In New Jersey...

[Rex Kickass]

As you may have heard, New Jersey's top White Sox fan Jon Corzine did not win reelection last month. However, he's still the governor for another month or so - and the NJ Senate and Legislature is currently in a lame duck session. On the docket? Marriage Equality.

 

This right was overturned in Maine on Election Day. It was up for a vote in the Senate and lost in New York.

 

This week, it is New Jersey's turn. The state already has civil unions or "everything but marriage." It's supposed to provide every right and responsibility that marriage provides - except it really doesn't. Employers are choosing not to honor the civil union legislation and it's virtually unenforceable. Story after story come out of spouses unable to get insurance for their family because the ERISA qualified corporation they work for does not honor the civil union law in New Jersey. There have even been instances where spouse's bodies weren't released to their partner because they weren't "married."

 

It passed committee yesterday 7-6 and goes up for a vote on the Senate floor. If it passes the Senate, assembly assent is assured and Corzine has said he will sign it into law (Incoming Governor Christie has said he would veto the measure.)

 

The Senate passage is all but assured. The votes were there, according to Garden State Equality, prior to the election - but with an incoming GOP governor who opposes marriage equality, as many as 6 votes may have dropped off. This vote needs 21 Senators approval to pass. New Jersey is not a referendum state so with passage, it would essentially need a constitutional convention to get overturned.

 

[jasonxctf]

why isnt the current law being enforced?

[Rex Kickass]

why isnt the current law being enforced?

It's difficult to enforce. Roughly half the employers in New Jersey don't have their corporate base in New Jersey, so they can argue they are exempt from recognizing civil unions. The argument that they'll take to the court is "If it was supposed to be marriage, they'd have called it marriage." It took weeks of arm twisting to get UPS to recognize civil unions and that came direct from the Governor himself. If the Governor had to do that with every company that chooses not to recognize civil unions but does business in New Jersey, it would be a nearly 24/7 job.

 

Vermont voted to change its law from civil unions to full equality this year, because civil unions just aren't equal and they never will be. There was a state commission on this issue to measure the law's effectiveness and whether it provides an adequate measure of equality. They said it doesn't.

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/civilun...0the%20CURC.pdf

[lostfan]

So is there actually a chance it is signed into law before Christie is inaugurated?

[Rex Kickass]

So is there actually a chance it is signed into law before Christie is inaugurated?

 

The biggest hurdle it has is Thursday. If it gets 21 votes in the Senate, it goes to the assembly. If the votes to pass it are in the Senate, the votes to pass it are in the Assembly. If it passes the Senate, it will be on the Gov's desk by Christmas I figure.

 

However, the 21 votes may be too tall an order.

[jasonxctf]

It's difficult to enforce. Roughly half the employers in New Jersey don't have their corporate base in New Jersey, so they can argue they are exempt from recognizing civil unions. The argument that they'll take to the court is "If it was supposed to be marriage, they'd have called it marriage." It took weeks of arm twisting to get UPS to recognize civil unions and that came direct from the Governor himself. If the Governor had to do that with every company that chooses not to recognize civil unions but does business in New Jersey, it would be a nearly 24/7 job.

 

Vermont voted to change its law from civil unions to full equality this year, because civil unions just aren't equal and they never will be. There was a state commission on this issue to measure the law's effectiveness and whether it provides an adequate measure of equality. They said it doesn't.

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/civilun...0the%20CURC.pdf

 

 

i guess i dont understand that argument. if you are a DE incorporated business, but reside in CA, do you have to follow DE pollution laws or CA?

 

does that mean that if I drive my car in a state where the MPH is 45 on the highway, I can go 55, because I've got an Illinois Drivers License?

 

I would just think that you have to play by the rules in the state you are in, not one where you "artifically" call home.

[Rex Kickass]

i guess i dont understand that argument. if you are a DE incorporated business, but reside in CA, do you have to follow DE pollution laws or CA?

 

does that mean that if I drive my car in a state where the MPH is 45 on the highway, I can go 55, because I've got an Illinois Drivers License?

 

I would just think that you have to play by the rules in the state you are in, not one where you "artifically" call home.

 

The reason is an anagram: ERISA. It makes the state incapable of requiring ERISA capable companies to recognize a civil union thanks to federal language like Defense of Marriage Act.

 

From the commission's report.

 

In its interim report, the Commission reported that the federal Employee

Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA) is the most common reason that

employers cite when refusing to provide the same benefits to employees’ civil

union partners as are provided to married employees’ spouses. The Commission

reaffirms that finding. The Commission also gathered evidence from

Massachusetts’ experience that the term “marriage,” were it applied to the

relationships of same-sex couples, could overcome a number of the challenges

presented by ERISA and would therefore make a significant difference in

providing equality even with no change in federal law.

Under ERISA, “self-insured” companies - companies which create their own

insurance plans but may hire outside agencies to administer them - are governed

by federal law rather than state law. In turn, because of the federal Defense of

Marriage Act (DOMA), any federal statute or regulation that provides benefits to

spouses, husbands, wives, or married couples applies only to marriages between

one man and one woman, thus resulting in covered employers continuing to

discriminate against same-sex couples.

Practically speaking, companies covered by ERISA, which comprise an estimated

fifty percent of all companies in New Jersey, have an option, rather than a

requirement, to offer equal benefits under the state’s Civil Union Act. Many

companies are not exercising that option, even if State law, as is the case in New

Jersey, provides that spouses and civil union partners are entitled to identical

treatment.

[Rex Kickass]

And Marriage Equality is probably dead.

 

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/...e-equality-vote

 

Senate President Dick Codey (D-Roseland) announced this evening that he will delay tomorrow’s senate vote on marriage equality at the request of the bill’s primary sponsors, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck) and Ray Lesniak (D-Elizabeth).

 

“Senator Weinberg and Senator Lesniak have expressed their earnest desire to postpone tomorrow’s vote until there has been adequate time to vet the bill before the Assembly Judiciary Committee,” said Codey. “I understand their desire to make sure this bill receives the thorough attention it deserves and therefore I have agreed to postpone tomorrow’s vote until further notice.”

 

Translation: we don't have the 21 votes we need to get it through the Senate so we're sending it to another committee so that we can let it sit and wither with a whimper.

 

[Rex Kickass]

So the vote was postponed to hear more testimony before the Assembly Judicial committee - with a hope of passing it first and then moving it to the Senate.

 

Except no hearing date has been set. (That was supposed to take place instead of the Senate vote, but didn't.) No date has been set on the vote. January 3 has been thrown around. This would leave somewhere around 16 days to get the measure passed and signed into law by the Governor before Corzine hands over the Governor's seat.

 

When Christie gets in, even if the measure passes - it will be vetoed.

 

A lot of gay citizens have been lied to about support for marriage equality and they are angry. State Senators are suddenly finding themselves with protesters outside of their house and at family events because of their sudden lack of support for equal rights in New Jersey.

 

There are other electeds (Corzine's running mate and State Senator Loretta Weinberg, notably) who are asking the community to respect legislators' families and privacy and refrain from reaching out to these suddenly unavailable elected officials outside of their offices and state houses. It's kind of funny in a way, by not getting this passed despite their previous promises, they are disrespecting a lot of families in New Jersey - who just want equal protection under the law.

[Rex Kickass]

Marriage Equality may be stalled in New Jersey...

 

But its a reality in D.C.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-marriag...tory?id=9344029

 

The D.C. Council today voted overwhelmingly for the final time to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington D.C., with two council members opposing.

Share

Whether to allow same-sex couples to marry is in the hands of voters.

 

"This legislation is an important and historic step towards equal dignity, equal respect and equal rights for same-sex couples here in our nation's capital, which also preserves the right of clergy and congregations to adhere to their faiths," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

 

The legislation passed today would allow same-sex couples to be married in D.C., along with five other states, but not require clergy or religious organizations to provide services, accommodations, or facilities for the services.

 

The clear majority vote was not a surprise to oberservers who anticipated the bill's easy passage today. The night before, Councilmen Harry Thomas and David Catania addressed a rally of about 350 supporters at the Kennedy Recreation Center in Washington D.C.

 

Catania, one of two openly gay council members who first introduced the legislation, asked supporters not to hold the two opposing votes against Councilman Marion Barry and Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, and said that their "no" votes respected the wishes of their constituencies.

 

"I want to thank the two who are not with us. Not because they are not with us now. But because they have been with us so often on so many other issues," Catania said.

 

The D.C. measure, which first passed Dec. 1, by the same wide 11-2 margin, reinforces the nationwide trend towards gay marriage in legislatures and at the courthouse even though advocates of same-sex marriage are continuing to falter whenever the issue is put directly to a public vote.

[jasonxctf]

im so confused by the wins/losses in this battle. Where can gay people be "legally" married?

 

Iowa and DC?

[Jenksismyhero]

I have a question that may or may not be related to this topic:

 

So I'm engaged, soon to be married (next October). I currently have no health insurance, but my future wife does. She asked her employer (a pretty progressive, very large hospital near the loop) if I could be added on her health insurance. They said no, not until they recieved a marriage certificate or license (whichever you get after the ceremony). She pressed the issue, and said that we'd been living together for a number of years. The HR person asked if she was getting married to another woman (apparently my gender was never brought up). My fiance said no. The HR person says, "oh well that's too bad. If you were gay we could sign you up today as a domestic partner, but since you're not, we can't do anything until you're married."

 

Discrimination? And/or just a f***ed up policy?

 

 

[Kyyle23]

Hmmm, thats sounds like a dumbass HR person. How long have you been together? One would think commonlaw rules would apply if it has been that long

[NorthSideSox72]

I have a question that may or may not be related to this topic:

 

So I'm engaged, soon to be married (next October). I currently have no health insurance, but my future wife does. She asked her employer (a pretty progressive, very large hospital near the loop) if I could be added on her health insurance. They said no, not until they recieved a marriage certificate or license (whichever you get after the ceremony). She pressed the issue, and said that we'd been living together for a number of years. The HR person asked if she was getting married to another woman (apparently my gender was never brought up). My fiance said no. The HR person says, "oh well that's too bad. If you were gay we could sign you up today as a domestic partner, but since you're not, we can't do anything until you're married."

 

Discrimination? And/or just a f***ed up policy?

Well, to me, anything that treats one couple differently than another (gay or straight) is f***ed up policy. I am pretty sure common law marriages should apply to you anyway, but I don't know the details of common law marriage in Illinois.

 

It may be their policy, or it may be an oddity in the law. But I agree its f***ed up in any case.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Unfortunately Illinois no longer recognizes common law marriages. And in any event it was 7 years and we've only been living together for 4-5.

[Rex Kickass]

I have a question that may or may not be related to this topic:

 

So I'm engaged, soon to be married (next October). I currently have no health insurance, but my future wife does. She asked her employer (a pretty progressive, very large hospital near the loop) if I could be added on her health insurance. They said no, not until they recieved a marriage certificate or license (whichever you get after the ceremony). She pressed the issue, and said that we'd been living together for a number of years. The HR person asked if she was getting married to another woman (apparently my gender was never brought up). My fiance said no. The HR person says, "oh well that's too bad. If you were gay we could sign you up today as a domestic partner, but since you're not, we can't do anything until you're married."

 

Discrimination? And/or just a f***ed up policy?

 

It's probably an insurance company policy. And it is discrimination, discrimination that cuts both ways.

 

Since in most places Same Sex marriages aren't recognized, domestic partnerships are. These have their own set of standards. Usually its sharing a residence for 12 months, but its not a uniform standard. This is part of the problem with a lack of marriage equality. In your specific case, you face a disadvantage because you can't qualify as a domestic partnership because you can get married. But on the other side of the coin, same sex couples who just get "married" (in their own personal sense, since its still illegal in most places) can't get their spouses on their medical insurance for upwards of a year after they've made their lifelong commitment.

[Rex Kickass]

And marriage equality is back on the clock again. It goes for a vote on Thursday in the Senate after it appeared dead for sure this week.

 

I have to imagine that the votes to pass this are there, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. 21 Senate votes means enough Assembly votes on Monday.

 

And that means a Governor signing marriage equality into law by Jan 18.

[Rex Kickass]

Marriage Equality loses in New Jersey 14-20.

[bmags]

sorry Rex.

[Rex Kickass]

sorry Rex.

 

My Democratic State Senator voted no. I am gonna do whatever I can (which isn't much) to see that she gets primaried next year.

[bmags]

Kick her ass.

[GoSox05]

Off topic a bit, but Portugal is getting close to legalizing gay marriage.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/p...v_n_416005.html

[BigSqwert]

People like The Situation and Snookie can get married in NJ but not gays? What the hell is wrong with this world?

[Balta1701]

People like The Situation and Snookie can get married in NJ but not gays? What the hell is wrong with this world?

Gays are icky.

[bmags]

Off topic a bit, but Portugal is getting close to legalizing gay marriage.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/p...v_n_416005.html

 

On weekdays I forget that Portugal is still a country...

 

But congratulations to them, Go Portugal! I hear their portuguese is harder to understand than Brazil...on the other hand the No reservations episode at the Azors was the rams!