On Jan. 12, New Jersey became the fifth state in the nation to have the wisdom to recognize that not all committed relationships fit neatly into the traditional mold; and that basic decency demands recognition of serious, acknowledged partnerships, regardless of the sexual preferences of the partners.

I am referring of course, to New Jersey’s new domestic partnership law.

While it was a big step forward in the realm of civil rights and basic fairness, it pales next to what happened in Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court ruled that nothing short of full civil marriage would be acceptable under the state constitution, or what has been happening in about a dozen cities across the country, where officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages. (Asbury Park issued a license to a gay couple and married them on March 8, spurring an immediate threat from New Jersey’s attorney general that it cease such actions.)

The state law itself fits squarely into the middle of what has been enacted across the country, with the exception of the fact that to its credit, for the first time, a state legislature stepped forward to deal with this issue. In every other state, the result was judicially determined.

So what does our legislation do? It allows two people of the same sex who share a residence, agree to share expenses, and show financial interdependence, such as a common bank account, mortgage, or deed, to register by filing an affidavit of domestic partnership.

Once registered, partners have the right to visit each other in hospitals and make medical decisions for the other. Partners are permitted to claim an additional tax exemption on state income tax returns and exemption from state inheritance taxes for property left to the other. Domestic partners of state employees will be eligible for health and retirement benefits. The partners of private-plan employees are eligible if those plans choose to provide such coverage. The law also applies to unmarried heterosexual couples over age 62, since such couples sometimes choose not to marry to avoid the loss of pension benefits or Social Security. A formal Superior Court proceeding, similar to a divorce, will be required to dissolve a domestic partnership.

There are a number of differences between civil unions and marriages, which make civil-union partners distinctly second-class citizens compared to their married counterparts. Under the New Jersey law, for no apparent reason, partners do not acquire joint property rights, the right to automatic inheritance from a deceased partner, or rights to co-parent the minor children of a partner. In addition, the law does not provide for equitable distribution of assets and alimony rights. What can that possibly have to do with the homosexual lifestyle, or the issue of lack of procreation, which is used by traditional marriage defenders to demean same-sex marriage? Why not give a person who has made financial sacrifices for a partner the ability to have a court fairly determine these issues regardless of sexual preference?

Among religious groups, Jewish voters tend to take the most progressive positions when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, although there are deep differences depending upon their institutions. The Reform and Reconstructionist movements have long welcomed gay unions and have ordained gay clergy, while the Orthodox Union supports the president’s call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman. The Conservative movement, which opposes the sanctification of gay marriages, is still debating the issue, although it opposes a constitutional amendment on the theory that marriage is a religious issue that should not be determined by constitutional legislation.

Perhaps that is the real disagreement: whether the state should ultimately make the gay marriage determination, since, after all, marriage is also a secular institution. The state sets the legal requirements and issues the prerequisite license. Religious institutions are responsible to uphold the sanctity of marriage, and that is where they should concentrate their efforts. With "heterosexual" divorce rates hovering at 50 percent, perhaps religious institutions should better focus their efforts on preserving the sanctity of the institution they seek to define.

Recent polls indicate that while the country is tolerant of gay relationships, a majority remains strongly opposed to the idea of gay marriage. Even many gay rights proponents say that laws like New Jersey’s will pose fewer problems for this majority because it deals neatly with how other states will view domestic partnerships. A "marriage" is understood in every jurisdiction, and laws exist in every state to deal with the breakdown of that marriage. Not so with civil unions. In fact, in one Connecticut case, the courts ruled that because that state did not recognize civil unions, they did not have authority to dissolve one.

And yet, in opposing same-sex marriage, perhaps we in fact demean the institution of marriage itself by narrowly assuming that two same-sex individuals cannot share companionship and affection, and that only heterosexual couples deserve legal protection. Your gay partner is in the hospital and you want to see him or her? Too bad. You want to leave your property to your same-sex partner when you die? Let’s tax it simply because you are gay. By this argument, if equal protection does not apply, perhaps we should also give homosexual criminal defendants less constitutional protection?

Opponents would deny the benefits and rights of marriage to homosexuals for no other reason than their choice of partner, and seek to impose their own morality, as binding civil law, on others who freely and of their own choice select an alternative lifestyle. Do opponents really believe that denying a homosexual the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy may somehow reorient or reprogram them to heterosexuality?

Finally, prohibiting same-sex marriage may actually undermine the very institution opponents say they are seeking to protect. By creating lesser alternatives to the commitment of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, among those who would prefer to marry instead, and by giving them the state’s seal of approval, we actually make these marriage substitutes more socially acceptable.

Societal change is incremental, and this is a big one. Still, believe it or not, as recently as 1967 there were still miscegenation laws making marriages between blacks and whites illegal in 12 states. Or, consider laws that treated women as second-class citizens, which existed until well into the last century.

Should the state stand in the way of any two individuals who show a strong commitment toward each other? Lawmakers can pick and choose their battles. This should not be one of them.

Send mail to email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 - 2008 Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Groups
Last modified: July 06, 2008 by Outstanding Web Stuff