NJ voters oppose calling same-sex unions "marriage"

[Omaha Steve]

http://reuters.excite.com/article/20061106/2006-11-06T172821Z_01_N06270156_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-RIGHTS-GAYS-DC.html

NJ voters oppose calling same-sex unions "marriage"
Email this Story

Nov 6, 12:28 PM (ET)


By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Only a quarter of voters in the U.S. state of New Jersey are in favor of allowing same-sex relationships to be called marriage although half favor equal rights for such unions, a poll showed on Monday.

The poll, published in the Star-Ledger newspaper, follows a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling last month that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, but that state lawmakers should decide within six months whether those relationships could be called marriage.

Many lawmakers interviewed after the court decision said they do not expect the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey when the Assembly and Senate return from recess later this month.


Supporters of gay marriage hold placards before hearing the New Jersey Supreme court decision on same-sex marriage in front of the Supreme court building in Trenton, New Jersey, October 25, 2006. Only a quarter of voters in the U.S. state of New Jersey are in favor of allowing same-sex relationships to be called marriage although half favor equal rights for such unions, a poll showed on Monday. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer


Half of the 777 people telephone polled by Blum & Weprin Associates for the Star-Ledger on November 1-2 agreed with the court's decision to give same-sex couples equal rights, while 39 percent disagreed and 11 percent said they were not sure.

FULL story at link above.

[sui generis]

1. Well, they'll come to their senses after they think about it

They call 'em "weddings" here, i.e., the process of marryin'.

How 'bout that. Isn't that quaint?

It's a good thing these people don't work for NASA. Now ask them about vectors and stacked trajectories.

[fujiyama]

2. Give NJ some credit

Atleast fifty percent or so say they favor marriage rights. In some states, you'd be lucky to get 20% saying the same thing.

I think the word "marriage" has specific religious connotations to it. People think all of a sudden their church or religious institution would be required to perform gay marriages if the state called it gay marriage.

[sui generis]

3. well I am giving them credit

the ones that know the difference. That's why I said they'd come to their senses after they've thought about it.

You are most certainly correct though - New Jersey is ahead of 48 other states so far at this point, that much is definitely clear.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Hmmm... well MA has marriage, but VT and CT both have

CUs.

So wouldn't that be 47?

[sui generis]

28. I don't count civil unions

(I baited that trap!)

It's nice, but it's not the same until you can file your taxes together and pass your OMB federal pension on to your spouse.

That's where the "equal" part in equality comes in. Baby steps are for babies.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Well, marriage in MA won't bring federal benefits, either

I suspect. That'll be fought, though, I'm sure. (As well it should be).

As to other benefits, pretty much anything state-wide that marriage brings, CUs in CT bring.

But I agree that they are only a step on the way. I don't dismiss the step, though, b/c I do think it may be the way -- as people live with CUs and become perfectly comfortable with them, marriage won't seem such a huge step. I understand how frustrating it is, but I do think it's a positive step on the way to true equality.

It's going to be piece-meal. It's going to take small steps. This is not a change that will happen overnight. Too many people just don't get it yet. That will take time and acclimatization.

[torrentprime]

23. hear, hear

It's still progress.

It's really not every person's fault, or an indication of homophobic intent, that people oppose the concept of SSM marriage, given that the state has interwoven itself so deeply with a religious and family issue.

Half of the state wants equal rights, under a different name? I'm game. We'll normalize it in 20 years anyway...

[sui generis]

29. yeah what's in a name?

In fact if names are so not important why don't we just rename marriage for everyone?

On a less strident note, I agree. Our grandchildren are going to be embarrassed that their grandparents ever voted to keep some Americans from getting married - the same way I was to find out my American grandfather had a black lab out on the farm named N*****.

There was nothing wrong with it at the time . . . according to them.

[struggle4progress]

22. Get the states out of marriages and the churches out of contract law.

It's really simple: separate church and state.

Anyone who want the legal benefits, should have to register their civil union with the state.

Anyone who wants the religious blessing and permission, goes through the appropriate marriage ceremony with their minister or rabbi or spiritual leader.

Those who want both the legal benefits and the religious benediction, do both.

The secular, contract-law side ("civil unions") should be a civic process: why are pastors and rabbis acting as surrogates for the state? Let the churches and religious institutions do whatever marriages they think appropriate, but don't have the state recognize such religious acts.

[NOLADEM]

4. Well, I oppose calling New Jersey the Garden State because that destroys the definition of a garden

[JerseygirlCT]

10. How much of NJ have you seen?

If you've just driven through, you've seen some pretty ugly stuff. But that's not the half of it. There's some very pretty places in NJ.

[LostinVA]

19. Most of NJ IS the Garden State

I grew up near the Delaware Bay -- nothing but fields and salt marshes.

[Trillo]

5. How about calling all human unions and marriages "Mergers". n/t

[HockeyMom]

6. I don't care if you call my marriage of 32 years a CIVIL UNION

because a word does not define our relationship. WE the couple involved define it, not the government, not churches, not our next door neighbors.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

26. Well said

You get a gold star.

[dragonkeep]

7. I agree with New Jersey and I'll tell you why.

I strongly believe, as do you, in the separation of church and state. Heterosexual marriages are composed of two parts, the religious ceremony and the legal documentation. The only part the state has a say in is the legal part and I think all adult couples should be able to take advantage of what the state can offer. That said, if a church finds it acceptable to perform the religious part of the ceremony, they should also be allowed to do that, but I don't believe it is in our best interest to allow the state to force a church to comply. I think the most accurate description of this legal part of a marriage is a civil union, much like France offers.

[WindRavenX]

8. Um, no one would force a church to comply

Either churches would perform gay wedings or they wouldn't--the government would have no say in enforcing churches to wed couples. All that happens by making gay marriage "legal" is that the government recognizes it as such.

[torrentprime]

24. Don't forget

Many on the right use this fictional talking point to hype up the base. They claim that "homosexual activists" want to force churches to recognize SSM, that liberals want to ban churches from preaching, et. etc.

So the issue does need to be defused by always explaining, never defensively but affirmatively, that SSM/civil unions are state only, not church.

[Quantess]

12. A religious ceremony is optional for a marriage.

So, I'm not sure what your argument is.

[VegasWolf]

13. Not true!!!! Marriage has absolutely NO requirement for a church part. The

marriage certificate need only be signed by someone designated to perform the wedding, i.e. a ship's captain, or in the case of my wife and I, by an Elvis impersonator. We are recognized as legally married by both the state and federal government. You'll need to try again with your two-parter.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. The state would never be able to force a church to comply

Not going to happen.

But clarifying the terms might be the way out of the knee-jerk emotional reaction to the word marriage.

Make marriage the religious ceremony. That can exist with or without gov't sanction. If without, it also isn't recognized by the gov't.

Have all gov't sanctioned unions recognized as civil unions. As you say, they can also have a religious "marriage". These would and should be available to 2 consenting adults regardless of orientation.

The right wing is going to try to persuade people that their churches would now have to marry gays. (Oh the horror!). This reminds me of Phyllis Schlaffly's campaign against the ERA -- where she convinced people that it would require unisex bathrooms.

[dragonkeep]

35. I think it might be the solution

to finesse this through without raising the ire of the religious right. Perhaps it could be used as a means to make a compromise that would mean equal protection under the law, as a first step.

[BattyDem]

17. Since when do all heterosexuals get married in church?

The fact is, without a STATE ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSE, the church ceremony means nothing.

[LostinVA]

20. Bad strawman -- next?

[mondo joe]

32. The state can't force the church to comply. Duh. Not now, and not when

same sex marriage is recognized.

[mainegreen]

9. I think it should *all* be call permanant happy-fun time with benefits contract.

:P

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. Slavery "God's will," majority agrees.

.

[BattyDem]

16. Now I'm really pissed off at my state!

Hey New Jersey ... homosexual couples will finally have ALL the same rights that straight couples have - which at least half of NJ citizens approve of - but now it's the word "marriage" that you're going to fight against? Come on, people! Are you really so f*cking insecure about your own relationship that a WORD is an issue for you? That's just childish and petty!

FACT - Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT between two people ... period. There is no religious requirement - the ceremony is optional.

FACT - No church will ever be forced to perform ANY marriage - homosexual or heterosexual - that it does not wish to perform.

FACT - Gay people will have "weddings" and end up with "spouses." They will raise families and buy homes and be part of the community. The reality is that they will be "married" in every sense of the word - so why is the word itself such a big freakin' deal?

Come on, NJ ... we can do better than this. Let gays and lesbians live their lives without a "separate, but equal" brand of equality.

[Omaha Steve]

18. BIG legal issue here

For some benefits like Social Security, IF the state calls it marriage other benefits will have to be honored!!!

[BattyDem]

21. I know - there will still be two separate legal standards.

It's not fair to gay and lesbian couples. They should not have a separate system because of other people's hangups.

[torrentprime]

25. Nope

The state can call it whatever it wants, it has no bearing on federal law, regardless. Whether the legislature calls it marriage or CU or happy fun time, the feds don't recognize it, and so federal benefits such as social security don't come along with the piece of paper.

Getting the feds to recognize state unions will require reversal of DOMA, and I don't see a Democratic majority and/or a Democratic president tackling this for quite a long time, especially given that examples such as a) Barak opposes same-sex marriage, and b) who knows what Hillary might do, to name a few possible Democratic presidential candidates.

[Omaha Steve]

31. But in state items like pension would apply?

I have no idea myself?

[torrentprime]

34. yes

If the requirement for the benefit is a marriage recognized in a given state, then married people in those states will get it. Federal benefits won't apply, and neither will benefits in other states. For example, if a married-in-MA couple moved to Alabama and worked for the state and lived there, no Alabama pension benefits would apply.

[davidinalameda]

27. they could call it the hokey pokey for all I care

just as long as everyone, gay or straight, get the same rights

[YankeyMCC]

33. Frankly I think it's unfortunate that term

is used for any state marriage. The state has no role in religious sacraments (at least it should not) and therefore same-sex, different-sex, multi-sex, whatever-sex, couples should all have Civil Union Certificates or whatever you want to call it and 'marriage' ought to be just like say 'baptism' in the xian religion, something you can do or not as you please and have nothing to do with the state. I know that's essentially the case now but it's just an unfortunately circumstance that that state uses the same term for a civil contract that religions use for a sacrament.

But that's the situation we are faced with, so it ought to be called marriage for everyone until it's changed for everyone.

[leesa]

36. Heterosexuals are so selfish.

[Anakin Skywalker]

37. Don't Forget Hypocritical.