Vineland measure
defines marriage
By JULIET FLETCHER,
pressofac.com on the web, December 12, 2007
VINELAND, NJ -- Gary Peart
walked into council chambers Tuesday night, knowing he would quickly recognize
people he had seen the previous Sunday.
A member of the Chestnut Assembly of God, Peart, 44, waved a greeting to fellow
congregants before taking a seat in the middle of the room. "There are
Wesleyan pastors here, Spanish Pentecostal pastors here, our pastor is here,"
Peart said. "A consortium of churches came together for this. We
sense a danger here."
As Vineland gathered to vote on a definition of marriage, lines from scripture
were quoted at the City Council's podium.
Marilyn Snook -- the wife of Peart's pastor, Ralph Snook, who first approached
the council on the issue -- cited Leviticus before trembling, close to tears.
When Luis Rafael Corchado, pastor of New Hope Baptist Church, said that failure
to define marriage as between one man and one woman would lead to the "future
demands that will allow for any one person to be married to a beast," a few
people seated in the front row yelled out, "Amen!"
In taking the vote and approving a marriage-defining resolution that members
admitted had no legal weight, Vineland council members waded into a debate where
politics and religious belief intersect. Vineland is the second known
municipality in the state to have passed such a resolution; Snook said the city
of Elizabeth passed a similar resolution June 12.
In a public debate that stretched over several weeks, only two people stood up
at public sessions to oppose the resolution, originally prepared by Ralph Snook
and handed to the council Nov. 13. On Tuesday night, no members of the
public spoke to oppose the measure. But council members, who voted 4-1 to
adopt a slightly reworded version, said afterward that 20 percent of people who
wrote or called to comment had opposed the measure.
Some watching the proceedings said they demonstrated the influence of a group of
tightly organized churches, driven to speak up by a family values organization,
the New Jersey Family Policy Council.
After attending a rally last month organized by the NJFPC, Snook said he was
moved to join efforts to contact local legislators and urge such a resolution.
"The point is, we just want to get this issue on the ballot for November 2008
elections," Snook said. He said he viewed this victory as a response to a
bill introduced to the state Senate on Nov. 29, which read that marriage must
mean "the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed
relationship."
While that bill is under consideration, Snook said, it's time to act. "We
see a vocal minority influencing this issue in Trenton," he said Tuesday.
In late September, a state committee set up to examine the effectiveness of
civil unions -- legalized in New Jersey in December 2006 -- heard from gay and
lesbian couples who said the unions do not provide complete equality of benefits
and rights.
But beyond sending a message to state legislators who will receive a copy, the
council's resolution will not change anything, gay-rights supporters said
earlier.
"It doesn't carry any weight," said Vince Grimm, of the Cape May-based GABLES
organization, a nonprofit that promotes legal and political equality for gay,
lesbian and bisexual people.
Regarding the gap in benefits available to straight and gay couples, he said
that Vineland residents were not properly informed. "These people have no
idea what they're talking about," he said, "and they don't want to know."
Council Member Barbara Sheftall approved the resolution, but called immediately
for a similar resolution to send a message to the federal government regarding
the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, approved by President Clinton, which she said
does not offer the rights of equal benefits to same-sex couples. She
pointed out that a clause in the resolution Vineland passed recognized the need
for benefit and protection of people in civil unions.
One council member, council President John Barretta, voted against the
resolution, describing the debate over the meaning of marriage as "semantics."
"I do think it is somewhat discriminatory," he said before voting, and he added
that comments by the crowd relating homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality
were "out of hand."
But Snook, who also said he feared a day when he would be unable to marry
straight couples without having to do the same for same-sex ones, finished the
night by saying the push to a referendum next November would be a task for his
church and the state's congregations.
"Our job is to get them to the polls," he added.
To e-mail Juliet Fletcher at The Press:
JFletcher@pressofac.com
|
