NJ Marriage Equality Part 3: The End of Marriage

This is the third article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.

Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 2 focused on polling data, public opinion, and the language used in the gay marriage debate. [In a completely unrelated development, PolitiFact NJ did some research on polling as well, featured in today's Star Ledger. It also published more on Chris Christie's stance.]

Those who have attended Christian wedding services have probably heard the following verse from Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...

...And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7, 13)

Is it not wonderful to hear these words and know that God has sanctioned this marriage - that matrimonial love is the outgrowth of a communal and divine love shared by all Christians? Here, within Christianity, love is safe and distinct and clearly exists only between a man and a woman, for Paul rails heartily against homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27!

Yes, truly this is a blessed union, in which male and female unite and female is subordinated to male! Paul reminds us later in First Corinthians:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Oh.

Wait a minute. We don't agree with that at all, do we? Hmmm.

The great question: What do we believe? What do we choose to accept among competing scriptural messages?

This is no place for politics.

Ah, but as Noah Feldman points out in Divided by God, the systems are so intertwined! Marriage as recognized by the United States government grew out of the Puritans! They didn't want English clergy performing this...sacrament...so they passed a law that made it illegal for anyone but magistrates to perform marriages. In one fell swoop England and religion were removed from marriage! But people clung to the idea of the "holy." This was a sacred union - commissioned by the government no less!

Marriage serves a very important societal function today. Liberals argue that it confers tax benefits and is essential for the moral practice of such processes as end-of-life care, in which one partner would be best suited to make decisions about the life, well-being, and property of the other. The Religious Right, on the other hand, argues that marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. It's a zero-sum game. If one side wins, the other side loses.

And so I propose a non-zero-sum solution: the abolition of marriage as a governmental institution. Marriage grew out of religion, it's true, but partnership, especially in parenting, is largely perceived as serving a beneficial social function. Therefor marriage should function in the domain - once again - of religion only. Here the Religious Right wins. BUT, in order to provide the benefits promised by a liberal society - those that ensure that the dying are cared for, and that people are rewarded for just behavior - there should still be an institution that mimics marriage. Therefore I propose...

CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!

The governmental contract of marriage should be replaced by civil unions, which will remove any semantic confusion about the intermixing of religion and politics on this issue. The term "marriage" muddies the larger question of equal rights - rights supported by a majority of Americans. My proposal does away with that confusion entirely. Homo- and heterosexual partners in civil unions will receive benefits and responsibilities at the state and national level of government. Marriage will recede to its religious roots.

At this point, the Religious Right may grumble something about the government promoting the immoral gay lifestyle, but in fact such legislation would be very beneficial to a moral society, argues David Brooks. The true conservative policy would be to get people to settle down and adhere to societal norms. What better way than to force them into a contractual relationship that would steer them toward the status quo of togetherness!? [Not that heterosexual marriage is doing that well. The divorce rate of the United States is half that of the marriage rate. That means that for every two married people, there is one divorced person!]

Now, there is a slight problem with this. Many religious organizations maintain a special protection to practice discrimination. The Supreme Court in fact recently established a "ministerial exception" to allow churches to hire and fire who they please for certain positions. And while people may argue for changes in the Catholic Church, they aren't doing it through the courts. The separation of church and state in the U.S. is a positive right for religious organizations with a number of legal exemptions.

Religious organizations enjoy a large degree of autonomy, and I don't think this should change. In America, "religion" functions as a marketplace that allows believers to choose a religious "brand." The Pew Research Center reports that 28% of Americans have changed religion from the one they grew up in. Counting shifts in Protestant denominations brings that statistic up to 44%. Some churches already preach a discriminatory message. If you don't like that, you are free to move.

It becomes complex here because believers may discriminate en masse through a religious organization, but may not discriminate as individuals. A wedding photographer (or "civil union photographer" if my idea catches on) may not refuse providing services to gay couples. However, the pastor of the church that the photographer belongs to may refuse to officiate a service for this couple. This brings up an entire new complex of issues, but my instinct now is that as long as religious organizations do not infringe on the rights of others, their actions are legitimate. The very principle of religion's insulation from politics is what allows this somehow-sanctioned discrimination.

Religion speaks to that which they eye does not see and the ear does not hear. It may have ideas to offer to politics, but particular faiths should not bear a great influence in an increasingly pluralistic society. Let us maintain our values - the popular supports for equal rights of all couples - by shifting the way we think about the issue.

[Given the irrational nature of political discourse, I have no faith whatsoever that my proposal would be seriously considered, but I hope I have offered at least a thought-provoking argument. And so, thoughts?]

NJ Marriage Equality Part 2: A Matter of Language

This is the second article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.
Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 3 will focus on moral and religious issues.

It seems that we cannot even speak of the abstract concept of "equality" if we can't get beyond the issue of language.

What's in a Name?
The Star Ledger has begun providing resources to citizens who wish to speak coherently on this issue. (Not that commenters on NJ.com articles take advantage of these resources).

NJ.com [the web arm of the Star Ledger] has focused on State Senate President Stephen Sweeney in one article, noting that the now-advocate for marriage-equality legislation abstained from voting on the same issue two years ago. Oof. That contributed to its demise, even as then-Governor Corzine vowed to approve such a measure. Now the State Congress must muster enough votes to override Governor Chris Christie's all-too-certain veto.

NJ.com even gives a lesson in framing - which informs today's post. The way in which we speak about the issue of marriage equality/same-sex marriage matters because the issue is apparently perceived through a lens constructed by political language.

A fairly-useful infographic accompanied an article that focused on Sweeney [at least in the online version - I don't get the print edition out here in Boston]. The language utilized here attempts balance, but fails to deliver. And I quote:

When Jew Jersey Democrats begin their new effort in the coming weeks to allow same-sex couples to marry, pay close attention to the language both sides choose in framing the debate.

Fair enough, I say. Let's see how both sides use language in framing this:

Proponents can be expected to replace time-worn terms like "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" with "marriage equality" - and with good reason. "Marriage equality" has scored 9 percentage points higher among New Jersey voters.

Ah, the politicization of words: tailor your message to your audience. But wait, how does the other side speak about the issue? The JPEG doesn't say. Presumably opponents would favor "homosexual marriage" over "gay marriage," the former having a definite pejorative connotation. "Gay marriage" would probably be used over "same-sex marriage," the latter of which may sound too liberal. "Marriage equality" will be avoided because of its strong support. But I'm just guessing here.

The equality versus same-sex debate says a great deal about public perception of this issue. A rose by any other name, it seems, would indeed be perceived as having a different smell, depending on its name. In the very act of naming this issue we exercise political judgments.

The infographic refers to an August 2011 Rutgers-Eagleton poll that found that support for gay marriage jumped from 52 percent to 61 percent when "gay marriage" was recast as "marriage equality." The truly useful statistic is that 36 percent of the Garden State population opposes same-sex unions of any kind. The rest are either in support or are at the whim of framing. Gay marriage is largely favored when it is perceived as a civil rights issue (that is, one of equality).

What's in a name? An arsenal of political rhetoric. It is deplorable that opinions on this issue hinge not on meaning, but on phrasing.

Taking It to the Polls
Indeed, gay marriage approval in New Jersey is difficult to assess through polling, and many polls wielded as political weaponry when in fact their results are often inconclusive. Public Policy Polling reported on July 29, 2011 that New Jersey residents believe same-sex marriage should be legal, by a margin on 47 percent to 42 percent. Despite the headline that “New Jersey supports legal same-sex marriage, if one were to look at the margin of error of plus/minus 4.5 percentage points, one would see that this assertion is not mathematically reasonable. So, in fact, there can be no conclusion that New Jerseyans favor same-sex marriage based on this poll. Likewise, a November 2009 Quinnipiac University poll found that New Jersey voters opposed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry, by a margin of 49 to 46 percent. Again, since the margin of error is plus/minus 2.4 percentage points, the assertion that New Jersey voters oppose same-sex marriage is invalid.

Numbers are less ambiguous when pollsters ask about same-sex rights in general. When Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac asked whether respondents supported gay marriage, civil unions, or no special recognition, it was found that gay rights in some form were supported. In the Public Policy Polling report, those who support gay marriage came to 42 percent, those who propose civil unions but not marriage was 40 percent, and those who believed there should be no recognition for a gay couple’s relationship was 17 percent.iii When offered three choices in the November 2009 Quinnipiac poll, New Jersey voters responded as follows: 42 percent favor same-sex marriage; 30 percent favor civil unions, but not marriage; and 20 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Voters also supported the existing law establishing civil unions for same sex couples, 63 percent to 30. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center shows that support for civil unions is at 57 percent.

These statistics are much more useful in analyzing public opinion and recommending policy because they show that many in New Jersey believe that gay couples should be afforded equal rights. These data demonstrate majority support for unions of same-sex couple that provides the benefits and responsibilities of opposite-sex marriage. The problem, it seems, is the terminology that is used to describe these rights. As we will see Friday, "marriage" is a loaded term with both secular and theological implications, depending on who wields the language. Regardless of the phrasing however, the fact is that an overwhelming majority of New Jersey and United States citizens support equal rights for same-sex couples.

The Changing Tide of Youth
Robert Putnam and David Campbell help to navigate the tension between politics and religion in their analysis of the landmark Faith Matters surveys, recorded in their book American Grace. The book analyzes in part the pull of religion on politics and of politics on religion. Putnam and Campbell make an interesting discovery about the nature of religiosity and political issues: “Religiosity has a tight connection to attitudes regarding abortion and gay marriage, and a more modest correlation – or none at all – to issues that do not pertain to sex and the family.” One’s beliefs on other issues are generally not affected by religion, but on the key issues of abortion and gay marriage there is a very strong tie. Religiosity plays a large role in these issues, but it is not a good indicator of whether someone is racist, or favors the death penalty, or believes that the United States should decrease immigration. Not only this, but politicians have built coalitions around the issues of abortion and gay marriage. After the 1980s, when these issues became tied to political parties, we see that religiosity and partisanship have come into alignment. Especially in the 2004 election cycle, Putnam and Campbell note, sex and family issues, already tied to religiosity, were tied to the Republican Party. Democrats only weakly embraced the opposite stance, but it became clear that embracing abortion and gay marriage rights were tied to lower religiosity and the left.

Campbell and Putnam’s study, however, also determined that Americans are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, and this is especially so of younger people. They attribute the findings to pop culture and lower religiosity among younger generations. So while politics shapes the way we express our religious convictions, culture and weakening religiosity work to reduce opposition to same-sex marriage issue at a “glacially slow” pace.

I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but it was a similarly slow pace of change, of course, that Martin Luther King, Jr.so strongly against in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

The Question of State Versus Nation
Even if marriage equality is achieved, the relationships of gay and lesbian couples will not be recognized on the national level.

The balance between state and nation in the question of gay marriage is a peculiar problem because states maintain control over marriages, but benefits conferred from recognized marriages are granted at both the state and the national level. With the exception of some benefits for the same-sex partners of some federal employees, federal benefits are not extended to same-sex couples in America. Massachusetts couples, for example, even though they are “married” in the eyes of the state, do not receive the same benefits that married couples do from the United States government. Civil unions receive even less protection.

Steps are being made to remedy this issue in other parts of the United States. In July 2011, Cambridge, Massachusetts made the unprecedented move of pay quarterly stipends to city employees in same-sex marriages to help defray federal taxes on health benefits for partners. This move seeks to address the inequality that arises when benefits for opposite sex spouses are not taxed. This patchwork remedy has its heart in the right place, but it does not address the fundamental inequality that gay couples suffer. Changes are necessary at the national level in order to afford rights to gay couples. For now though, action is focused primarily on the state level.

These are some of the issues that will inform the third installment of the series, which will focus on moral and religious dimensions of the debate. Look for that post Friday.

NJ Marriage Equality Part 1: State of the Civil Union

This is the first part of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.
Part 2 will cover polling and statistics, while part 3 will focus on moral and religious issues.

It's time for another shot at marriage equality in New Jersey. The Star Ledger is reporting that a bill to legalize gay marriage is in the works:

In a dramatic gesture, Democratic leaders plan to announce Monday that a bill legalizing gay marriage will be the first measure to be introduced in the new session of the Senate and the Assembly, sources with knowledge of their intentions said tonight.

The unified Democratic leadership represents the best chance supporters will have to see a bill legalizing gay marriage move through both houses, according to three sources who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the plan.

Though the bill stands a chance of passing the state legislature, Governor Chris Christie remains the largest obstacle to marriage equality in New Jersey. He has spoken out against gay marriage in the past, stating on Meet the Press:

I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It's not something that I support. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view, and that'll be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill that - like the one that was in New York.

Indeed, a Democratic legislature failed to pass a similar bill in the waning days of Governor Corzine's governorship in 2009, before the Republican Christie took office.

New Jersey is not alone in wishing to advance the case of marriage equality. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in six states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as the District of Columbia. A May 2008 California Supreme Court decision allowed gay marriage for six months before a move to legislate the matter, Proposition 8, was voted down in November. Maine, the first state to establish same-sex marriage through legislation rather than a court ruling, enjoyed a similar six-month period of legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. The law was overturned via popular vote on a November ballot.

New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois are the only U.S. states that currently permit civil unions, and only New Jersey permit these without attendant anti-gay marriage legislation. Twenty-nine states have such laws. Meanwhile, heterosexual marriage is legal in 50 states, and may be achieved through religious or secular means: the church or the courthouse.

Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?
Some wonder what the big deal is. Doesn't New Jersey already allow civil unions?

It does. The Civil Union Act was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006 and came into effect on February 19, 2007. But the law has failed in achieving its stated goals. The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (CURC), established alongside the legalization of civil unions, found that the New Jersey law is ineffective at affording equal rights to gay couples as those received by married straight couples. New Jersey civil union law does not guarantee federal protection or equal treatment by insurance providers, hospitals, and the government. There have also been problems with requiring private-sector organizations to provide equal services as those offered to married couples.

The CURC issued a report in December 2008 based on the findings of 18 public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony, and hundreds of pages of written submissions from more than 150 witnesses. It concluded:

[T]his Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

The CURC proposed three recommendations to remedy the apparent inequality.

1. It called on the legislature and governor to amend the law to allow couples to marry. 
2. It proposed this law should be “enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey.” 
3. It recommended the continuation of the Domestic Partnership Act, which provides protection to committed though unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples age 62 and over.

This legislation, which affects 4,800 same-sex and 100 opposite-sex couples, guarantees visitation, medical, funeral/autopsy/organ donation rights for domestic partners, as well as tax benefits and pensions benefits.

The commissions findings give a strong case to gay rights advocates because it grounds the argument in legal terms. Civil union legislation has failed to provide the rights and responsibilities it promised, and therefore must be fixed, or another law - such as a gay marriage law - should replace it.

When legislators failed to amend civil union law in 2009, gay rights organizations Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality turned to the courts.

The battle for marriage equality in New Jersey, therefore, is currently being fought both through the legislative and judicial branches of state government. But even a win through the legislature may be blocked by Christie. Even then, gay couples would miss out on federal benefits. So what does the state's population think of all this? That is the topic of the next article in this series, to be posted Wednesday.

Puff Puff? Pass.

[G'day! Can I interest you in stereotypical characterization?]

SYDNEY — A study published Friday in a British medical journal may have uncovered the secret behind Australia's laid-back lifestyle, and it turns out to be more than just sun and surf: The folks Down Under consume more marijuana than any other people on the planet.

That's coming from a Seattle Times article published January 6, "Marijuana use highest in Australia, study finds." It's a report on an article published in the scientific journal, The Lancet, titled "Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease."

The only problem is, the study didn't actually find that Australians (Oceanians in the study) consume more marijuana than any other nation.

Problem 1: The study does not look at net consumption. Rather it considers use percentage, meaning that a higher percentage of people from Oceania use pot than, say, Europeans. It does not indicate that Australia and New Zealand consume more weed than any other nation.

Problem 2: The journalist again fails in accurately explaining the research. The numbers presented in the study are sketchy, because they come from a variety of sources. Consumption of marijuana in Oceania is estimated at a range of 9.3-13.8 percent. North America, meanwhile, is estimated at exactly 10.7 percent, based on official government statistics. This means that at the highest rate of use, Oceania outpuffs North America, while at the lowest rate of use, North America outblazes Oceania.

Besides, if you're going to list the highest estimated percentage of use, west and central Africa wins the weed war hands down, with an estimated 5.2-14.6 percent use rate. This makes perfect sense, right? When most people think "laid back," the first nations that come to mind are the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. Which leads us to...

Problem 3: Stereotyping. It is the journalist's assertion that pot is linked to a society's collective lifestyle. He leaves out that Oceania also topped the list for amphetamines. And if there's one thing you don't want to take to have a laid back shrimp-on-the-barbie-que, it's a central nervous system stimulant.



Why not comment on the North American lifestyle, which has the highest rate of cocaine use (1.9 percent)? The answer is clear: First, an indicator such as drug use is insufficient for explaining broad cultural trends. Second, these cultural trends are themselves stereotypes, whereas the truth defies simple labeling. We saw above that North America has a high use rate of marijuana, but no one would say pot mellows Americans out. America simply isn't perceived that way.

The Seattle Times may have won eight Pulitzer Prizes, but its stereotyped and inaccurate coverage of this story should go up in smoke.