Perhaps Not. Perhaps So.
That is not the question the Assembly should be considering when deciding the fate of the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act
The heart of the argument for same sex marriage advocates is that civil unions have not worked in establishing the rights and benefits that married couples enjoy to same sex committed couples, as the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered.
The anecdotal evidence that the gay community has provided to “prove” that civil unions don’t work has been compelling enough to cause some state legislators to change their position on same sex marriage since the issue was voted on in the Senate in 2006. Senator Shirley Turner voted YES for the marriage equality bill yesterday. She told Politickernj,
“I was wrestling with this,” said Turner, who was the 24th”aye” vote. “I felt we could accomplish it with civil unions but from what I have been hearing from gays and lesbians, they have been telling me it was not working. They were not being treated as equals, and I don’t want anyone being treated unequally.”
Assemblyman Peter Barnes, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is a Catholic who was previously opposed to same sex marriage. On February 2 he voted with his committee, 5-2, to move the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act to the full Assembly.
Barnes said it was the job of legislators to “tackle the difficult issues, whether we agree or disagree,” and his Catholic faith had put him at odds with this issue. Barnes told Politickernj,
“As a Catholic, as I really struggled with this over the past (few) years,” he said. “Tradition has not always been good, and it has not always been fair. Tradition can’t control our vote.”
“I will absolutely be voting for this out of committee today, and I am absolutely leaning in favor of voting for this on the floor,” Barnes said. “The civil union is not working…I don’t think reasonable minds can even disagree on that.”
“The civil union is not working….I don’t think reasonable minds can even disagree on that.”
A reasoning mind, which is very different from a reasonable would want more than heart wrenching stories and anecdotes from advocates before concluding that “the civil union is not working.”
One could easily make a reasonable argument that the civil union has worked. There were 5,790 civil unions registered from 2007 through 2011 and less than 20 civil rights complaints. If judged only by those statistics, a reasonable mind would conclude that civil unions have worked extraordinarily well.
But that is a reasonable conclusion, not a reasoning conclusion.
Patrick Murray, the Monmouth University pollster, blogged:
The New Jersey Supreme Court declared that the state must provide and protect identical legal rights for civilly joined same sex couples as it does for married heterosexual couples. Same sex marriage advocates argue this hasn’t happened in practice under the state’s civil union law. They have provided witnesses who give compelling stories of instances when their rights were denied. Opponents have argued these are isolated instances that can be corrected with improvements to existing law.
The researcher in me says there is a pretty easy way to determine this. Take a random sample of same sex civil union couples and a matched sample of heterosexual couples married at the same time and survey them. If the former group has had significantly more problems with health insurance, parental rights, having next of kin rights honored, etc. – then the argument that civil unions don’t meet the Court’s mandate would be strong. If not, perhaps the incidents are isolated and modifications to the current bill are all that is needed. This is something that should be examined honestly by our three governmental branches.
Murray’s methodology would bring far more reasoning to the debate than there has been to date. Such a study would be examined honestly by our three governmental branches, if they were serious about the issue and not playing politics. If Murray or another pollster could construct a poll that tested the veracity of the respondents while collecting the data, such a study would be very useful.
Yet, such a study would not resolve the issue.
If the study concluded that civil unions are working, gay marriage advocates would emphasize other arguments, “separate but equal” perhaps, in their fight to have their relationships called marriages.
If the study concluded that civil unions are not working, the reasonable approach, the approach that gay marriage advocates are pushing and reasonable minds are falling for, would be to call the relationships marriages.
A reasoning approach, assuming the objective is equal rights and benefits, would be to study why civil unions haven’t worked. Assuming that the relationships will not continue to suffer the inequities conveyed in the anecdotal stories the legislative committees have relied upon as evidence that civil unions are not working is not reasonable or reasoning. Changing the name of the relationships from civil unions to marriages will not be a panacea.
Civil unions were a completely new distinction in 2007. Employers, hospitals and others who have “caused” the inequities or inconveniences that same sex couples have suffered did not know what civil unions were. The forms that triage nurses used to admit patients into hospitals and the human resource personnel used to process employees did not have a box to check that said “civil union.” There was one heart wrenching story of a New York doctor saying “What the heck is that?” to a partner of a trauma patient explaining his relationship as next of kin. The doctor didn’t buy or understand that the partner was next of kin to his patient and the patient’s sister had to travel from Delaware to authorize “emergency” treatment. There will likely be other doctors who say “What the heck?” when a partner says “I’m his husband” when arguing that he is authorized to approve treatment.
Same sex couples argue that they shouldn’t have to carry official paperwork that explains and proves their relationship anymore than married couples should have to. All it will take is one multi-million dollar suit involving a partner who lies about martial status to authorize treatment that goes wrong before hospitals require all couples, gay or straight, to produce there relationship certificates before treating incapacitated patients.
“Why haven’t civil unions worked?” if they haven’t, is both a reasonable and reasoning question that should be asked if the objective of the Legislature is to ensure that same sex couples have equal rights.
There has been no effective method to ensure that civil unions work.
Garden State Equality, the gay advocacy group leading the way to same sex marriage has not wanted civil unions to work. They encourage their members to report discrimination to on their website. They don’t encourage civil rights complaints to the authorities. That explains why there is so much anecdotal evidence that civil unions don’t work and so few complaints.
Steve Goldstein, CEO of Garden State Equality, was Vice Chairman of the Civil Union Review Commission that concluded in 2008, one year after the civil union law became effective, that civil unions don’t work. Goldstein’s participation on the commission was clearly a conflict, especially in light of his work to ensure that civil unions not work by using stories of discrimination to advance his same sex marriage agenda and by encouraging his members to report discrimination to Garden State Equality rather than the Division of Civil Rights.
The question for legislators in the Assembly considering the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act should not be “Have civil unions worked?” Despite the reasonable evidence that they have worked—so few complaints with the Civil Right Division—there will be much work to do to ensure the civil rights of same sex couples even if their relationships are called marriages.
The question before members of the Assembly should be “What is marriage?”
Posted: February 14th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: marriage, Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act | Tags: civil unions, Garden State Equality, Gay Marriage, marriage, Marriage Equality, Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act, Peter Barnes, Same Sex Marriage, Shirley Turner, Steve Goldstein | 25 Comments »
The New Jersey Senate passed S-1, “The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act,” on a 24-16 vote, according to Poltickernj.
Republican Senators Jennifer Beck and Diane Allen crossed the aisle to vote “YES” on the bill that the Democratic legislative leadership declared was their top priority of the year. Democratic Senators Jeff Van Drew and Ronald Rice voted “NO” with the Republican caucus.
The Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill on Thursday.
Monmouth County Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon will be absent for the vote on Thursday as he will be traveling to attend Beck’s wedding. Beck is getting married, to a man, Highlands restaurateur Danny Shields, on Sunday February 18th. O’Scanlon told MMM that he is not ducking the issue, though he has not yet decided how he will vote should the bill come before the legislature for a veto override.
Governor Christie has said he will veto the bill and that he wants the issue put to referendum in November.
Posted: February 13th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Marriage Equality | Tags: Danny Shields, Declan O'Scanlon, Diane Allen, Gay Marriage, Jeff Van Drew, Jennifer Beck, Marriage Equality and Religious Excemptions Act, Ronald Rice | 8 Comments »
Senator Joe Kyrillos addresses the Monmouth County Lincoln Day dinner. Photo Credit: Rhoda Chodosh
The Abraham Lincoln impersonator played second fiddle to U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos at the Monmouth County Lincoln Day Dinner last night in Atlantic Highlands.
The annual dinner is named for Lincoln. Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno was the keynote speaker. The night belonged to Kyrillos. The name of Monmouth County’s favorite son who is challenging Bob Menendez for one of New Jersey’s seats in the United States Senate was stuck on most lapels and his photograph was prominently projected on the wall behind the stage.
The Republican faithful who had not already signed Kyrillos’ nominating petitions at his campaign kickoff were lining up to do so.
The enthusiasm for Kyrillos, who is on the verge of exceeding the required 1000 signatures required to get on the primary ballot stood in stark contrast to the reception that his potential primary opponent, former Highlands Mayor Anna Little, received while working the Lincoln Day crowd.
Working the very same room where she defiantly refused to concede defeat in 2010, but rather declared a 2012 rematch against Congressman Frank Pallone, Little and her manager, Larry Cirigano, struggled to get signatures on her U.S. Senate nominating petition. Little resorted to erroneously telling polite Kyrillos supporters that it was OK to sign more than one nominating petition for the same race.
Any signatures that appear on more than one nominating petition will be invalidated should the petitions be challenged.
Little received polite applause during the ritual roll call acknowledgement of present and former elected officials. Kyrillos received a standing ovation during his introduction of Guadagno.
Posted: February 13th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2012 U.S. Senate Race | Tags: Anna Little, Bob Menendez, Joe Kyrillos, Kim Guadagno, Monmouth County Lincoln Day Dinner | 6 Comments »
Bayshore Tea Party Group Leaders, Frank Gonzalez, Barbara Gonzalez, Lynn Gordon and Bob Gordon at the Monmouth County Lincoln Day Dinner. Photo Credit: Rhoda Chodosh
There were at least unhappy four people of the approximately 500 Republicans celebrating Lincoln Day in Monmouth County last night.
Bayshore Tea Party Group Co-founders, Barbara Gonzalez and Bob Gordon, along with their opposite sex spouses, Frank Gonzalez and Lynn Gordon stood up during Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno’s speech and quietly walked out of the Shore Casino in Atantic Highlands.
The Tea Partiers were upset about the support of Mitt Romney expressed by Guadagno and other speakers.
In an email to BTPG members sent after the event, Gonzalez said,
Some of us attended the Lincoln Dinner this evening, which is a republican event, held at the Shore Casino.
Four of us walked out during Lt Governor’s speech. Why?
Well, first, one speaker got up and told us how no other candidate is worth a crap and how Romney is the only one we should support. Then, the Lt Governor got up and spewed the same garbage.
The four of us that walked out were appalled. This was a disgraceful way for the republican party to act. There are three other candidates running on the republican ticket. How dare they.
That being said, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to let them dictate who we should be voting for? Whether you support Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, you should hopefully be working your butt off for them.
We are actively doing some work for Santorum from the office if anyone is interested. Helene is the county leader, so contact her or reply to me if you want to help. I can tell you this….my passion to have Santorum win has just been increased by what I saw this evening.
Hell hath no fury like a woman being told who to vote for!
Other speakers who spoke in support of Romney were New Jersey National Republican Committeeman Bill Palatucci and Congressman Chris Smith.
On her facebook page, Gonzalez posted:
I HAVE NEWS FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW JERSEY: ROMNEY IS NOT THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE AND IT WAS DISGRACEFUL TONIGHT AT THE LINCOLN DINNER. I AM ASHAMED TO BE A REPUBLICAN. THEY SAID WE ALL HAD TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY AND THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN WIN. WELL, HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!!! YOU JUST GAVE THE TEA PARTY A SHOT OF ADRENALINE! AGAIN, THAT WAS TOTALLY DISGRACEFUL.
Posted: February 13th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics, Bayshore Tea Party Group, Monmouth GOP | Tags: Barbara Gonzalez, Bayshore Tea Party Group, Bill Palatucci, Bob Gordon, Chris Smith, Frank Gonzalez, Lynn Gordon, Mitt Romney, Monmouth County Lincoln Day Dinner, Monmouth GOP | 28 Comments »
Mike Halfacre, the Acting Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, said that combating underage drinking will be among his top priorities as he takes the lead of the agency.
“I am honored and excited by this opportunity and I am grateful to Governor Christie and Attorney General Chiesa for the chance to serve the State of New Jersey,” Halfacre said. “From the outset, I will make combating underage drinking a priority, and strive to make our division more efficient and user-friendly to both the public and alcoholic beverage industry.”
The ABC is charged with protecting and furthering the public welfare by fostering moderation and responsibility in the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The agency also ensures the economics of the alcoholic beverage industry to New Jersey by maintaining the stability of the industry and securing state revenues derived from the commerce of alcoholic beverages.
In announcing Halfacre’s appointment, Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa said, “Michael Halfacre brings an outstanding record as a municipal legal professional that will be vital to leading the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This is an important division with dedicated and expert legal and professional staff which regulates the commerce of alcoholic beverages within New Jersey.”
Additionally, the former Fair Haven Mayor will be responsible for implementing recent legislation that allows New Jersey wineries that produce 250,000 gallons or less of wine annually to ship directly to consumers. The new law also permits small wineries to operate up to 16 retail outlets each throughout the state.
Posted: February 11th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Mike Halfacre | Tags: ABC, Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Director of ABC, Director of Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Mike Halfacre, New Jersey Wineries, Wineries | 3 Comments »
Given the results of the audit of Port Authority released earlier this week, it is fair to conclude that PA has been overcharging New Jersey commuters and truckers for decades.
Too much money has been the addictive substance that made PA “dysfunctional.”
Lack of money is what has enabled Governor Christie, and many other governors across the country to implement necessary reforms. Christie is extraordinarily talented, but would he have been able to get the Democrats to compromise with him if tax revenue was rolling in with abundance? No way.
Yet, with the September toll hikes, Governors Christie and Cuomo have helped the the dysfunctional, wasteful, corrupt Pork Authority to more of their destructive substance.
New Jersey Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen County) and New York State Senator Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island) have called for the latest toll hikes to be rolled back, according to The Star Ledger.
At the very least, tolls should be rolled back to their pre-September levels until the ongoing audit of PA is complete and reforms implemented. A rollback to the 2001 toll levels should be seriously considered.
Phase two of the toll increases announced last August take effect in 2014. Christie and Cuomo should immediately revoked that authorization and roll back the current tolls to the September 2011 levels, at the very least.
Posted: February 9th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Port Authority | Tags: Andrew Cuomo, Andrew Lanza, Chris Christie, Pork Authority, Port Authority, The Star Ledger, Valerie Vainieri Huttle | 4 Comments »
