NJ Commission Finds Civil Unions Are Not Equal

[Jesuslove]

From my home state today......

NJ commission says state should allow gay marriage
By GEOFF MULVIHILL – 13 hours ago

CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) — A commission has concluded that New Jersey legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the state should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.

In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state's Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state's two-year-old civil union law doesn't do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

"This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the report says. The findings of the commission's 13 members were unanimous.
The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

"The commission's report should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society's last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents," said Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., a Democrat from Camden and one of the key figures in setting the Legislature's agenda.

Robert Corrales, a spokesman for Gov. Jon S. Corzine, said the governor would not comment on the report until it was presented. But in the past, Corzine has said that he would sign a bill allowing gay marriage.

Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states to allow gay marriage, and both were ordered to do so by their highest courts. Earlier this year, California's high court said it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry, but the decision was trumped by a constitutional amendment approved by voters last month.

Gay marriage opponents criticized the report, saying the commission was made up of members who favored gay marriage and calling its recommendations predetermined.

"If you look at the membership of that committee, they're all advocates. It's an advocacy group," Pat Brannigan, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage New Jersey Catholic Conference, said Tuesday. "It doesn't mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to."

Steven Goldstein, the commission's vice chairman and the chairman of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay rights group, said that while there are some activists like him on the commission, it was a diverse group.

Six of the 13 members are members of the Corzine administration, which Goldstein points out went to court in 2006 to oppose gay marriage. The other seven are members of the public, including one Goldstein described as a "pro-life Republican," AnnLynne Benson of Clementon.

Benson, who confirmed that she is Republican and opposes abortion, said Tuesday that her views about gays have evolved over the past 15 years or so as she has met more gay people. She said the point of the commission was not to wrestle with whether the state Supreme Court was right to allow civil unions in 2006, but whether the unions delivered on their intent.

Benson said the commission gathered plenty of public comment at a series of hearings before deciding to issue the report.

Of the 150 people who testified or wrote letters to the commission, only 10 opposed allowing gay couples to marry. Some opposed gay marriage on religious grounds and some — including Brannigan — argued that civil unions were working well.

The report cited another study that found that allowing gay marriage in New Jersey would help the state in lean economic times, too: It estimated that gay weddings would add nearly $250 million to the state's economy over three years.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from prosecutors and attorneys for six gay couples and three of their children over a district court's decision to overturn that state's gay-marriage ban last year. Only one gay couple managed to marry before the judge who issued the ruling stayed his decision.

Prosecutors argued that the ruling overturning the ban violated the separation of powers because the gay marriage issue should be left up to state lawmakers to decide, not the courts.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued their clients should have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have.

It could take a year or more before a ruling is issued, attorneys involved in the case said.

[Jesuslove]

Here's a summary of some of the commissions findings....

For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.

The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.

Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.

The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.

Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.

Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.

Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color.

The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.

[VerbumReale]

From my home state today......

NJ commission says state should allow gay marriage
By GEOFF MULVIHILL – 13 hours ago

CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) — A commission has concluded that New Jersey legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the state should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.

In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state's Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state's two-year-old civil union law doesn't do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

"This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the report says. The findings of the commission's 13 members were unanimous.
The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

"The commission's report should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society's last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents," said Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., a Democrat from Camden and one of the key figures in setting the Legislature's agenda.

Robert Corrales, a spokesman for Gov. Jon S. Corzine, said the governor would not comment on the report until it was presented. But in the past, Corzine has said that he would sign a bill allowing gay marriage.

Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states to allow gay marriage, and both were ordered to do so by their highest courts. Earlier this year, California's high court said it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry, but the decision was trumped by a constitutional amendment approved by voters last month.

Gay marriage opponents criticized the report, saying the commission was made up of members who favored gay marriage and calling its recommendations predetermined.

"If you look at the membership of that committee, they're all advocates. It's an advocacy group," Pat Brannigan, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage New Jersey Catholic Conference, said Tuesday. "It doesn't mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to."

Steven Goldstein, the commission's vice chairman and the chairman of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay rights group, said that while there are some activists like him on the commission, it was a diverse group.

Six of the 13 members are members of the Corzine administration, which Goldstein points out went to court in 2006 to oppose gay marriage. The other seven are members of the public, including one Goldstein described as a "pro-life Republican," AnnLynne Benson of Clementon.

Benson, who confirmed that she is Republican and opposes abortion, said Tuesday that her views about gays have evolved over the past 15 years or so as she has met more gay people. She said the point of the commission was not to wrestle with whether the state Supreme Court was right to allow civil unions in 2006, but whether the unions delivered on their intent.

Benson said the commission gathered plenty of public comment at a series of hearings before deciding to issue the report.

Of the 150 people who testified or wrote letters to the commission, only 10 opposed allowing gay couples to marry. Some opposed gay marriage on religious grounds and some — including Brannigan — argued that civil unions were working well.

The report cited another study that found that allowing gay marriage in New Jersey would help the state in lean economic times, too: It estimated that gay weddings would add nearly $250 million to the state's economy over three years.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from prosecutors and attorneys for six gay couples and three of their children over a district court's decision to overturn that state's gay-marriage ban last year. Only one gay couple managed to marry before the judge who issued the ruling stayed his decision.

Prosecutors argued that the ruling overturning the ban violated the separation of powers because the gay marriage issue should be left up to state lawmakers to decide, not the courts.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued their clients should have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have.

It could take a year or more before a ruling is issued, attorneys involved in the case said.

The vice-chair is the chairman of gay-activist group and he admits that there are other activists like him in the group. He tries to suggest that it is "diverse" simply because there are six previous members of an administration that at one time opposed gay-marriage. That means nothing. Just because the administration as a whole might have been opposed to it, that definitely does not mean that these individuals were also opposed. And then seven other individuals were from the "general public." But that's OK because one person is described as pro-life (as if that has anything to do with this) whose views on hmosexuality have "evolved."

The deck on this commission is so clearly stacked. Gimme a break!! This is pathetic. All it takes for the agenda of a committee like this to be dictated is two or three people with an agenda, a little indecision mixed with a little apathy and there you have it.

This was a commission on civil-unions. If they have concluded that civil-unions aren't equal then why should the reccomendation be that gay couples be allowed to get married? Why not come up with a proposal to reform the civil-union laws? After all it is a commission on civil unions. No, no agenda there. This is so transparent.

[Jesuslove]

. No, no agenda there. This is so transparent.

1. The Commission was unanimous.
2. The NJ Supreme court ruled 4-3 three years ago that all relationships must be treated equal.
3. There has been proven unequal treatment to those who have had civil unions. The documents reviewed by this commission prove it. I know of one specific example that has oft been debated.

Why is anyone who disagrees with someone's opinion an activist? And I mean that to anyone who uses the word activist. Was Martin Luther King an activist because he stood up for civil rights?

The bottom line is that Governor Corzine will usher in gay marriage because there is overwhelming evidence that "separate but equal" is not equal after all.

[Pouye]

This was a commission on civil-unions. If they have concluded that civil-unions aren't equal then why should the reccomendation be that gay couples be allowed to get married? Why not come up with a proposal to reform the civil-union laws? After all it is a commission on civil unions. No, no agenda there. This is so transparent.

Agreed. Leave marriage to how God defines marriage:

“At last!” Adam exclaimed. “She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of a man.” This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." Genesis 2:23

This is also how every culture and people since the beginning of Homo sapiens have defined marriage, I might add. Every culture has marriage, and every culture for at least 6,000 years (or longer) has defined marriage as something that happens between males and females only.

I agree that civil union laws need to possibly be reformed, but I don't believe that marriage needs to be redefined by a panel made up of a few gay activists.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Why is anyone who disagrees with someone's opinion an activist? .

It wasn't my words it was the vice-chair's. He referred to himself and others on the group as activists. Like it or not, the deck was stacked.

[Jesuslove]

Agreed. Leave marriage to how God defines marriage:

“At last!” Adam exclaimed. “She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of a man.” This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." Genesis 2:23

This is also how every culture and people since the beginning of Homo sapiens have defined marriage, I might add. Every culture has marriage, and every culture for at least 6,000 years (or longer) has defined marriage as something that happens between males and females only.

I agree that civil union laws need to possibly be reformed, but I don't believe that marriage needs to be redefined by a panel made up of a few gay activists.

Rock

I wouldn't call the govenor an activist. He supports marriage. And wouldn't you refer to ancient peoples as heterosapiens? JK!

Times change. 100 years ago, women and blacks had few civil rights. And the Bible was used to justify women being submissive to their husbands, and slavery being acceptable.

[Jesuslove]

It wasn't my words it was the vice-chair's. He referred to himself and others on the group as activists. Like it or not, the deck was stacked.

Even if the deck was stacked, there was overwhelming evidence that civil unions were not legally the same as marriage. One can't deny the evidence presented.

In the NJ Supreme Court ruling, the three dessenting judges said the union of two men or two women must be called "marriage". The majority (4 judges) said the state MUST provide an absolute equal relationship form, thus civil unions were created by the legislature. Now that it has been proven that "separate but equal" is not equal, then logically, marriage would be the next step.

[VerbumReale]

Even if the deck was stacked, there was overwhelming evidence that civil unions were not legally the same as marriage. One can't deny the evidence presented.

In the NJ Supreme Court ruling, the three dessenting judges said the union of two men or two women must be called "marriage". The majority (4 judges) said the state MUST provide an absolute equal relationship form, thus civil unions were created by the legislature. Now that it has been proven that "separate but equal" is not equal, then logically, marriage would be the next step.

Since when do Supreme Court justices defne marriage?? You can justify this all you want but this is nothing but judicial activism at it's worse. Nobody is being denied the right to marriage, but marriage is one man and one woman. This is about re-defining an institution. Nobody has the "right" to de-define an institution.

Nothing has been proven except that these homosexual activists are self-absorbed. To even use the phrase "separate but equal" is insulting to African-Americans and other minorities who endured discrimination during pre civil-rights America, which is of course where the phrase originated.

Homosexuals not being allowed to re-define marriage isn't even in the same ballpark as African-Americans being forced to ride in the back of a bus and the homosexual community should be ashamed that some of there bretheren are making that comparison.

[Jesuslove]

Since when do Supreme Court justices defne marriage?? You can justify this all you want but this is nothing but judicial activism at it's worse. Nobody is being denied the right to marriage, but marriage is one man and one woman. This is about re-defining an institution. Nobody has the "right" to de-define an institution.
They didn't. The court said the legislators must grant something equal to marriage. It will be the legislature in NJ, the first legislature in the nation, which will enact marriage equality in NJ. And in NJ, polls show it has the support of the general population.

Nothing has been proven except that these homosexual activists are self-absorbed. To even use the phrase "separate but equal" is insulting to African-Americans and other minorities who endured discrimination during pre civil-rights America, which is of course where the phrase originated.
In my opinion, there are Christian activists that want to deny some taxpaying American citizens equal rights. That is just wrong. We do have a separation of church and state in America. I did not coin the term "separate but equal". The NJ legislature used those words when putting civil unions in place. I did not know the "separate but equal" term came from AA civil rights.

Homosexuals not being allowed to re-define marriage isn't even in the same ballpark as African-Americans being forced to ride in the back of a bus.

I surely never said it was. But in my opinion, discrimination of any kind is wrong.

[VerbumReale]

They didn't. The court said the legislators must grant something equal to marriage. It will be the legislature in NJ, the first legislature in the nation, which will enact marriage equality in NJ. And in NJ, polls show it has the support of the general population.


In my opinion, there are Christian activists that want to deny some taxpaying American citizens equal rights. That is just wrong. We do have a separation of church and state in America. I did not coin the term "separate but equal". The NJ legislature used those words when putting civil unions in place. I did not know the "separate but equal" term came from AA civil rights.



I surely never said it was. But in my opinion, discrimination of any kind is wrong.

Fair enough and I didn't mean to make it seem like I was projecting the words of the NJ legislature on to you.

But again, this is not about discrimination this about re-defining an instution. If the commission had stuck to their job and focused on civil unions and how the civil union laws can be reformed so as to allow for all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage then homosexuals would have all the rights that come with marriage. They just would have been denied their demand that marriage be re-defined, which is not a right.

[Jesuslove]

Fair enough and I didn't mean to make it seem like I was projecting the words of the NJ legislature on to you.

But again, this is not about discrimination this about re-defining an instution. If the commission had stuck to their job and focused on civil unions and how the civil union laws can be reformed so as to allow for all the same rights and priveleges that come with marriage then homosexuals would have all the rights that come with marriage. They just would have been denied their demand that marriage be re-defined, which is not a right.

I understand what you are saying. Let me give you an example though. A GLBT person can be in the military under DADT. If that person enters a civil union, they have just outed themself and could lose their job. But if that same person were allowed to marry legally, then there would be no reason to ask any questions. This is just one small example of how civil unions are "less than" marriage.

[Jason]

I understand what you are saying. Let me give you an example though. A GLBT person can be in the military under DADT. If that person enters a civil union, they have just outed themself and could lose their job. But if that same person were allowed to marry legally, then there would be no reason to ask any questions. This is just one small example of how civil unions are "less than" marriage.

I don't understand. Wouldn't marrying a same sex person be just as much of an outing?

[VerbumReale]

I understand what you are saying. Let me give you an example though. A GLBT person can be in the military under DADT. If that person enters a civil union, they have just outed themself and could lose their job. But if that same person were allowed to marry legally, then there would be no reason to ask any questions. This is just one small example of how civil unions are "less than" marriage.

That is a weak argument at best.

Unless civil unions are restricted to gays than a civil union will in no way mandate a gay person being outed. They could very well be a straight atheist who objects to the religious nature of marriages. Regardless that could easily be remedied by simply lumping the are you married or are you in a civil union question (Which I don't think there is one) into one category so as to fall in line with DADT.

[Jesuslove]

I don't understand. Wouldn't marrying a same sex person be just as much of an outing?

Because if someone says "I'm civil unioned", you know they are gay. "If someone says, "I'm married", then you won't be able to tell if marriage rights were granted. Good question though.

[Jesuslove]

That is a weak argument at best.

Unless civil unions are restricted to gays than a civil union will in no way mandate a gay person being outed. They could very well be a straight atheist who objects to the religious nature of marriages. Regardless that could easily be remedied by simply lumping the are you married or are you in a civil union question (Which I don't think there is one) into one category so as to fall in line with DADT.

Well they are. Heterosexuals aren't granted civil unions, I don't think. Heterosexuals just get married.

While you are right this argument is weak, this is one of many similar arguments that were made to the commission where citizens were able to prove their civil union wasn't giving them access to the same rights as a marriage.

[Jesuslove]

follow up comment from a commission member...... and you'll see the commission wasn't stacked....

....But the heart of today’s report is its delineation of the harm that New Jersey’s civil union law has pro-actively inflicted upon same-sex couples.

“I’m a pro-life Republican and past Director of Gloucester County Right-to-Life,” said Commission member AnnLynne Benson on the release of today’s report, “so I know the diversity of this Commission. Our report demonstrates in exquisite detail why amending New Jersey’s law to extend marriage to same-sex couples is a necessity. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that ‘denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantee and can no longer be tolerated under our State constitution.’ Implementation of that ruling by the invention of a parallel status failed to deliver equality. It was like planting a toothpick and hoping a tree would grow.”

According to the final report, the civil union law’s harm to same-sex couples includes:

The inability of a number of same-sex partners to visit one another in the hospital, and to make medical decisions for one another, because hospitals don’t accept civil unions as equal to marriage. The Commission’s final report begins with the story of Naomi and Gina, a couple in Montclair, New Jersey who had a humiliating and life-threatening experience at a hospital. Gina was admitted to the emergency room with cardiac arrhythmia, unable to give consent for treatment. When Naomi arrived and said she was Gina’s partner, the doctor interrogated Naomi about the nature of the relationship and initially kept Naomi away from Gina and refused to let her give consent for Gina. The report has other stories like this.

“Significant psychological damage” to the children raised same-sex couples because their families are given the stigmatizing label of civil union; and to LGBT youth who view themselves as inferior because they cannot marry. “Their heartbreaking testimony,” the report states, “brings to life their struggle in a way that no numbers -- whether complaints filed with government agencies or advocacy organizations -- can encapsulate on their own.” As Dr. Marshall Forstein, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified: “Second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states in the form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety, depression and substance use disorders in marginalized populations.”

The denial of health insurance by employers to same-sex partners, especially harmful during the current economic crisis. Today’s final report underscores what the Commission’s interim report of February 2008 found, that the federal Employment Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA) preempts the New Jersey Civil Union law for approximately 50 percent of all employers in the state. For that 50 percent, providing equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples under the civil union law is an option rather than a requirement.

[VerbumReale]

follow up comment from a commission member...... and you'll see the commission wasn't stacked....

....But the heart of today’s report is its delineation of the harm that New Jersey’s civil union law has pro-actively inflicted upon same-sex couples.

“I’m a pro-life Republican and past Director of Gloucester County Right-to-Life,” said Commission member AnnLynne Benson on the release of today’s report, “so I know the diversity of this Commission. Our report demonstrates in exquisite detail why amending New Jersey’s law to extend marriage to same-sex couples is a necessity. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that ‘denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantee and can no longer be tolerated under our State constitution.’ Implementation of that ruling by the invention of a parallel status failed to deliver equality. It was like planting a toothpick and hoping a tree would grow.”

According to the final report, the civil union law’s harm to same-sex couples includes:

The inability of a number of same-sex partners to visit one another in the hospital, and to make medical decisions for one another, because hospitals don’t accept civil unions as equal to marriage. The Commission’s final report begins with the story of Naomi and Gina, a couple in Montclair, New Jersey who had a humiliating and life-threatening experience at a hospital. Gina was admitted to the emergency room with cardiac arrhythmia, unable to give consent for treatment. When Naomi arrived and said she was Gina’s partner, the doctor interrogated Naomi about the nature of the relationship and initially kept Naomi away from Gina and refused to let her give consent for Gina. The report has other stories like this.

“Significant psychological damage” to the children raised same-sex couples because their families are given the stigmatizing label of civil union; and to LGBT youth who view themselves as inferior because they cannot marry. “Their heartbreaking testimony,” the report states, “brings to life their struggle in a way that no numbers -- whether complaints filed with government agencies or advocacy organizations -- can encapsulate on their own.” As Dr. Marshall Forstein, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified: “Second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states in the form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety, depression and substance use disorders in marginalized populations.”

The denial of health insurance by employers to same-sex partners, especially harmful during the current economic crisis. Today’s final report underscores what the Commission’s interim report of February 2008 found, that the federal Employment Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA) preempts the New Jersey Civil Union law for approximately 50 percent of all employers in the state. For that 50 percent, providing equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples under the civil union law is an option rather than a requirement.


I am supposed to be convinced that the deck wasn't stacked because a member on the commission who happens to be a pro-life Republican simply parrots what the chairperson says? Her views on abortion have nothing to do with this. Sorry, the evidence is still overwhelming. The deck is stacked.

As far as the visitation rights in hospitals, isurance issues etc, again that can be addressed by reforming civil-union laws.

As far as the "psychological damage" related to the "stigmatizing label" of civil unions. The only place where the union would by law have to be called a civil-union is the form that goes to the county. Sadly, there are plenty of churches that would be willing to do the ceremony and call it a marriage. Nothing is stopping the couple from calling it a marriage and raising their kids to believe that it is a marriage. I wonder how much of the psyschological damage is perpetuated by the parents themselves who play the victim. If they really believe that their union constitutes a marriage then a more positive way to apprach it, for the sake of the kids, would be to be married in a church that will call civil-unions marriage and teach their kids that it is a marriage and that people should not need their relatisnhips validated by the state. Now, obviously that is relfective of a view of gay marraige that I don't support, but given the circumstances I think it would go much further in perpetuating a positive self-image for the kids than constantly pointing the finger at opponents of gay-marriage and saying "They're evil hate-mongers who are just afraid of us."

And really c'mon do you really think any ridicule that children of gay parents have to endure has anything to do with what the parents relationship is called. The ridicule is because the parents are gay and it is going to be there regardless of what the state calls their parents relatiosnhip. And no I am not saying that justifies the ridicule in any way. While my kids, when old enough, will know my views on this, I also teach them to treat all people with courtesy and respect. But, it is what it is. Prejudice and hatred are out there.

[VerbumReale]

Well they are. Heterosexuals aren't granted civil unions, I don't think. Heterosexuals just get married.

While you are right this argument is weak, this is one of many similar arguments that were made to the commission where citizens were able to prove their civil union wasn't giving them access to the same rights as a marriage.

Well if they aren't entitled to straight people, and actually after some research I think you might be right, that could be another one of the reforms to civil union laws.

[Jesuslove]

As far as the visitation rights in hospitals, isurance issues etc, again that can be addressed by reforming civil-union laws.
This was attempted with the existing civil union laws and it didn't work.

And really c'mon do you really think any ridicule that children of gay parents have to endure has anything to do with what the parents relationship is called. The ridicule is because the parents are gay and it is going to be there regardless of what the state calls their parents relatiosnhip. And no I am not saying that justifies the ridicule in any way. While my kids, when old enough, will know my views on this, I also teach them to treat all people with courtesy and respect. But, it is what it is. Prejudice and hatred are out there.

NJ has the strongest anti-bullying laws in America. That being said, there is still a lot that takes place. I agree that no one should be bullied for any reason, whether they be gay, or have gay parents, or are disabled or black, etc. etc. You are right.... it is SO important to teach tolerance to our children, just as we want our children to be tolerated and respected by others. I pray your son will never be ridiculed. It's just wrong.

Preachers walk a fine line. It's one thing to tell children to respect others, but when you are telling kids that some deserve rights and some don't, you walk a fine line. How do you explain to kids that you must respect those with differing opinions, yet they are not worthy of being granted equal rights. What message is that really sending?

I was bullied as a child because I was extremely small and I was one of the youngest kids in my class. It got so bad that my parents had to pay to put me in private school. I think there was a lesson in Columbine that was missed..bullying and harassment of any type is wrong.

[VerbumReale]

This was attempted with the existing civil union laws and it didn't work.



NJ has the strongest anti-bullying laws in America. That being said, there is still a lot that takes place. I agree that no one should be bullied for any reason, whether they be gay, or have gay parents, or are disabled or black, etc. etc. You are right.... it is SO important to teach tolerance to our children, just as we want our children to be tolerated and respected by others. I pray your son will never be ridiculed. It's just wrong.

Preachers walk a fine line. It's one thing to tell children to respect others, but when you are telling kids that some deserve rights and some don't, you walk a fine line. How do you explain to kids that you must respect those with differing opinions, yet they are not worthy of being granted equal rights. What message is that really sending?

I was bullied as a child because I was extremely small and I was one of the youngest kids in my class. It got so bad that my parents had to pay to put me in private school. I think there was a lesson in Columbine that was missed..bullying and harassment of any type is wrong.

I agree with you about the dangers and I would even say evil of bullying. My oldest son has been bullied and it breaks my heart. So we are in agreement there.

But as far as your question about how I can teach kids to respect those with differing opinions yet they are not worthy of being granted equal rights. In the interest of keeping this civil I think we are just going to have to concede that we have reached a breaking point. I just don't see this as an issue of people being denied rights. I see it as an issue pertaining to the question of how we define marriage.

Obviously there is some serious work that needs to be done with civil union laws so they are equal in rights and privelges to marriage. But I do not think refusing to re-define marriage for a particular community is the same as denying them rights. Apparently you disagree. Well you are not the only one. So, with respect I am going to just say I have enjoyed the conversation but at this point, let's just agree to disagree.

[Pouye]

This was attempted with the existing civil union laws and it didn't work.


That's interesting. I think they need some better people doing this, because it really isn't that hard. You just find out what civil union laws are not adequate and you work to change them so they are adequate. I have some experience with this, by the way. I'm not a lawmaker, but I've been part of an Executive Committee who had the task to write some of the laws that to this day affect the lives of hundreds of people in the organisation I serve with. "We tried and it didn't work" is usually cop-out.


What else is interesting is that there are not only "pros" when it comes to getting married, but also cons (legally). For instance, if there is a divorce one party can't just walk away with "my own stuff" and leave. All property will be divided equally (50-50) by the court if the parties are not able to come to an agreement. If there are children involved, there will be a custody situation that involves mandatory child support. If there aren't children involved, there still might be alimony support to be paid for a length of time, including the garnishment of wages. Most married couples have no idea what laws bind them if they do, in fact, divorce. Gays always want to talk about the benefits of trying to redefine marriage for the whole world, but never the cons.

Rock

[Pouye]

I agree with you about the dangers and I would even say evil of bullying. My oldest son has been bullied and it breaks my heart. So we are in agreement there.

But as far as your question about how I can teach kids to respect those with differing opinions yet they are not worthy of being granted equal rights. In the interest of keeping this civil I think we are just going to have to concede that we have reached a breaking point. I just don't see this as an issue of people being denied rights. I see it as an issue pertaining to the question of how we define marriage.

Obviously there is some serious work that needs to be done with civil union laws so they are equal in rights and privelges to marriage. But I do not think refusing to re-define marriage for a particular community is the same as denying them rights. Apparently you disagree. Well you are not the only one. So, with respect I am going to just say I have enjoyed the conversation but at this point, let's just agree to disagree.

I agree with you, too.

Rock

[Jesuslove]

What else is interesting is that there are not only "pros" when it comes to getting married, but also cons (legally). For instance, if there is a divorce one party can't just walk away with "my own stuff" and leave. All property will be divided equally (50-50) by the court if the parties are not able to come to an agreement. If there are children involved, there will be a custody situation that involves mandatory child support. If there aren't children involved, there still might be alimony support to be paid for a length of time, including the garnishment of wages. Most married couples have no idea what laws bind them if they do, in fact, divorce. Gays always want to talk about the benefits of trying to redefine marriage for the whole world, but never the cons.
Rock

Marriage does come with rights as well as responsibilities. However not all states require property be divided 50-50. I think an agreement such as marriage, making people more responsible, is a good thing.

[Howlin' Wolf]

JL, are you gonna have some gay sit ins and gay protests? I havent seen someone this passionate about civil rights since MLK. You can be the gay- MLK!

[Pouye]

Marriage does come with rights as well as responsibilities. However not all states require property be divided 50-50. I think an agreement such as marriage, making people more responsible, is a good thing.

Marriage doesn't make people more responsible.

But not only that, there are already laws for meretricious relationships, and I don't agree that a very small population of people should define marriage for the rest of humanity as anything but how it has been defined for at least 6,000 years in every cultural and on every continent of the earth (not to mention the God of the Bible).

Rock

[mcgreen311]

JL, are you gonna have some gay sit ins and gay protests? I havent seen someone this passionate about civil rights since MLK. You can be the gay- MLK!

Harvey Milk might be more appropriate, plus it has similar letters. [/random drive post]