mister K]

2. I am happy to see this in my state....

What is really the difference if we allow civil unions or marriages among two consenting adults anyway?

It does me and my family no harm and allows for two people to get similar benefits that two married people get. I do see the moral issue that some may have, but I believe that this is just another form of bigotry.

I wonder if anyone has done a study on how long marriages stay together versus how long people joined in a civil union or the like stay together. May be an interesting statistic.

Peace.

[Jersey Ginny]

13. It's a step forward but it is still "seperate but equal"

I can't be assured that if my partner or kids (god forbid) are in a hospital somewhere that I will be allowed to see them or to make medical decisions. I still can't take advantage of Social Security benefits afforded to traditional married couples. I will go to the doctor and fill out the forms not knowing what to check -married (well no), single (well no), divorce (well no). I believe that these cases will come up and we'll be back in court once there is enough evidence that seperate but equal is inherently unequal. However, I do recognize and I am truly grateful to live in NJ and I see the progress.

[Marnieworld]

3. Yay!!!!!!!!!

I especially like the part where it is described as a good step but not the last step. Separate is definitely not equal. If you still can't get SS benefits etc. the fight is not over. This Jersey Girl is thrilled and proud.

:patriot:

[xchrom]

4. a happy gay dance --

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[David__77]

5. It's a good step, but not a final one.

Let's keep that in mind.

[hezekkia]

6. good job NJ

:applause: :applause: :applause:

When is California gonna get on the ball with this?

[HockeyMom]

7. Or their neighbor, New York

we have NOTHING here. Come on, Elliot, you PROMISED us. Both my daughters deseve the SAME rights.

[David Zephyr]

8. Well, the court is about to rule on the marriage ban's legality now.

Which is what happened in New Jersey and Vermont, too.

[FreeState]

14. California already has

California already has. CA has "domestic partnerships" which give every right the state grants to straight people under a different name. Domestic partnership = Civil Union.

http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/california.html

[closeupready]

18. For the record, that is false.

From that link:

>>What does it mean to register as domestic partners in California?
California has created a domestic partnership system so that same-sex couples can receive legal protections for their relationships similar to those that opposite-sex couples receive when they marry. The state legislature expanded the system in AB 205 to include many additional benefits and responsibilities.<<

"Similar", not "identical". Which I guarantee you means, at a minimum, gays and lesbians get short-changed.

[Skittles]

10. y'all can get on the bus as long as you stay in the back

I guess it's a start but it is still f***ing discrimination

[SKKY]

19. It is, but this has to start somewhere, and I see this as a positive...

...And, really, as long as a gay couple's life-long commitment is recognized legally, does it really matter if it's called "marriage" or not? Since it's obvious the church isn't going to help fix this, I think civil unions are a productive way of ensuring that, at least in the state's mind, gay couples are equal in status to same sex couples. As far as the Church goes, that may take a bit longer.

[Skittles]

23. it kills me to hear a liberal ask, what does it matter

why did it matter being told where to sit on the bus? They were on the bus, weren't they? They got where they were going, same as everyone else. So what was the problem? Get it now?

[Zhade]

22. Yep. Let's hope it doesn't lull people to sleep.

A lot of liberals don't LIKE the idea of us queers getting married - they must be reminded that this is NOT the final step.

[mconvente]

11. Proud to be from NJ!

Corzine isn't too popular among the Rutgers crowd (you know, 66 million dollar budget cut, over 600 classes cut, 200 professors laid off, 9% tuition increase...) but this should redeem him some (we are very liberal at Rutgers, which makes me happy!). If people under civil unions receive the same legal benefits as marriage, than I say let's take Shakespeare's "what's in a name?" advice here.

[BattyDem]

12. Me too!

:bounce:

To anyone who becomes "civil unioned" - as far as I'm concerned, YOU ARE MARRIED! :toast:

[matcom]

17. CONGRATS NEW JERSEY!!!!

:bounce:

next step - CALLING it "MARRIAGE"!!!

[mfhatchett]

20. NY

Glad to see this in NJ! Didn't Gov.-Elect Spitzer in NY actually endorse gay marriage and promise to submit a bill to the legi to legalize it? Hope he can do it, but the State Sen. is still in GOP hands, which will make it difficult.

[Vidar]

24. Good for Corzine.