The religious exemptions clause of New York’s same sex marriage law was supposed to be the great compromise that broke down the barriers to gay couples marrying. Without the protections the clause provided to institutions that objected to same sex marriage on religious grounds, the law would not have passed New York’s legislature or been signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo last year.
New Jersey’s Gay Rights community, which has a history of litigating against religious institutions that refused to allow their properties to be used for civil union ceremonies, embraced the religious exemptions clause and convinced the Democratic leadership of the New Jersey legislature to make same sex marriage the number one priority of the current legislative session. New Jersey’s legislature passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act in February. Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill and called for the issue to be decided by Constitutional Amendment via referendum. Despite polls indicating that New Jersey voters favor same sex marriage and that the favor Christie’s proposal to decide the issue via referendum, Garden State Equality and their allies in the legislature opposed a referendum, declaring that same sex marriage is a civil right that should not be decided by the majority at the ballot box. Privately, same sex marriage advocates have acknowledged that they expect to lose a referendum, despite the polls that indicate they would win.
New York is leading the way again.
The New York Post reports that a lesbian couple from Westchester is seeking to overturn the religious exemptions provision of New York’s same sex marriage law in federal court. “Jane Roe” and “Jane Doe,” a couple married on October 15, 2011, filed a class action suit in Manhattan because “Roe’s” employer, St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers, refused to add “Doe” to the Catholic hospital’s medical benefits.
The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant.
The women are seeking an injunction ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield not to acquiesce to a company that wants to deny same-sex benefits because of religious beliefs, said Jeffrey Norton, their lawyer.
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a gay marriage bill this afternoon which, if it takes effect as scheduled next January, will make the Old Line State the eighth to grant homosexuals the right to marry.
The bill passed the Maryland Senate last week, 25-22 and the state House 72-67, according to Politico.
Opponents of the measure are expected to gather the 56,000 signatures required to have a referendum in November.
A Quinnipiac University Poll released this morning indicates that New Jersey voters support same sex marriage by a 57%-37% margin. By 67%-28% respondents said they support Governor Christie’s proposal the issue be decided via referendum.
Voters are split, 48%-47%, over whether Christie did the right thing vetoing same sex marriage bill approved by the legislature earlier this year.
“The numbers are all over the lot,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, “Voter support for same-sex marriage goes up every time we ask, but about half of them think Christie was right to veto it. By better than 2-1, they like the governor’s proposal for a referendum.”
The numbers seem to be all over the lot on education reform as well.
By 50%-43% voters approve of the way Christie is handling education. 60% think limiting teacher tenure is a good idea and 72% think merit pay for good teachers is a good idea. Yet voters oppose school vouchers by 50%-44% and oppose expanding charter schools by 52%-41%.
New Jersey voters have a positive view of public school teachers, 57%-25% but an unfavorable view of the teachers union, NJEA, by a 46%-31%. Only 42% of union households have a favorable view of the NJEA.
Governor Chris Christie tangled with Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart over gay marriage, and Christie’s offer to but the issue up for referendum, during the Morning Joe Show yesterday morning on MSNBC.
During the ongoing debate about same sex marriage, in New Jersey and throughout the country, there have been those who have called for government to get out of the marriage business all together.
In New Jersey it is a crime to solemnize a marriage without a license. Anyone who presides over a marriage ceremony for a couple who does not have a license is subject to a $500 fine and up to six months in jail.
Government did not always control marriage, according to Stephanie Coontz, an author who teaches history and and family studies and Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.
In a November, 2007 OpEd piece published in the New York Times, Taking Marriage Private, Coontz said that for most of Western history, the government was not involved in marriage. Rather than an ‘institution,” marriage was a private contract between families. If parents approved on a marriage, it was valid. Church or State had nothing to do with it.
For 16 centuries the Catholic Church deemed a couple to be married if they said they were. Not until 1215 did the Church deem that a marriage ceremony had to take place in a church in order for a union to be “licit.” Yet couples married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as those who went to the chapel.
Government didn’t get involved until the 16th century in Europe. Coontz says the European laws were, in part, to protect parental control of marriages.
The American colonies required that marriages be registered, but in the mid-19th century state supreme courts ruled that public cohabitation was evidence of a valid marriage. (Who knew that people cohabited publicly back then?)
In the late 19th century the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and control who could be married.
Marriage, and the laws governing it continued to evolve during the 20th century. Interracial marriages were prohibited for whites, then they were allowed again.
As the entitlement culture emerged, marriage licenses became a determining factor in the distribution of benefits, inheritance, and health care. Coontz said this made sense in the 1950’s because almost all adults were married.
But that is no longer the case. When Coontz wrote her OpEd piece in 2007, she said that half of all adults ages 25-29 were unmarried and 40% of American children were born to unmarried parents. Last week, The New York Times reported that as of 2009, 53% of births to American women under 30 were out of wedlock.
As out of wedlock births have become more common the stigma of “illegitimacy” has faded. That’s one reason sited as a cause of the surge in births outside of marriage. Another major reason sited by the mothers The Times interviewed is the government “safety net.”
The Times reporters Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise spoke to dozens of people in Lorain, Ohio, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, with 63 percent of births to women under 30 occurring outside of marriage. The young parents of Lorain saidtheir reliance on the government safety net encouraged them to stay single and that they didn’t trust their youthful peers to be reliable partners. Many said they would like to be married — just not right now, and not to each other.
It seems pretty clear that government regulating marriage hasn’t worked. It also seems pretty clear that government entitlement programs have taken a massive toll on both the institution of marriage and the institution of family.
Reiterates his call for the issue to be decided by the people via referendum
Calls for the establishment of an Ombudsman to enforce the Civil Union Law
Governor Chris Christie sent S-1, the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act, back to the legislature this afternoon with his conditional veto.
Christie issued the following statement regarding his action:
“Today, I am adhering to what I’ve said since this bill was first introduced – an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide. I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.
“I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples – as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits. Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied. To that end, I include in my conditional veto the creation of a strong Ombudsman for Civil Unions to carry on New Jersey’s strong tradition of tolerance and fairness. The Ombudsman will be charged with increasing awareness of the law regarding civil unions, will provide a clear point of contact for those who have questions or concerns and will be required to report any evidence of the law being violated. In this way, we can ensure equal treatment under the law.”
NJ Supreme Court is end game for Same Sex Marriage Advocates
As expected, the New Jersey Assembly passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act today. The vote was 42-33. No Republican voted for the bill. Two Cape May County Democrats, Nelson Albano and Matthew Milam voted NO, according to NJ.com
The bill passed the Senate last week and now heads to Governor Chris Christie for his expected veto.
Christie has called for the issue to be put to referendum this fall. Senator Christopher “Kip” Bateman has proposed legislation authorizing the referendum.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney has said the referendum legislation will not make it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Christie has said the Democrats handling of the matter is political theater. He told Poltickernj,
“If they don’t put it on the ballot, you’ll know the whole thing was political theater,” Christie said. “I trust the people.”
However, same sex marrige advocates seem to think that legislative passage of the bill will make a difference in their efforts to get the New Jersey Supreme Court to impose same sex marriage in New Jersey regardless of Christie’s veto or whether or not there is a referendum.
In an email to his membership, Steven Goldstein, CEO of Garden State Equality, said,
… Meanwhile, Garden State Equality continues its lawsuit with Lambda Legal –
where courts will now see the legislative intent of marriage equality…
… “Pursuing all roads to justice, Garden State Equality and seven-same sex couples will continue our lawsuit for marriage equality, where we are represented by Lambda Legal and the nationally renowned Gibbons law firm. With this victory, the courts will see the legislature’s clear intent to replace the state’s failed civil union law with marriage equality.”
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 reasonablewould 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?”
55% of New Jersey registered voters approve of Governor Chris Christie’s job performance. 37% disapprove. Among men Christie has a 17% net positive rating. Among women, net positive 6%
While still upside down, the state legislature’s ratings have improved. 39% disapprove of the legislature, the best rating they have had since 2007. 56% disapproved in April of 2010. The legislature’s approval rating remained steady at 35%. Murray didn’t say so, but it would stand to reason that voters feel better about the legislature due to Christie promoting how they have compromised with him.
Property taxes remain the most pressing concern of New Jersey residents. Murray asked respondents to rank Trenton’s priorties on a 1-10 scale:
New Jersey‘s Pressing Issues
(rated on a 10 point scale)
Tier 1:
8.9 Reducing property taxes
Tier 2:
7.7 Reducing income taxes
7.6 Increasing minimum wage
7.4 Reforming teacher tenure
7.3 Raising millionaires tax
Tier 3:
7.0 Reforming drug sentencing laws
6.7 Restructuring higher education
Tier 4:
5.8 Expanding charter schools
5.1 Same sex marriage
While same sex marriage is a low priority for New Jersey residents, 52% now favor allowing same sex couples to marry compared to 34% who oppose. For the first time since the question has been polled, residents who strongly favor same sex marriage exceed residents who strongly oppose by a 32% to 25% margin.
The poll, including data tables and Murray’s write up can be found here.
Controversial Traditional Marriage Advocate Says Christie’s Supreme Court Nominee Lacks Judicial Temperment
Bob Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, sent an email blast this evening asking the recipients to contact New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and ask him to withdraw Chatham Mayor Bruce Harris, an African-American, openly gay Republican, as a nominee to the State Supreme Court.
Brown said the Harris nomination appeared to be failure a vetting, “not a deliberate backhand betrayal by New Jersey’s governor.”
The email, which directs readers to the organization’s website where they are prompted to send a pre-written email to Christie, reads as follows:
I need your help right now to stop Gov. Christie from making a horrible mistake-appointing a radically pro-gay marriage anti-Christian judge to the state supreme court.
Gov. Chris Christie has been the hope of millions of Americans across the country looking for honest conservative leadership.
Last week we asked you to thank Gov. Christie for saying he will follow through on his campaign promise to veto same-sex marriage.
This week, we have urgent and terrible news to report-Gov. Chris Christie’s nominee to the New Jersey Supreme Court is not only an outspoken advocate for gay marriage, he has extreme and hateful views equating traditional Christian views on sex and marriage with slavery.
This kind of intemperate and extreme view should be totally unacceptable in a GOP judicial nominee.
Yet Gov. Christie’s proposed supreme court nominee Bruce Harris sent this email in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:
“When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”
I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates-and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.”
Governor Christie says that Harris has promised to recuse himself when the same-sex marriage comes before the court, but even this unenforceable promise misses the bigger issue: a man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.
And to suggest that legislators should ignore the views of religious constituents, that moral views grounded in the Bible are somehow illegitimate in the public square, seriously compounds the offense.
These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution-the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.
How did this happen?
When Assemblyman Mike Carroll was sent a copy of that email by a reporter, he had one word in response: “Yikes.”
Gov. Christie’s nomination of Bruce Harris appears to be a result of a failure in the vetting process, not a deliberate backhanded backroom betrayal by New Jersey’s governor. If so, the Governor can and must honorably withdraw the nomination.
The next generation of GOP leadership on the national level have to understand: knowingly appointing radical anti-religious justices is unacceptable.
Please, right now, send Gov. Christie a message keep him from making a terrible mistake marring his record. Tell Christie: Withdraw the Bruce Harris nomination today. Protect our judiciary from radically unconservative judges with extremist views pushing gay marriage and equating Christianity with slavery.
