The Civil Unions Review Commission report to be issued tomorrow makes painfully clear that civil unions aren't providing equality for New Jersey families. They simply don't work, and no amount of tweaking, phone calls and letters from the Governor, or lapse of time can fix a fundamentally flawed system explicitly designed to set up a separate, second-class status of citizens.
The CURC's report is based in part on testimony from real families that have been denied equality as a result of the Civil Union Act. That testimony spanned many hours over the course of three public hearings, but the 21 page report contains just a fraction of those stories.
But anyone who doubts how real this problem is can see for themselves by visiting CivilUnionsDon'tWork.com. It's a new website by Garden State Equality that contains more than 80 youtube videos with over 8 hours of testimony on how civil unions have affected New Jersey families. Check it out, and then tell your legislators that it's time for marriage equality.
I attended the public hearing in New Brunswick, and I thought this was one of the more moving stories:
The Civil Union Review Commission is scheduled to release it's first report tomorrow. We told you about the report's conclusions yesterday and tonight we're bringing you the whole thing:
Much more to come tomorrow. Until then, this is Lynn Fontaine Newsome, president of the NJ Bar Association, speaking at the first public hearing of the Civil Union Review Commission:
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission is scheduled to issue its first interim report on Tuesday. Blue Jersey has obtained a copy of the report.
The report, which was approved unanimously by all commission members, concludes that civil unions have created a "second-class status" for gay couples, and that "[a]ccording to the testimony, the Civil Union Act amounts to a tacit endorsement of discriminatory treatment."
These are the 10 conclusions of the Commission:
1. 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.
2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.
3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.
6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.
8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color.
9. 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.
10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.
We'll hear more about this on Tuesday, but I want to consider two of these points briefly.
The Civil Union Act puts the men and women of our armed forces in an untenable position. If they say that they are in a civil union, they are stating that they are gay and violating the military policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," which will get them fired. If they hide this fact, they are potentially denying their partners the protections and benefits offered by civil unions.
A lawyer testified at one of the commission hearings that one of her clients was married and later underwent sexual reassignment surgery. The couple and family remained together, but New Jersey now considers that person to be of a new gender. So are they now a legally married same-sex couple, or does the state believe that a surgical procedure invalidates their marriage?
To me, this last example, although a rare one, captures the essence of what is wrong with this entire debate. We've created a legal ambiguity where there needn't be one. If two people are good enough to get married, a surgical procedure shouldn't change that fact. It's a scary slippery slope we should step away from. Otherwise the state must answer questions such as: Are civil marriages just about sexual organs? (if so, are those born with ambiguous sexual organs denied the right to marry anyone?) Is the ability to reproduce a requirement to enter a civil marriage in New Jersey? What about intent to reproduce? How long do they have to prove that and what happens if they don't? Once the ability or intent to reproduce no longer exists, is the marriage down-graded to a civil union or nullified?
These questions are admittedly ridiculous because this entire debate is ridiculous to begin with. Denying loving couples the right to marry is un-American. As well-intentioned as civil unions may be, we're seeing more clearly every day that the creation of a second-class status is fundamentally incompatible with our legal system and American values of justice, equality, freedom and security.
But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll just finish here with the testimony that Lynn Fontaine Newsome, President of the New Jersey State Bar Association, gave to the Civil Union Review Commission:
We believe the civil union law created a burdensome and flawed statutory scheme that fails to afford same-sex couples the same rights and remedies provided to heterosexual married couples as required ... by the New Jersey Supreme Court and its landmark Lewis v. Harris decision.
From the Bar's perspective, civil unions are a failed experiment. They have shown to perpetuate unacceptable second-class legal status. Members of the Bar Association tell me more stories of the countless additional hours of work that must go into representing gays, lesbians, bisexual clients and their families.
