By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
September 28, 2013: Two days ago, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled that the ban on gay marriage in the Garden State violated the rights of same sex couples and she ordered that the State of New Jersey must allow same sex marriage by October 21. Governor Christie said that he would appeal and ask for a stay.
Just to bring you up to date and backtrack a bit: The New Jersey Legislature had passed a gay marriage act in February 2012, but the Governor vetoed it, and the Democratic-dominated State Legislature did not have the votes to override. The Governor has been sympathetic to same sex marriage, but he believes that the question should be decided by the citizens of New Jersey. However, his solution of a referendum was refused by the Legislature.
He said, in 2012, “Since the Legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination.”
In June of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex married couples are entitled to federal benefits. The Court let stand existing gay marriage state laws, but the ruling did not provide federal benefits to those who have civil unions, which we have in New Jersey. So our Civil Union Law does not provide same sex couples with equal protection. Thus, law suits were filed in New Jersey, leading to the NJ Superior Court ruling noted above.
Fast forward to today’s Candidates’ Day in Ocean Grove where those who are running for 11th District seats in the Senate and Assembly in Trenton debated issues and answered questions from a group of about 60 Grovers. Herb Bachmann, a citizen of the Grove, rose to ask Assemblywoman Christine Casagrande (R) about gay marriage in New Jersey.
Ms. Casagrande had not supported a veto overide and if she changed her mind now, it still wouldn’t produce enough votes. But Mr. Bachmann asked her, “Can you evolve on this issue in order to save the state and the taxpayers money?” He didn’t ask the question of the other Republican present, Sen. Jennifer Beck, because she is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
Assemblywoman Casagrande responded by asserting that the issue has become “politicized” and that she supports the Governor in “letting the people decide.”
Mr. Bachmann was unhappy with her answer and he said, “Putting it to a vote is a cop-out.” He said that the Legislature should decide by overriding the Governor’s veto.
Ms. Casagrande followed up by saying, “Marriage is a society construct, so the citizens should decide by a vote.”
Neptune Committeeman Kevin McMillan, one of the Democratic candidates for Assembly, said that he supported gay marriage and that “the government should be out of your bedroom.”
Red Bank Councilman Ed Zipprich, Democratic candidate for Assembly, said that he is in a civil union and “it is important for us to have a legal status.” Note that there now are only two openly gay members in the NJ Legislature. He said that “we are currently denied federal benefits.” He also rejected the idea of a referendum because “the LGBT community is in a minority.”
After that, the moderator concluded the discussion.
Joe, you need only look up “marriage” in Wiki to discover, “Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract.
Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction….”
Consequently, your comments “because marriage is a religious institution that has had its name applied to a legal proceeding…” and “Only religious groups can marry a couple…” is not entirely correct. People have been being married long before any particular religion was around, and marriages are frequently conducted without any religious connotation.
The concept of marriage runs very deep in American law. Not only have heterosexuals enjoyed the term marriage, they have prospered with the dignity and respect and homage that the very word invoked in law. In the last century, our Supreme Court recognized this dignity as a civil right, giving it the highest status in the law. That consistency should not be altered, and should never be. It should be shared with gay couples and their children. One word, one civil right, enjoyed and understood.
Thank you, Joe—I surrender. Anybody want to dive into this semantic situation?
New Jersey needs to move on from the gay marriage issue. We do not hurt other marriages, and our kids needed the support. Time to move ahead, and let bygones be bygones.
Blogfinger:
The federal and state governments grant rights to heterosexual couples. These governments call this legal marriage.
These rights should be extended to all couples regardless of sexual orientation.
However, because marriage is a religious institution that has had its name applied to a legal proceeding, this debate had been hung up on a perversion of vocabulary. My suggestion is to correct this perversion, eliminate the term “marriage” from the governments’ vocabulary, because what they do is not marry people—they legally unite their estates. Only religious groups can marry a couple. So what we knew as legal marriage would become a legal unification.
If any couple wishes to enjoy the LEGAL benefits of this unification: tax breaks, hospital visitation, inheritance and benificiary, etc., they go before a judge or other determined legal authority and receive government recognition of the unification of estates.
If they have personal religious beliefs that they wish to express though a ceremony before a priest/rabbi/imam/pastor/ect then they can do so in an organization of their choosing. But this ceremony has no impact on your standing in the eyes of the law, only in the eyes of God.
“Dump State Senator Jennifer Beck” weighs in.
Sen Beck has already said that her position has evolved and she would vote for the override.
In reply to Ms. or Mr. “Dump State Jennifer Beck”:
Another way at looking at state Senator Jennifer Beck’s position is that she has heard the arguments pro and con, is aware of her constituency, and most important of all, that she realizes that civil rights are for everyone, and that religious or other personal beliefs of some are no reason to deny civil rights. What’s so bad about that? Have you never changed your mind or position on a serious subject?
The good news is that we all get to vote for who we think is the better candidate.
From Bloomberg Business Week October 2: “Governor Chris Christie’s attorney general told the New Jersey Supreme Court that he’s appealing a judge’s ruling that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
“Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman notified the Supreme Court yesterday of the state’s appeal of the Sept. 27 decision by Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson in Trenton. The judge said her order will take effect Oct. 21, which would make New Jersey the 14th U.S. state to allow gay marriages.
“Hoffman said the state will ask Jacobson to put her order on hold. If she refuses, he will ask the appellate division to rule on an emergency basis. If necessary, the state will ask the Supreme Court to stay the order. It may also ask the high court to skip the appellate division and take the case, Hoffman wrote.”
Let’s not give State Senator Jennifer Beck a “pass” on this issue. She voted TWICE against same-sex marriage. Once on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and once in a general senate vote. She only “flip-flopped” when it became politically necessary.
And it became politically necessary when her district was re-configured to include LGBT friendly towns such as Asbury Park and Ocean Grove.
She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
At the August 2013 OGHOA breakfast meeting, Senator Beck succinctly explained her view and support of gay marriage, explaining that is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue, and she is for civil rights for everyone. Wish every elected official was as forthright and plain speaking.
Because marriage is a civil right, voting on it is not appropriate, even though most people in New Jersey support gay civil marriage. The US Court has not yet ruled on whether or not the civil right to marriage that heterosexuals now enjoy (Loving case, Griswold case), also applies to same sex marriages. That question has not been settled by the court. But I think it does.
Dear “Respect,” If your Christian upbringing has led you to not believe in gay marriage, that means that you should not marry a gay person. It has nothing to do with what other people do. Marriage is a legal state that is defined by law, not by clergymen. People get married in churches only because they think it’s nice. Many people do not. It’s not necessary in any way.
As for the comment that Christie’s proposition idea is a “cop out,” that obviously was referring to Christie simply using it to dodge the issue. The court ruling that struck down Proposition 6 in California made it quite clear that the basic human rights of a minority cannot be put up to a simple majority vote. Doing so is committing a tyranny in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
Wisher: To be accurate, Assemblywoman Casagrande said, “Marriage is a society construct, so the citizens should decide by a vote.” That means, I think, that marriage is a complicated concept/construct that evolves in society. It is something that is determined by society, so she thinks that citizens should vote on it.
Maybe religious beliefs are part of that construct, but it seems to me that her comment means that her decisions are not focused on “respecting religious beliefs.”
Of course, she has the opportunity to respond here on Blogfinger, however no state official has ever done so….so far. We can barely (with a couple of exceptions) induce Neptune officials to do so.
Joe: You said, “The government already has determined what a legal union is, they just erroneously call it marriage.”
Please tell me the “government’s” definition of a “legal union.”
Are you referring to the June Supreme Court decision which said that federal benefits should go to same-sex married couples? Last time I looked, it was the states that decide who gets married, and it is only 13 states at this time.
Your proposal doesn’t sound as simple as you say, unless I just don’t get it.
Respect. Legislators should vote according to their respect for the religious beliefs of all of their constituents, not just some of them. For example, some Christian constituents believe gay marriage is God’s plan for marriage.
Religious respect mean this legislator should not try to block he religious beliefs of these Christians.
The government already has determined what a legal union is, they just erroneously call it marriage. That would end. So all couples would receive identical benefits, privileges and protections currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples, we just wouldn’t call or marriage within the government.
Marriage is an inherently religious institution and should not be given any legal significance. They are separate things
You are right, all US citizens are entitled to equal access of the law, not just taxpayers. But gay couples pay a lot more money out of their own pocket just because they don’t have access to the marriage laws. So my point is really that gay couples put so much money into the government, but don’t get the same tax breaks and financial protections as heterosexual couples. That is just one aspect of the unfairness and indignity of keeping marriage laws out of reach. There are others.
We need to respect all views here. There are those who support same sex marriage and there are those who don’t. I believe that all people should be treated with respect and all lifestyle choices that are not harmful to others should be tolerated.
However, an inconvienient truth is that for about 2,000 years, this alternate lifestyle choice, including same-sex marriage, has been considered sinful by most all Christian faiths. I belong to the largest (by number of worldwide believers) Christian faith and this point was reinforced (softly but unmistakenly) in the homily two Sunday’s ago.
Thus, please understand that not everyone believes in “equality” as it applies to marriage. While folks keep a low profile on their views, there is a significant portion of the population who do not support same-sex mariage.
I believe legislators, who understand their constituancies, vote accordingly.
Wisher: There are married couples who don’t pay income taxes. Do they not get “equal access to all of the legal protections?” Please clarify.
Big government should get out of the marriage business and let every couple that wants the protection of the civil marriage laws have them.
If you pay taxes, you should have equal access to all of the legal protections. Privately, people can have any opinion they want. But gay and lesbian taxpayers pay the same, they should get they same. If you get it, I get it.
The person who challenged the Assemblywoman was engaging in public bullying. By asking her to “evolve” was to diminish her opinion compared to his. He knows very well that overturning the veto at this point will not happen.
He wanted to embarrass her, but he failed because she is obviously a confident woman who is courageous enough to stand up to a bully.
In addition, suggesting that she change her vote in the interest of saving money for the taxpayers is being condescending and disingenuous.
So let me get this straight, if someone has a different opinion than what some residents of Ocean Grove have then should be automatically demonized??? You people are ridiculous in all seriousness….this is a free country and guess what, no one has to agree with your life style so just get over it.
If people put this much attention into world hunger then things would be fixed really quickly….
I like that Mr. Bachmann called the most basic tenant of a democratically based society a “cop out”…..
The solution is a simple one but will receive opposition from all sides.
The government eliminates the word “marriage” from its vocabulary. All legal unions are recognized equally in the eyes of the government —to receive the same legal protection.
Marriage is solely the province of religious organizations.
Once a couple receives recognition of their legal union from the government, if they desire a spiritual religious ceremony within their personal beliefs, they are free to do so.
But I feel the gay community wants the word “marriage” and the religious community would see it as degradation of their position in society do it wouldn’t happen
Editors note: But Joe—-who decides what is a “legal union?”
Also, the term “cop out” was used to describe the Assemblywoman’s unwillingness to vote to override the Gov’s veto of the bill approving gay marriage in NJ. I wasn’t sure as to the meaning of your first sentence. —- PG
Simply put: it’s a matter of equality. We should all enjoy those rights granted by federal and state governments. Assemblywoman Casagrande’s position was in
defiance of those rights.
Gay families should have every last ounce of law that straight families have.