At what financial cost vs. the potential economic benefit?

Fixing Civil Unions (0.00 / 0)

From the news, it appears that the Democrats are not going to pass the marriage equality bill in the Assembly or the Senate.  (Shame on them!)

So the reality is that the only hope to improve the existing state of affairs over the next four years is to try to "fix" the civil union law.  Now, I know it can't be fixed, but some improvements can be made.  And four (eight) years from now, when a new Governor takes over, one will then have a much more compelling case for arguing that the civil union law is unfixable.  Some of the legislators who now favor fixing the law may then become proponents of passing marriage equality.

Short term, this isn't what anyone wants.  But if it results in marriage equality being passed in the next ten years, wouldn't that be a major triumph?  

---

by: princetonblue @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 15:38:00 PM UTC

The hypocrites (4.00 / 2)

if they really wanted to 'strengthen' civil unions, they'd make them available to nongays.

I mean, really, why is something sooo worth strengthening limited to gays only?

We know the reason - they really just want to strengthen and institutionalize an exclusion, not inclusion.

And people like Senator Cardinale haven't really said how folks are supposed to 'teach' civil unions to kids, have they?  In the words of Denzel Washington, "Explain that to me like I was a five year old."

---

by: Amicus @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 15:42:51 PM UTC

Slam-dunk, Amicus (0.00 / 0)

The lack of specifics in their suggestion - or anything else we've heard from those not voting for equality - are telling.

They know it can't be done, because if it could have been done, it would have already been done.

New Jersey deserves better, fairer, law than this.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 16:01:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go ahead, fix it (0.00 / 0)

If efforts to fix the CU law are opposed, it shows bad faith on the part of ME supporters. Why wouldn't we support making CUs more effective, if our goal is to protect same sex couples from discrimination?

Yes, it's a little like upholstering the benches in a Jim Crow waiting room, but still - softer benches ARE better, even if the waiting room is still separate and unequal. We didn't reject CU because it wasn't ME, so let's not reject improving CUs because we aren't getting ME right now.

The fixes will fail, for the same reason that upholstery would fail - separate is still always unequal. And that is really the point of fixing the law - to illustrate that it cannot be fixed.

And about those strong penalties - so how about massive fines for not obeying CU? ABSOLUTELY! If there is any one thing that will illustrate that CUs are unequal, it will be the number of times these fines are levied. And every time it happens, it's another illustration of the principle that CUs don't work. I can think of nothing that will keep the issue in the public spotlight better going forward than monthly news stories about another hospital or business that has been hoist on its own petard by disobeying the CU law. Every opportunity that CU couples have to bring violations to the attention of the AG should be pursued vigorously.

And it's about all we can hope for over the four years, anyway. (I'm pretty confident the Christie admin will be a massive fail).  

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 16:13:30 PM UTC

Whoa (0.00 / 0)

This post isn't about, Let's not fix civil unions because if we can't have marriage we take our balls and go home (pun intended).

It's about not believing cu's are fixable, and knowing our opponents don't really believe it either. And it's absolutely not a suggestion we don't care about little improvements - reupholstering, in your words - to how committed gay couples are living.

We have zero interest in not improving things. Zero interest in cu's failing. We thinnk they already have, and it's not too late for the legislature to recognize it.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 17:13:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think I was saying (0.00 / 0)

any of the things your response to me implies, Rosi.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 17:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't say, don't fix it (0.00 / 0)

I said, don't oppose fixing it. Which is what Jason said, too - go ahead, fix it. It will be too little and it won't address the root cause of the problem - separate is always unequal. But yeah, fix it. And make much stiffer penalties. THAT's excellent.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 17:31:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dennis (0.00 / 0)

I didn't mean to misinterpret what you said. Sorry if I did. And I don't think we're far off.

I'm fine with fixes too - try whatever. But I have a problem with anybody in the state legislature who gets a vote on this deciding his vote is no because he'd rather "fix" than make equal. When I don't see specifics suggested for that "fix" with resources and legislative will to back it up - it just feels like an avoidance of doing the right thing.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 21:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough (0.00 / 0)

If all that can be gotten is the half a loaf of bread in terms of attempting to fix civil unions, then that should be done. We should increase penalties for violating the CU law and takes the steps necessary to attempt a fix if it will remain in place. I still don't think you can fix it, but by all means we should try if that's all that can be done.  

---

by: Jason Springer @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 23:43:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The way to fix it... (0.00 / 0)

...is to let people recognize the right of people to get married, and I'll follow the California Court on that, rather than the NJ court, who looked at it earlier.

They can do what they want, but I'd oppose them calling it "fix it", because it makes the issue seem like one of enforcement, when it is really one of equality at law.

---

by: Amicus @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:21:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Only "FIX" to Civil Unions (0.00 / 0)

Is to call it "Civil Marriage".

Anything else won't work, the legislators in question are either ignorant, or biased, or most likely lack the courage and conviction (read- gonads)  to do the "just and righteous" thing!

It is just that simple!

Babs Siperstein

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 20:20:27 PM UTC

Can we have a CU amnesty program? (0.00 / 0)

For currently married het couples, how about letting us opt into the CU system?  Why do the gays always get to have all the fun?

/snark

Okay, first of all, there is no education necessary - a CU is a marriage (or at least that's the legal excuse for not doing anything).  So, the only approach to take at this point is that "ignorance is no protection."

Second of all, if we are going to punish someone (or a corporate entity) for not observing a CU; then that means we force them to pay a fine.  What would be the penalty for someone failing to observe the full rights obligated for a legal biracial marriage?  Honestly, I don't know what the penalty for failing to honor a marriage is.

Perhaps we should use as a blueprint the sentence handed down to Mildred and Perry Loving by the Commonwealth of Virginia - one year in prison suspended for twenty-five years on the condition that the offending person leave the state.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 22:07:48 PM UTC

Just sayin'... (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 23:41:27 PM UTC

how about recognition of out-of-state marriages? (0.00 / 0)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the difference between NJ's civil union law and NY's civil union law is that if a same-sex couple from NY gets married in CT or Canada or anywhere else, their marriage is recognized as a marriage and not as a civil union, but if a same-sex couple from NJ gets married out-of-state, their marriage is recognized as a civil union, and not a marriage.

While I don't believe that any opponents of marriage equality should be let off the hook by trying to fix civil unions, if marriage equality cannot be passed during lame duck, I wonder if an amendment to the civil union law, recognizing out-of-state marriages as marriages and not civil unions would represent some degree of progress in the fight for marriage equality, provide enough of a stop-gap for same-sex couples who want to marry during the next four years, and establish a foundation for the next stage of the marriage equality fight.

It seems plausible to me that if out-of-state marriages were recognized as marriages in NJ and not civil unions, it could further illustrate the separate and inequal status of civil unions as the experiences of newly married same-sex couples could be compared to the experiences of civil unioned same-sex couples who were unable or unwilling to travel out-of-state to get married as well as the experiences of newly married opposite-sex couples.  If the experiences of married same-sex couples were more like that of married opposite-sex couples than civil unioned same-sex couples, I think that would provide even more confirmation that civil unions are separate and inequal.

Undoubtedly, same-sex couples should not have to leave New Jersey to get married, but it seems to me like this could be the only half-loaf of challah worth eating and while I could be wrong about this as well, I think that an amendment like this could be supported by some electeds who are currently planning to vote against marriage equality, because a vote in favor of this amendment could be spun as not changing the current definition of marriage as it pertains to existing state law and its implementation by municipalities as much as it provides recognition of all out-of-state marriage licenses independent of the gender of the married individuals, which would give these cowards just enough cover to be able to vote for it.

Mind you, I only see this idea as a last ditch effort if there are no circumstances of any kind under which marriage equality legislation could pass during lame duck.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 08:16:00 AM UTC