Apparently Chris Christie, who's running for governor, doesn't even support CUs, and if elected, would push for a marriage amendment. Check out his "Shared Values" page:
I also believe marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman. While, I have no issue with same sex couples sharing contractual rights, I believe that marriage should remain the exclusive domain of one man and one woman. If a bill legalizing same sex marriage came to my desk as Governor, I would veto it. If the law were changed by judicial fiat, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment on the ballot so that voters, not judges, would decide this important social question.
So ya'll civil unioned peeps in NJ -- this clown wants you to carry a stack of legal contracts in your car, demoted beyond what your relationship already is under separate and unequal status.
They point out that Christie has told the AP that he supports civil unions, in the context of voicing his opposition to Marriage Equality. So does he believe what his website says he does? We know they've deleted the word mandate free from their website, maybe they got rid of civil unions while they were at it.
The NY Times editorial board took on the issue of civil unions yesterday and they didn't mince words:
Civil unions are an inadequate substitute for marriage. Creating a separate, new legal structure to confer some benefits on same-sex couples neither honors American ideals of fairness, nor does it grant true equality. The results are clearly visible in New Jersey, which continues to deny same-sex couples some of the tangible civil benefits that come with marriage.
Shadowed by a national recession and plummeting state revenues, Corzine said issues like enacting gay marriage will be shoved to the sidelines while he tries to stimulate New Jersey's economy and push ethics reform through a reluctant Legislature.
With all due respect, gay people can't marry because the economy sucks and we have ethics problems? They weren't allowed to do it when the economy was good and our ethics problems weren't such public fodder either.
Maybe we should be looking at the potential economic benefits of same sex marriage to help ease some of our budget pain. According to a Williams Institute Study:
Over the next three years, the direct spending from same-sex couples on weddings and tourism will generate approximately $19 million in revenues for state and local governments.
Spending on weddings by couples living in New Jersey, and tourism and weddings by out-of-state couples, will generate over $17.3 million in state and local sales tax revenues and occupancy fee revenues. This estimate is conservative in that it does not include increased revenue from many other taxes that are harder to estimate, such as New Jersey's motor fuels tax, earnings taxes, property taxes, excise tax on alcoholic beverages, or taxes on indirect spending or earnings.
In addition, the weddings of in-state and out-of-state couples will generate approximately $1.6 million in marriage license fees.
Now clearly this wasn't the point the Governor was making above when he talked about priorities. I'm just pointing to the potential economic stimulus. We could use nearly $19 million in additional tax revenues. We also could use the extra $248 million they estimate would come from New Jersey weddings and tourism from same sex couples. Those numbers were also cited in the recently released Civil Union Review Commission final report talking about the fiscal impact of same sex marriages.
Separate from the fiscal impact, the Times also goes after the legislature for not advancing the bill:
We regret that the leaders of the state's Democratic-controlled Legislature do not view this issue with the same urgency. Senate President Richard Codey, for instance, said recently that progress in civil rights areas "is typically achieved in incremental steps." We suspect that political expedience is clouding Mr. Codey's sense of fairness. Next year in New Jersey, the governorship and all seats in the Assembly are up for grabs in an election. Some Republicans already are talking about making their opposition to same-sex marriage a campaign issue.
First, it's a shame yet not surprising that some Republicans are already planning. Any candidate who opposes the issue throw up the same sex marriage "boogeyman" and say if you elect them, you won't have to be afraid because they'll protect you.
Second, I was watching ESPN yesterday and they were talking about integration in the 60's. One of the football players made the point that when a white player got cut, their blood was red, and when a black player got cut, their blood was red too. That really summed up how I feel about this issue. Their blood is red just like everyone else's, so what's the difference?
Supporters of legislation in Vermont to allow same-sex marriage are praising the findings of a New Jersey commission that studied the issue.
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission looked at that state's civil union law - which is very similar to Vermont's - and found it comes up short of offering equality to same-sex couples. The panel recommended that the state pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.
Beth Robinson of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force says the problems the New Jersey panel found with that state's civil union law mirror her group's concerns about Vermont's law.
Vermont will have legislation introduced in their upcoming session, but their Governor opposes the bill. Our Governor supports the measure, we just can't give him the chance to sign it.
Without political courage from our leaders, cohesion within the progressives and (most importantly) support from straight allies, gays and lesbians will be relegated to the back (or middle) of the bus for a long time.
Imagine if the legislature passed a law declaring that cubic zirconias - the synthetic diamond substitutes available on home shopping channels - shall now be considered equal to real diamonds. Would the people of New Jersey ever accept that law? Of course not, and it wouldn't matter if the law had all the pages in the world mandating equal value.
I won't hold my breath for those increased sales of cubic zirconias. Civil Unions on the other hand? As more evidence surfaces of the clear inequities between civil unions and marriage equality, I can only hope that the concept of Civil Unions being seen as an equal subsitute will have seen its day come and go.
On the 100th day since New Jersey's civil unions law went into effect, a tear-soaked audience filled the George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick for the NJ premiere screening of "Freeheld: the Laurel Hester Story" - winner of the 2007 Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival - presented free by Garden State Equality.
There were tears of anger as we relived the Ocean County Freeholders' stonewalling. There were tears of joy when the film depicted Laurel's dramatic victory over intolerance. And of course, there were tears of sadness as we relived Lt. Hester's and her partner Stacie's personal tragedy.
Cynthia Wade deserves much praise for creating this documentary, which moved me beyond expectations. I was thrilled to learn during the panel discussion that followed that the film will be made available for additional New Jersey screenings. Having watched it last night, there are so many people I want to bring to see it. It was that good.
But, something else the audience learned in that panel discussion was also heartbreaking. After all Lt. Hester fought for, ultimately leading to the NJ Supreme Court's decision last fall in favor of "equal" rights for all couples - we learned the fight is still not over. There are still couples out there who are being denied justice, and at least one of those couples was a plaintiff in the NJ marriage case.
