The Star-Ledger News at NJ.com has posted this report on findings just released by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission:
“New Jersey should enact a law allowing gay marriage and waste no time passing it because the state’s civil unions law fails to adequately protect same-sex couples, a report to be released today concludes.”
Read the full report here.
The 13-member panel was created to review the impact of the state’s civil unions law passed in 2006 to basically give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples without using the word “marriage.” The panel’s report says that denying same-sex couples full marriage rights is as bad as racial segrgation: “Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.”
I’ve been making this same argument for years. The problem is, too many people in our community are willing to accept civil unions as a consolation prize. The commission makes clear that they are doing more harm than good.
I’m sorry. I must be confused. I thought we were fighting for equal rights, not some stupid word. They can have the damn word if that’s all that’s keeping us from reaching our goal.
Words matter. Marriage isn’t just a word, it’s a status created by law. As Evan Wolfson argues, “the reason why any other status, call it what you will — civil union, domestic partnership, or schmarriage — is not adequate or fair is that one of the main protections that comes with marriage is, indeed, the status of marriage.”
We should not be satisfied with “separate but equal” treatment. We don’t need a different word to describe the same reality. We simply need to be given equal protection under the law.
I totally agree that, under current law, “marriage” and civil union is not the same. I think that most Americans have a problem with the word not the rights. So, I believe we need to focus on loss of rights, discrimination, etc, not trying to rewrite the definition of marriage. Trying to convince people that marriage is a union between two consenting adults is gonna be a lot harder to sell than every tax-paying citzen should have EQUAL rights under the law.
This is precisely the problem within our community: we can’t agree on what we want. We want the rights and responsibilities of marriage, yes, and we can receive them even if we have civil unions that convey those same rights and responsibilities. But marriage is more than a civil union that conveys certain rights and responsibilities. Any contract can do likewise. Marriage, as we’ve come to understand it, is also a covenant…a solemn pledge that is not only acknowledged by the state but also respected by it. This isn’t simply a matter of providing “civil unions for every couple, gay or straight” and ceding “marriage” to the religious organizations to control as they wish. Marriage not only has historic but also universal meaning. The idea that it can only be undertaken by heterosexual couples so that they could procreate and perpetuate the species was put down the very first time a couple beyond child-bearing years got married. In that sense, we’re not asking to “re-define” marriage. We’re simply asking for equal treatment under law.