For New Jersey's first 'married' gay couple, civil unions don't cut it

[Doondoo]

After a solemn exchange of vows and a kiss, Louis Navarrete and Ric Best became the first same-sex couple to marry in New Jersey. Just hours after the ceremony, their marriage was over - not because they didn't love each other anymore, but because the state told them their union was illegal.

Three years later, New Jersey still doesn't allow same-sex couples to marry. But beginning Monday, the Garden State will become the third in the nation to allow civil unions.

Gay-rights advocates fought for marriage, and many of the estimated 20,000 same-sex couples living in New Jersey view the law as a historic step in that direction.

Navarrete and Best, who now live in Philadelphia, say the law is an unacceptable compromise that still places gay men and women in a "less-than" category. They have no plans to move back to New Jersey to seek a civil union.

"The whole point is there's still a huge unfairness in the system," said Navarrete, a 45-year-old interior designer. "It has nothing to do with going down the aisle in a white dress, but when you say the word `marriage,' that's what people think of. It has everything to do with uniting people with equal rights."



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NJ_GAY_MARRIAGE_PIONEERS_NJOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-16-09-47-46

[Reverend_Smitty]

1. While I do believe it is a step in the right direction...

there was a reason why separate but equal was declared unconstitutional...hopefully one day as a society we will see the error of our ways regarding this matter

[hughee99]

2. After reading the article, I'm still not clear...

based on NJ law, is there any difference between a "marriage" and a "civil-union"? Are there any rights that one provides and the other does not?

[MADem]

3. Well, I guess one right is the right to say you're married, maybe?

I think that, in this day and age, the entire CONCEPT of partnership needs to be revisited.

If people, under the state, are allowed to have a "personal" partner (and just one), why require them to make bullshit distinctions about the quality or nature of the partnership?

The idea behind 'marriage' as we know is one thing, historically speaking: to spit out kids. There is an implied SEXUAL component to the exercise, adoptions notwithstanding. But that said:

We know damn well that two eighty year olds marrying late in life aren't going to have biological kids, at least not with the current state of medical care.

We know that two gay people aren't going to produce a child that is biologically a product of the two of them, at least not with the capabilities of medicine at this point in time.

And we know about adoption. So, the notion that marriage is all about sex-to-produce-kids, or even sex at all (Mr. and Mrs. Cole Porter come to mind) isn't really true in every case.

But, my question is this: Why the insistence on producing kids at all? Why the insistence that the relationship even have a sexual component?

Say, you're a person with a good job, good benefits, uninterested in marrying in the traditional sense of the word, and you have an ill relative with a lousy job and no benefits. Why can't you have a state-sanctioned 'partnership' with that relative in order to transfer your benefits to that person?

I wouldn't be surprised if we morph to this kind of situation, especially since traditional marriages continue to decline in number every year.

[hughee99]

4. Is that the only difference?

[MADem]

7. I didn't say that. I said "ONE RIGHT"....

Perhaps you could let us know what your thoughts are?

[hughee99]

8. I'm not trying to pick on anyone here

or be confrontational in any way. After reading the article and doing a little googling, I'm still not clear on whether there is any legal difference between the two (benefits, rights, etc...). Navarrete and Best say the law is an unacceptable compromise and there's still a huge unfairness in the system, but I'm not clear on whether they're referring to some aspect of the law that isn't outlined in the article, or to the term "civil-union" instead of "marriage".

[LostinVA]

13. There is a difference because one is "marriage" and one is "civil unions"

And yeah, that makes a hell of a difference. "Separate but equal," which was Unconstitutional last time I looked.

[pnwmom]

10. No difference. Under NJ law, people in "marriages" and "civil unions" have

exactly the same rights (affecting hundreds of areas).

The problem is that the Federal government confers additional rights -- for example, to Social Security benefits. No gay unions -- not NJ civil unions or Massachusettts marriages -- qualify for any Federal rights.

[Double T]

5. If gay 'civil unions' had the same RIGHTS as heterosexual 'marriages'.........

would THAT be enough to put an END to THIS issue????

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. If they had the same rights....

Then why not just call it marriage? Why is it so important to create an entirely parallel structure of "marriage except in name"? :shrug:

Anyway, only marriage has access to the centuries of common law and judicial precedent dealing with marriage. Civil unions do not; therefore, civil unions can not provide the same rights as marriage. Period.

Jim Crow "marriage" is not marriage, never can be the same as marriage and never will be the same as marriage.

[sakabatou]

6. The thing which I am unsure about is that

do civil unions offer the same benefits as being married?

[pnwmom]

11. They confer all the same rights with respect to the State.

For example, the right to inherit under state inheritance laws, the right to visit the spouse in the hospital, etc. It is a big step forward.

BUT neither the MA gay "marriage" or the NJ/VT "civil union" is recognized by the Federal government, so both forms of union lack federal benefits. One of the most important Federal benefits is Social Security.

[moose65]

9. If there's no difference.....

If there's really "no difference" between marriage and civil unions, then why do we have to use two different terms to describe them? Insisting on calling them different names MAKES them different, doesn't it? Someone on here put it this way: suppose that a college decided to grant degrees to men only. Women would get certificates that were the same as degrees. Would you guys think that is OK?

[pnwmom]

12. Eventually I think that argument will win out.

But in the meantime, it's probably easier and quicker to "sell" the concept of "civil unions" -- so that the rights are spread to people in as many states as possible, as quickly as possible. The bigger problem is the obstacle posed by Federal law to any gay union -- whether a "marriage" or a "civil union." But I think that the Federal opposition will soften, as more and more people become accustomed to the civil unions in the individual states.

[LostinVA]

14. Good post -- exactly

"Separate but equal."