Panel studying civil
unions not apt to give
unbiased report
Posted by the Asbury
Park Press
BY TONI MEYER,
app.com Online July 6, 2007
A state commission convened in
Trenton June 18 to study civil unions and assess how well they work to provide
the benefits of marriage. The chairman, the state's director of civil
rights, Frank Vespa-Papaleo, said the commission was formed to answer seven
questions about civil unions, ranging from whether they are working and their
recognition by other states, to how they affect children and the state's
finances. It will issue a report by its deadline in 2010.
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely we'll get an unbiased assessment of how civil
unions are working from this group. The 13-member commission's newly
elected vice chairman, Steven Goldstein, also chairs the gay rights group Garden
State Equality. Three other members (including one of the two clergy
members) are part of Garden State Equality, another is junior vice president of
"Out" for Democracy, and the second clergy member is from the Universalist
Unitarian Church of Montclair, which describes itself as an "activist
congregation who fosters tolerance for all sexual orientations." To say
that the foxes are guarding the henhouse is a vast understatement.
Goldstein's expressed agenda is to gain full marriage recognition for same-sex
couples as soon as possible, even "before the mandate of this commission
expires," he was quoted as saying.
Where is a representative from the New Jersey Family Policy Council on this
panel, or where is a state lawmaker opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage or,
for that matter, a mainstream pastor, so we can get a balanced assessment of the
civil union law?
Goldstein (not surprisingly) predicts lawmakers will not need three years to
conclude same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. He has said there is a
"very substantial" possibility it could pass the Legislature next year.
I hope the citizens of New Jersey, at least 54 percent of whom support a
constitutional amendment to preserve marriage between one man and one woman,
will issue a strong reminder to legislators seeking to be elected as their
representatives in November.
The civil union law has been in effect for only four months, yet already
Goldstein's organization is talking it up in the papers. He cites problems
with companies not recognizing the intended obligations to them in attempt to
show cause for the title of marriage to be granted. However, most often,
Goldstein explains, the employer claims an exemption under federal law when
their parent company is not based in New Jersey. If there are problems
with companies not following the law, they can find legal remedy in court, just
like anyone else.
The rationale of requesting that marriage be redefined to include same-sex
couples to resolve this problem is absurd. How would redefining marriage
to include same-sex couples in New Jersey force a company not based in the state
to recognize that law? Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex
marriage is legal, so if the company was based in one of the other 48 states, it
could use the same argument as to why it didn't have to pay benefits.
There is another false and dangerous premise being put forth by same-sex
marriage activists that requires a balanced commission to investigate.
Activists postulate that so few same-sex couples are entering into civil unions
because they are waiting for the title of marriage. Yet, data on same-sex
unions in Scandinavia reported in April by the World Congress of Families show
same-sex marriages are relatively rare. Worse, the unions are remarkably
fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than marriages between one
man and one woman. The statistics reveal "the divorce risk for
partnerships of men is 50 percent higher than for normal marriages and that the
divorce risks for partnerships of women is about double that rate or nearly 100
percent." This is tragic in and of itself, but what about the children
involved?
For the good of all New Jerseyans, the irrational push for same-sex marriage
must be stopped, and balance must be added to the new state commission on civil
unions.
Toni Meyer is the senior research analyst for the New Jersey
Family Policy Council, Parsippany.
StoryChat
Do you really think that putting
someone opposed to same sex marriage on this commission would help? What
would that accomplish other than having someone to keep saying how wrong it is
and then cry to the press that your voice is not being heard. How absurd
would that be.
We need to eliminate the discrimination and bigotry from our lives, not
perpetuate it by putting someone from your organization, or any other
organization that opposes civil rights for all peoples. Seasider has it
right.
Posted by: ambrosiajr on Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:11 pm
Fact is, there is no constitutional "right" to marriage for ANYONE, Gay or
Straight. The term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the
United States. The Constitution DOES, however, provide for equal
protection under the law for all law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
At face value it seems reasonable to allow states to decide their own marriage
laws. The big sticking point, however, is that the federal government has
a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of taxes and Social Security.
And as it stands now, even Gay couples that are legally married in Massachusetts
cannot file joint tax returns nor declare one another as beneficiaries under
Social Security.
This issue will eventually have to be resolved one of two ways: Either (1)
the Supreme Court will have to rule that Gay and Straight couples must be
treated equally, or (2) an amendment will have to be passed that eliminates Gay
couples from constitutional protection. And it seems increasingly unlikely
that the latter is going to happen.
CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
Posted by: PolishBear on Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:33 am
The commission formed to study civil unions in NJ has a mission to insure that
the rights of those citizens the new law seeks to protect are upheld. The
makeup of the panel need not include those who oppose the law -- that would be
like placing KKK members on a panel to study the voting rights act. All
citizens in NJ have the same rights -- that is the purpose of the civil unions
law. If the law as it stands cannot accomplish this goal, then perhaps
marriage is the answer. And as for divorce being a reason to deny same sex
unions -- that would preclude most heterosexual unions as well! Who do you
think is getting all the divorces now -- which are at a record high in this
country.
If you want to support the health of families and children in our society, then
encourage people to form strong bonds and stop discriminating against families
-- in any form.
Seasider
Posted by: seasider on Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:24 am
|
