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 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.