The New York Times reports that the New Jersey Senate defeated the gay marriage bill today. It is good to see this issue come before legislatures where it is better suited than the courts. It is even better when the voters themselves get to express their views, since it is such an important issue that essentially redefines civil marriage. Fortunately for gay couples in New Jersey they do have in place civil unions which grant the same rights to gay couples that straight married couples enjoy. Therefore, no rights are lost:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey’s state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, leaving it unlikely the state will have a gay marriage law in the very near future.
The bill needed 21 votes to pass; only 14 senators approved the measure Thursday.
Gay rights advocates had pushed hard to get the bill passed before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine promised to sign the bill if approved by the Legislature but Christie has said he would veto it.
New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples. Five states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont — allow gay marriage.
This is another democratic defeat for the gay marriage movement, which in the recent past has been buoyed by judicial opinions creating gay marriage rights where none have existed and redefining civil marriage laws.
January 7, 2010 at 8:11 pm
This is just horrible news! These poor people continue to be denied their basic civil rights through the tyranny of the majority.
January 7, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Michael, I can’t speak for New Jersey; however, in CA where we also have legislative provisions for registered domestic partnerships there is no denial of any basic civil rights. Gay marriage has never been a basic civil right. Heterosexual marriage, on the other hand has long been considered a “fundamental” right protected under state and the federal constitution. In short, there is simply no denial of basic civil rights here, and not tyranny of the majority. It’s a cute political talking point, but lacks any basis in reality.
January 7, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Why can’t the gay community be satisfied with “gay unions”. What am I missing?
January 7, 2010 at 10:53 pm
It’s an acceptance issue. The gay rights activists are more interested in societal acceptance than they are with the right to marry. They are utilizing marriage as a vehicle to reach their goal of ultimate societal acceptance, a goal I think they are unlikely to meet.
January 7, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Why can’t the straight community just be satisfied with “straight unions,” Jared? What am I missing?
January 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Christopher, Of course, the real question is a legal and a constitutional question of whether the minority can re-define the entire civil statutory framework of the definition of marriage. Fortunately in CA the people have spoken on that particular issue, and the CA Supreme Court has upheld that right. Thus far no federal court has taken a contrary position, and it is unlikely that the federal courts will inject itself in what clearly is a state issue.
January 7, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Guy, I really don’t have the energy to get into this now, and probably should have resisted commenting at all. But Jared’s comment is so simplistic and ignorant that I couldn’t hold back.
January 8, 2010 at 7:56 am
I understand your frustration with comments like that. I do think it noteworthy, however, that many legislatures are rejecting the arguments when placed to a vote–not all, but many.
January 8, 2010 at 9:13 am
Guy, are you seriously not be aware that this coming Monday (1/11/10), a highly-publicized trial will begin in federal district court, seeking to have the language imposed by Prop 8 declared unconstitutional on the federal level? How can you say “it is unlikely that federal courts will inject itself [sic],” when the federal trial is beginning three days from now?
January 8, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Nick,
Yes,I’m aware of the trial starting on Monday. What I probably should have written is that I don’t ultimately see the U.S. Supreme Court creating new federal fundamental rights and newly protected constitutional classes as did the CA Supreme Court
January 7, 2010 at 9:50 pm
looks like gay marriage isn’t such a nasty boogeyman after all. What are religionists gonna go after next…
January 7, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Dan, Certainly there are and have been consequences for jurisdictions which have adopted gay marriage; but, I think the larger point is that people should have the ultimate say on this issue, as they did in CA.
January 7, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Guy,
I actually wrote on a study that was done on the state of civil unions in New Jersey a little over a year ago. I think you’d find it interesting:
http://nateinslc.blogspot.com/2008/12/footnote-11-for-21st-century.html
January 8, 2010 at 7:56 am
Thanks Nate, I will check it out over the weekend . . .
January 8, 2010 at 5:22 am
If the majority always ruled then we still would have slavery, no suffrage for women, no inter-racial marriage, no property rights for women and a myriad number of similar antiquated and tyranical practices.
Guy’s continual emphasis on the voice of the people having the final say nevers acknowledges or accounts for the very real tendency of the majority denying basic rights to those out of favor with the majority. As Latter-day Saints we should have learned this lesson from Missouri and Illinois over 180 years ago.
January 8, 2010 at 8:01 am
Michael, you misunderstand my legal arguments on the issue. You can read them in my other gay marriage posts on the blog; but in short racial discrimination is not and has not been the same as sexual orientation in terms of its development under the law and in its constitutional analysis. They are not the same, and won’t ever be the same. It’s not so much about the majority’s ability to always rule. It’s more about consistent, reliable and solid constitutional interpretation based on precedent, and proper analysis.
January 8, 2010 at 8:31 am
Guy, with all due respect, your concentration on the details of legal jurisprudence and the very thought-out way in which you approach the subject does not do anything to solve the feelings of injustice that prevail in the hearts of most people concerning the issue.
Sometimes fixation on the nuances of the law becomes a hindrance to seeing the real-life emotional and social toll that the legal discrimination imposes on good people.
Is the purpose of marriage for love or is it for pro-creation? If it is for love, then is should not discriminate among consenting adults. If it is for pro-creation then you should be working to re-structure the institution solely for that purpose. Divorce, adultery, and apathetic parenting do thousands of times more damage to marriage and the family in one year than the supposed “threat” of gay marriage will ever accomplish in 100 years.
Andrew Sullivan has a very good post on the hypocrisy.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/modernity-faith.html
January 8, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Sorry, Michael–we just don’t see this with the same perspective. Your hyperbolic statement:
“real-life emotional and social toll that the legal discrimination imposes on good people”
has absoluelty no basis in fact, at least in CA. There is no legal discrimiation taking a social toll on people here.
I think preserving the constitution is not just a nuiance of the law.
January 10, 2010 at 7:12 am
Guy, I noticed that you did not respond to my questions in the third paragraph.
January 10, 2010 at 9:09 am
Michael, If you want to read about the purpose of marriage and family you can go here:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
I really have nothing further to add . . . On the other hand if you want to discuss the legal and constitutional basis for defining marriage the way that American jurisprudence has done for over two centuries, great.
January 8, 2010 at 6:41 am
I’m with Michael in that always allowing the people to vote tends to give us bad results. There are times when actions must be taken against the will of the majority. My only point with my previous comment is a criticism of the attempts by the Christian right to turn gay rights advocates into some super powerful sinister evil masterminds, instead of good people who believe differently and wish for their country to think like they do. In other words, there isn’t much difference between gay rights advocates and Christian rights advocates.
January 8, 2010 at 8:04 am
I think, Dan, your argument that we should consider those who think differently as good people, unless and until they prove through their actions otherwise, is a good one. Unfortunately some of the gay rights advocates, have shown through their actions their own bigotry. The post Prop 8 reaction of some was uncalled for, and beyond responsible and constructive democracy
January 8, 2010 at 8:25 am
Guy,
Judging the motives of those who push for same-sex marriage rights by those few who committed property destruction is about as fair as judging the motives of those against same-sex marriage by looking at the actions of the Phelpses or the Ugandan government. I’ll promise not to question the motives of the mainstream of those who subscribe to your ideology if you promise not to question the motives of the mainstream who subscribes to mine.
January 8, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Nate,
It’s not just the property damage. It was also the chilling of first amendment rights and voting rights by the outright intimidation of the post Prop. 8 reaction. I have no idea how many were involved in these intimidation tactics. My hope is that it was limited to just a few; but, the fact remains that regardless of how many actually participated, the impact was profound, and set an unfortunate precedent. I also limited my comment to “some of the gay rights activists.” I did not claim it was the mainstream. . .
January 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Let’s consider your comment then, shall we? Dan said, “My only point with my previous comment is a criticism of the attempts by the Christian right to turn gay rights advocates into some super powerful sinister evil masterminds, instead of good people who believe differently and wish for their country to think like they do.”
You respond, “I think, Dan, your argument that we should consider those who think differently as good people, unless and until they prove through their actions otherwise, is a good one. Unfortunately some of the gay rights advocates, have shown through their actions their own bigotry.” Which I interpret as meaning that you tried to consider those advocating for gay marriage rights as good people, but they have proved themselves not good people, and so you don’t have to try to believe that anymore. If this was not your intent, I apologize, but it’s hard to read your comments any other way.
Like I said earlier, I won’t judge your intent by the crazy people that agree with you if you don’t judge my intent by the crazy people that agree with me.
P.S. I’ve said it before, but seriously–stop saying that private individuals can “chill first amendment rights.” If you want to talk about chilling civil and constructive dialogue, that’s fine. But no private individual can violate first amendment rights by the very nature of the right–only government can. That’s sloppy rhetoric that confuses rights with interests.
January 9, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Nate, I think I was pretty clear in what I said. Spin it however you want; but, it’s pretty clear I am referring to a very vocal, and probably a minority segment of the gay community. But, if you want to extrapolate it to all those who are advocating for gay rights . . . go ahead.
Private individuals can and do chill rights. The aftermath of Proposition 8 is a prime example. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the semantics of the issue.
January 8, 2010 at 7:32 am
Amen to Daniel.
January 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
Guy,
Emotional reaction to something that has a profound effect on one’s life is understandable. Responsible, constructive democracy also doesn’t call for some of the hyperbole that the Christian right used against gay rights during Prop 8, or heck during any gay rights debate. In both cases, the jump to hyperbole is understandable. Both sides refuse to see each other as anything but hateful bigots. I’m glad our church decided to reach out to gays in that Salt Lake City decision. That was a very good move. It was a good icebreaker.
January 8, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I too think the Church’s backing of the SLC ordinance was also the right thing to do; however, I don’t see it ulitmately leading to the Church’s acceptance of gay marriage.
January 9, 2010 at 2:54 pm
The church doesn’t have to accept gay marriage, Guy. No one is making that argument. The church does need to stop this fight against gay activists though. It’s not helpful.
January 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Dan, the Church is not fighting against gay activists. They are, however, advocating for man/woman marriage and families.
January 8, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Christopher asked:
Why can’t the straight community just be satisfied with “straight unions,” Jared? What am I missing?
____________________________________________
Your response to my question doesn’t make any sense to me. But, apparently it made sense to you. So much so that you called my question simplistic and ignorant.
Millions of people are asking the same question. Are they all simplistic and ignorant?
I invite you to give a reasonable answer to my question.
I read where Elton John stood up for gay unions and opposed the idea of marriage because he accepts marriage can only be between a man and a woman. How many in the gay community feel as he does?
I’m asking questions to gain understanding.
January 9, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Perhaps “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions” would be more acceptable if they truly provided all the same legal rights and obligations as “marriage.”
Here in Washington State, voters upheld the expansion of domestic partnership legislation to grant “equal” legal status with marriage, but the cracks are already showing. For example, the USAA insurance company limits its customer base to current and past members of the U.S. armed forces, as well as their families. After the DP law was upheld by voters, one of their local customers, a man in a state-registered DP, learned that while USAA would grant him their customary discount for married couples, they would not grant his partner access to account information, etc., without the couple filing a formal power of attorney. This step is not required in any manner for “married” opposite-sex couples.
When this man sought a written explanation for the disparate treatment, he was informed that USAA “looks to the Department of Defense and IRS code to determine the dependent designation.” In other words, USAA, which is not an agent of the federal government in any sense, has chosen to deny fully “equal with marriage” treatment of “domestically partnered” couples, on the basis of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the federal DOMA, neither of which address how a private insurance company should treat its customers.
attempted to obtain the company’s “spousal” discount for his partner. The company refused to grant the discount, explaining that they have chosen (i.e. they are under no legal requirement, but chose) to use the Department of Defense’s definition of a spouse, which rules out same-sex couples on the basis of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” For what it’s worth, USAA provides its DP/CU customers with a free POA form. Still, this is an extra step requird of DP/CU customers, and represents different treatment in comparison with married couples.
Similarly, legislation is currently pending in Congress to grant the partners of federal employees in DP/CU the same benefits as given to the spouses of married federal employees. As a federal employee, I’m eager to see this passed. However, the legislation will require that I file a formal affidavit attesting to my DP (whether recognized in my state or not), specifying that we live in the same household and have intertwined our finances, etc. This differs from how benefits are granted to the spouses of married federal employees, in that a married federal employee is not asked for any sort of evidence to prove she or he is married to the alleged spouse. Simply listing a person as a spouse is sufficient, though one can be persecuted for falsifying this claim. They don’t have to submit a copy of their marriage license, or anything else. If a DP/CU couple has to continually “prove” their status, while a married couple is taken at their word, that’s not equal treatment.
January 9, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Nick,
I can’t speak intelligently about any domestic partnership statutes other than those in CA, which I’ve had some opportunity to study, and where I’m actually licensed to practice law. I can tell you that under CA’s registered domestic partnership laws, as well as CA’s very progressive civil rights act, the scenario you describe above would not and could not happen, at least not without serious legal consequence.
I think I would personally support federal legislation patterned after CA’s domestic partner statutes, extending all federal legal rights enjoyed by married couples to registered domestic partners, regardless of gender. I haven’t really thought it through, but I’d probably support similar federal legislation requiring all states to implement similar domestic partnership protections, using their commerce clause powers.
The domestic partnership laws see to work pretty well in CA. I have no problem with extending the same rights married couples enjoy to all persons if they register as domestic partners.
January 12, 2010 at 8:25 am
So, Guy, then all you’re raising this kerfuffle about is a single word that would have no actual substantive difference in meaning from the other type of legal relationship you _are_ willing to accept? What’s the point then?
January 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm
[...] New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage « Messenger and Advocate [...]