|
Promoted from the diaries by Rosi - First of all, Assemblyman, thank you for your leadership. And if there are any others in our legislature supporting Reed's bill who would like to make their thoughts known here, we'd welcome that. This makes a great point, so thanks for writing it, Assemblyman! - The author represents the 15th Legislative District in the New Jersey General Assembly.
In the coming weeks, the NJ Legislature is poised to consider my bill, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act," which would grant same gendered couples the right to marry in our state. While there is ample opinion on all sides of the issue, those fearing a degradation or diminishment of the "institution of marriage" should be rest assured that their marriages will survive. In fact, I have a good suggestion for those wanting to preserve their wedding vows: STAY MARRIED!
At its core, the ability to get married is a civil act governed by state law. Just ask anyone who has applied for a marriage license at city hall, whether they walk down the aisle of a church or the courthouse. All such persons must first meet the qualifications set forth by state law to receive a marriage license. Marriage equality advocates simply hold out that because marriage is a right conferred by the government, it should be done on an equitable basis, including the recognition of same gender unions.
Moreover, civil marriages have a longstanding tradition in this country. The first wedding in the Plymouth Colony was a civil marriage performed by Governor Bradford and, surprisingly, not a religious ceremony. Many marriages in colonial times were merely a product of a contractual agreement and it is only in the last 400 years that the concept of marriage evolved as something other than a support and dependency arrangement. For example, it was not too far back that women were required to convey a "dowry" to the husband's family.
While social conservatives continue to ignore the prevalence and acceptance of divorce, the "institution of marriage" has certainly changed since colonial days. We no longer consider the wife as property and she is very much an equal partner. We no longer have a legal ban on interracial marriages and we no longer frown on interfaith marriages.
Further, the state still recognizes "arranged" marriages from other nations and common law marriages from jurisdictions that allow them.
This begs the question; what type of "traditional" marriage is actually being defended. We would not want to ask Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani or their six (6) combined brides, nor would we turn to Brittany Spears to discuss her 72-hour nuptials in Las Vegas.
The social conservatives who are the opponents of marriage equality have also never been able to describe what actual harm results when the state government allows civil marriages between same-sex couples. Should we ban all marriages at city hall or the courthouse steps as well, because they are not performed in a religious setting or to our liking?
Additionally, attitudes on the concept of marriage have changed. A recent poll on same-sex marriages found that young people in the age group of 18 to 29 - the very group that will do most of the marrying in the next few years - overwhelmingly support the state's recognition of such unions. Equally surprising is that Massachusetts, one of five states that now allow same gender marriages, has the lowest divorce rate of any state. Canada, which has allowed same-sex couples to marry for years (varying by province), also has a divorce rate that is half from that of the United States.
Yet although the bill would govern civil marriages recognized by the state, religious institutions are fully protected to make their own decision whether to solemnize such unions. Even the language of the bill emphasizes that "[n]o member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this State shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution." Nowhere under current law do we require a Church or Synagogue to recognize divorce or require them to perform a subsequent wedding for that couple. Accordingly just as religious institutions can disregard or ignore our civil divorce laws, they may continue to discern who will get married under their religious doctrine.
In the end, no one person or group can claim to have come up with a definitive definition of what constitutes a marriage. It has evolved over time.
Today, marriage gives individuals over 800 legal rights, including the right to visit a sick or dying partner in a hospital, get healthcare coverage through work, or file joint tax returns and own property together. Many same sex couples also have children, either biologically or through adoption, and denying their parent's right to marry is denying them an opportunity to strengthen their family structure through a civil marriage.
As long as we are a nation of laws dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state, the Legislature is the proper place to define our marriage laws on equitable terms. Now is the time for New Jersey to update the civil marriage laws so they are truly fair, equal and reflect our ever changing society.
|
.gif)
