NJ Marriage Suit to Continue

January 13, 2004

A day after Gov. James E. McGreevey signed legislation recognizing domestic partnerships gay activists say it isn't enough. Lawyers for 7 same-sex couples who are suing the state for the right to marry say their case will continue in court.

It will not affect the lawsuit, which asks that lesbian and gay couples be given all the rights that come with marriage and the status of marriage itself, said Michael Adams, an attorney for Lambda Legal which is representing the couples. This law does not do that.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national gay lobby group said the new law is a step in the right direction, but notes that states like New Jersey would do the country and its families a favor if they avoided the detour of separate and unequal and went right to the clarity, security, and equality that comes only with the freedom to marry.

There is no verb for civil union, and nobody writes songs about domestic partnership, Wolfson said.

John Campbell, co-founder and sponsor of the Edison, New Jersey-based Gay and Lesbian Political Action Support said that couples registered as domestic partners in New Jersey would have no civil union rights if they traveled to another state in the country that does not recognize domestic partners.

Other than providing the basic benefits for state workers, it's doing very little to end total discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, he said.

McGreevey called signing the Domestic Partner law the right thing to do, but said he is opposed to same-sex marriage.

The new law makes New Jersey the fifth state to recognize same-sex partnerships. Under the new law, which takes effect in 180 days, registered same-sex couples would be granted medical benefits, insurance and other legal rights.

To obtain domestic-partner status, a couple must share a residence and show proof of joint financial status or property ownership or designation of the partner as the beneficiary in a retirement plan or will.

The law will not force businesses to offer health coverage to same-sex partners of employees but does require insurance companies to make it available.

A divorce-like proceeding in Superior Court would be necessary to end a domestic partnership.