It's Only Marrage, Right?

A couple talking a romantic walk in the park, going to dinner and caring for their children seems like the All-American life. But, here in New Jersey, one group can’t yet do that. In this age of enlightenment and understanding in our society, we still do not allow same-sex couples to wed. What is this unseen fear that the Christian right has to worry about so much? Here in New Jersey, waves of lawsuits have brought this issue into the spotlight and national change seems to rest on what comes to pass here.
         Earlier this year, in the ruling on the case “Lewis v. Harris,” the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples are entitled to the same equal protection as heterosexual couples under the state constitution. "Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.” (Albin et al. 67)
         This ruling is very positive for the gay rights movement. The Court left it up to the legislature to decide what to do about the legal definition of marriage however. Many religious organizations have condemned gay marriage, saying it will lead to the destruction of American values.
         Many local religious leaders here in NJ reacted strongly to the Court’s decision. In a recent CNN article on the Court’s decision, Matthew Daniels from the Alliance for Marriage was quoted as saying “They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey, they are holding a gun to the head of the legislature of New Jersey and saying pick between two bullets -- one that allows civil unions and one that allows marriage." However, such concerns are not as accurate as it would seem. In a June ’06 poll done by The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed that “New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, also support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.”
         Additionally, “The poll found that New Jersey adults also oppose, by a margin of 52 percent to 40 percent, amending the U. S. Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, in effect barring marriages for gay or lesbian couples.” As the polling suggests, the majority is for gay rights. And, elected officials are taking notice. Quoted in a recent USA Today article, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, spoke about a bill he is planning on introducing into committee to allow homosexual couples to marry with no exceptions or less rights. “It merely answers the call of the Supreme Court."
         In contrast, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, scorned the Court’s decision. “Judges are charged with deciding cases impartially based on laws enacted by the people's elected representatives. They are not empowered to substitute their own personal preferences for decisions duly voted by the legislature.”  Other Republican voices also echoed that feeling, including Len Deo, the president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. “The Supreme Court is invoking the Legislature to go further than it already has. We believe that the rights granted under civil unions are enough for homosexual couples.”
         Furthermore, the lead council for the Family Policy Council, Michael Behrens, was quoted as saying “This decision is not a win for homosexual couples. We are confident the Legislature will uphold the marriage statutes as currently written.”
In response, speaking in defense of the Court, John Eroy, a family lawyer at Stark & Stark, spoke about the Court’s ruling. “I don't think they're as concerned about labels — marriage or civil union or whatever the Legislature may call it — as to combat sexual-orientation discrimination. They could have deferred. They could have punted. They could have said this is an issue for the Legislature to decide, we don't find any equal-protection issues that rise to the level that we should be involved in this. And what they said was framers of the marriage statute years ago, or the constitution years ago, cannot have even imagined this issue."
         Lastly in the article, Sally Goldfarb, a law professor at Rutgers Camden Law School, talked about the legal implications of the term marriage. “The current status violates the equal-protection guarantees of the state constitution. Is the Legislature going to allow same-sex couples to marry, or is the Legislature going to create separate status with the same rights? The danger of the latter approach is the term 'marriage' is very significant. Some have argued a civil union will always be inferior. There is also the social significance of the term 'marriage' because they can't use that word."
         That is very important, as rights under marriage not included in civil unions include property-ownership, alimony and inheritance. Some have argued that if they wanted those rights, they could hire a lawyer, file paperwork and have it done legally. Not only is that very expensive, it’s wrong.
         Some may ask, what is the difference between civil unions, allowing some legal rights as heterosexual couples and marriage? A good example of the difference between civil unions and marriage is in a medical environment. If your spouse is injured and taken to a hospital, all you need to do is say, I’m their husband or wife, and you’re allowed to see them, and deal with any other issues that would come up. Then, place a homosexual couple in that same situation. The spouse would have to show all sorts of legal paperwork and be subject to all sorts of questions, in a time of crisis. It’s just not right.
         That and other social concerns are involved. All we need to do is look back to the 1960’s, where interracial couples were cursed and were accusing of ruining American values and culture. As that time period showed, change for equality was a long and difficult fight. Equality is a key word there. This is a fight to do what is right in terms of equal and fair rights under the law for all Americans. There was a time when black citizens were only 3/4th of a person. For the longest time, women were regarded as objects to serve men. This is another such movement.
         According to the General Accounting Office, there are at least 1,138 federal laws in which “marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights and privileges.” (Letter to Sen. Frisk 1) That is an obscene amount of potential rights and benefits homosexual couples are excluded from because of the lack of a God given right to marry!
         There is also an issue of the children. Many groups have objected to same sex marriages with concerns that it’s damaging to a child’s development. However, in July of 2004, the American Psychological Association’s Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting same sex marriages and opposing discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.
         "Psychological and psychiatric experts have agreed since 1975 that homosexuality is neither a form of mental illness nor a symptom of mental illness… Research indicates that many gay men and lesbians want to and have committed relationships.”  (1)
         “THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination against same-sex couples in their practice, research, education and training ("Ethical Principles," 2002, p. 1063);
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding sexual orientation and marriage and that assist its members, divisions, and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations.” (5)
         The research shows time and time again that sexual orientation means nothing in regards to someone’s ability to love and raise children and be a parent. In the end, research and opinions will always differ, but one thing stands true. The right of marriage for all citizens in New Jersey should stand true, as it was meant to be.