GLBT Couples Law

February 21, 2008

Civil Union Partners Treated as Second-Class Citizens

by Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law Journal

New Jersey's year-old Civil Union Act has failed so far to convey to registered same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage, a state commission reported on Monday.

The Civil Union Review Commission, the panel charged with gauging the Act's success in fulfilling its equal-protection mandate, recounted testimony of repeated instances of employers denying ERISA-plan health benefits to civil-union partners of their employees.

In its First Interim Report, the panel found that civil-union status is not clear to the general public, creating a second-class status and complicating interaction with hospitals and other institutions.

Testimony also indicated that the law has a disparate impact on people of color and exposes registrants who are members of the U.S. military to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

And the law may place marital status in question when one of the spouses undergoes a sex-change operation, the commission said.

Gov. Jon Corzine, reacting to the report, said it does raise significant concerns about whether the law has effectively granted same-sex couples the same rights and benefits of every other family in the state.

The commission did not recommend changes to the act, which took effect Feb. 19, 2007, saying only that it would continue with its evaluation and review s until the issuance of a final report, which is due in early 2010.

The commission is the built-in monitor on whether the act fulfills the mandate of Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), in which the Supreme Court directed the Legislature to enact a statutory scheme sufficient to give same-sex couples rights equal to married people. The Court left it to lawmakers to decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage or to create a parallel scheme with all the rights and privileges of marriage without using that term. The Legislature chose the latter course and became the third state to enact civil unions.

The Civil Union Act requires the 13-member commission to study all aspects of law's implementation, operation and effectiveness, including the effect on same-sex couples, their children and other family members, and to determine whether additional protections are needed.

The statute calls for the commission to meet regularly for two more years and to issue reports every six months, culminating in a final report.

The interim report is a distillation of three public hearings held in the north, central and southern parts of the state in September and October of 2007.

Health-benefits denial — the number-one complaint heard from the testimony — is usually by employers with self-insured health plans regulated by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, which does not compel coverage for same-sex partners.

[C]ompanies covered by ERISA, which comprise an estimated 50 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, the report says.

Commission Secretary Stephen Hyland says of the employers' reluctance, It's a valid legal excuse but it's really a cover, because ERISA doesn't prevent them from providing benefits to civil union spouses.

Employers are also within their rights under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which gives them legal protection should they choose to limit marital benefits to couples consisting of one man and one woman, the report says.

But the ERISA exemption is more the loophole, the panel said. They noted that Vermont, which seven years ago enacted the civil union law on which New Jersey's is premised, some employers still deny health coverage to same-sex couples. But in Massachusetts, which allows same-sex marriage, employers have been more willing to provide health coverage, the commission said. It acknowledged the evidence was mostly anecdotal.

Civil union partners without health coverage face a double-edged sword, since both partners' assets may be exposed to bills for one partner's catastrophic illness, the testimony suggested.

Couples in civil unions also testified to unequal treatment and confusion in dealing with hospitals and other institutions, such as banks and the state Motor Vehicle Commission.

Other testimony suggested that the law is having a disparate impact on minorities. Black and Hispanic same-sex couples tend to have less money than their white counterparts and so are less able to hire lawyers to draw up healthcare proxies and powers of attorney, the report says.

The panel heard testimony from Leslie Farber, chair of the State Bar Association's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Section, that the Civil Union Act creates a dilemma for people who are in a heterosexual marriage before undergoing gender reassignment surgery. Farber, a Montclair solo, said a client who recently made the transition from male to female was married to a woman for 20 years. She wishes to stay married but is concerned that she now is at risk of having her once valid marriage downgraded to a civil union, Farber said, observing that the problem wouldn't exist if same-sex marriage were lawful.

Steven Goldstein, vice-chair of the Civil Union Commission and also chair of Garden State Equality — an advocacy group for same-sex marriage — said the dichotomy in treatment shows that the word marriage has massive persuasive weight - marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world accepts.

Laurence Reich, who advises employers on ERISA matters, says the Civil Union Act seemed to have been enacted either in ignorance or intentional disregard of federal law.

Unlike the Domestic Partnership Act, which included language requiring insurance plans executed in New Jersey to provide benefits for registered partners, the Civil Union Act purports to mandate coverage of same-sex couples only in general terms. Their appeal is to moral suasion, says Reich of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Newark. But they cannot force the employer, if the employer, for whatever reason, doesn't want to cover same-sex couples in a self-insurance plan.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 3:51 PM | TrackBack

February 20, 2008

CU Commission Report Cites Flaws in NJ Law

by Tina Kelley
New York Times

Trenton, NJ—New Jersey's civil union law creates a second-class status for same-sex couples and is particularly vexing for people in the military, transgender people, the poor and minorities, according to a report issued on Tuesday by a commission set up to review the law.

The 12-member commission included lawyers and ministers who advocate gay rights, as well as government officials from agencies that provide benefits to couples. It based its report heavily on testimony at three public hearings last year and did not make any recommendations.

But in highlighting problems encountered by hundreds of the nearly 2,400 couples who have obtained civil unions in the year since they were created, the report suggested that the law is not fulfilling its mandate of providing same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals.

The commission also heard testimony that the term ‘marriage,' were it applied to the relationships of same-sex couples, would make a significant difference in providing equality to same-sex couples in New Jersey, the commission wrote. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.

The State Supreme Court ruled in the fall of 2006 that gay and straight couples must be treated equally, but left it to the Legislature to figure out how. The Legislature chose to join Vermont and Connecticut in allowing civil unions, rather than same-sex marriage; gay rights advocates have promised to challenge the law in court and to introduce a bill establishing same-sex marriage, but have not said when.

The report details a stunning array of problems that the civil union law inflicts on same-sex couples and their children in New Jersey, said Steven Goldstein, vice chairman of the commission and chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization. The civil union law is failing. The people are hurting.

Since the law took effect, 2,329 couples have entered into civil unions in the state, and 56 more have affirmed their unions from other states. Mr. Goldstein said his organization had received complaints about how the law was put into effect from 568 couples.

Leslie Farber, a lawyer in Montclair, testified before the commission in September that she had a client who did not seek a civil union for fear of losing his job in the armed services under the don't ask, don't tell policy (he was also afraid to file a complaint with the state's Division on Civil Rights). Denoting married on military forms, she said, would be less of a red flag.

With the very likelihood that the military serviceman will be called to service overseas in the near future, this client wants to protect his committed life partner, Ms. Farber told the commission. The New Jersey Civil Union law automatically outs someone or anyone who gets civil unioned.

Cynthia O. Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense, said military code required the discharge of armed forces members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex. Between 1997 and 2006, 9,261 people were discharged under these rules. Figures were not available about how many had to leave the service for attempting to marry.

Also of concern were married couples in which one spouse has sex-reassignment surgery; some wondered if their marriages would be null and they would have to get civil unions instead.

Denise Brunner, 51, a plumber in New Milford who had sex-reassignment surgery in 2006, said she was afraid that if her relationship with her wife, Frances, 50, were changed to a civil union, it could affect their tax filings and financial aid for their children.

Presently we are legally married in the State of New Jersey, and we don't want to lose that status, she said, adding that they have spoken publicly to show that the existence of a same-sex marriage in the state has not really changed anything. We're still allowed to go into church on Sunday, and ride with the local ambulance corps and help people when they have heart attacks.

Poor couples have also fared poorly under the law, advocates said.

The lesson I learned was just how important this issue was for people who didn't have a whole lot of money, said David S. Buckel, senior counsel of Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that represented the couples whose lawsuit led to the creation of civil unions. When you have the state sending the message that discrimination is O.K., there's double discrimination for people who don't have the resources to try to soften the blow.

Lynn Fontaine Newsome, president of the New Jersey State Bar Association, testified before the commission that the legal work performed for these clients is double that which is performed for married couples to ensure that they are afforded equal rights.

Sylvia Rhue, director of religious affairs for the National Black Justice Coalition, told the commission: When employers fail to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, the couples who get hurt the most are poor couples who are often African-American couples, who cannot afford thousands of dollars to hire fancy lawyers to draft documents like wills, health care proxies, and powers of attorney.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who has said he would sign a bill creating same-sex marriage, but not during a presidential election year, said the report raised significant concerns about whether the law has effectively granted same-sex couples the same rights and benefits of every other family in the state.

I look forward to reviewing the interim report in more careful detail and working with the commission and the Legislature on ensuring that the basic principles of equal protection under the law as secured by our Constitution are afforded to everyone, he said in a statement.

The report is posted online at www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads /1st-InterimReport-CURC.pdf.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:48 AM

February 19, 2008

NJ Gov Sees Significant Concerns With Civil Unions

TRENTON—Gov. Jon Corzine said today a new report issued on the one-year anniversary of civil unions raises significant concerns about whether they give same-sex couples all the benefits and duties of marriage by another name.

As expected, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission met in Trenton and formally released its 21-page interim report finding, among other things, that civil unions are not clear to the general public and confer second-class status on the same-sex couples who form them. Its major conclusions were reported in The Sunday Star-Ledger.

Although this is not a final report and further evaluation remains, the report does raise significant concerns about whether the law has effectively granted same-sex couples the same rights and benefits of every other family in the state, Corzine said. He added that he looks forward to working with the commission and the Legislature on ensuring that the basic principles of equal protection under the law as secured by our Constitution are afforded to everyone.

Corzine's press secretary, Lilo Stainton, said he would sign a bill allowing gay marriage, but not until after November's presidential election.

The Governor has made clear that he would sign a marriage equality bill if one were passed by the Legislature, but he would rather fight for this issue when there is not a presidential election going on, she said today.

The gay rights organization Garden State Equality debuted a new Web site and a radio advertisement as part of its ongoing campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey by the end of 2008.

The tide is turning. There is going to be marriage equality, said Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality's chairman. He also serves as vice chairman of the 12-member review commission.

In response, the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage reiterated its call for an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We're saying: Let the people decide, said its chairman, John Tomicki.
Constitutional amendments must be proposed by the Legislature and approved by the voters.

Tomicki and Goldstein engaged in a vocal debate in the corridor just outside the meeting room of the Statehouse Annex where the commission released its report.

Why, Steven, are you afraid to let the people decide? Tomicki asked.

I don't think people's civil rights should be put to a vote, Goldstein replied, adding that equality for same-sex couples in no way diminishes the rights of married straight couples.

I'm married in Canada, Goldstein told Tomicki. You're still married. It doesn't affect you; why would it?

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:30 PM | TrackBack

February 18, 2008

Civil Union Law Fails to Achieve Goal of Equality

Robert Schwaneberg
The Star-Ledger February

TRENTON—When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was thrilled to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain — at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals — that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

People don't understand what civil unions are, said Cohen.

Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.

Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.

It only puts us in a precarious legal situation, said Ford. Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment.

A state commission report to be released Tuesday — the first anniversary of New Jersey's civil union law — concludes it falls far short of a state Supreme Court order to give same-sex couples … the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples who choose to marry.

Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status, the Civil Union Review Commission says in its report.
Others give harsher assessments.

The law is just a complete and utter failure, said Tom Prol, a trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association. It's a failed experiment in discrimination.

Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a co-sponsor of the law, said she has heard from those who feel there's been a lot of problems with the term 'civil union.' She said she plans to introduce a new bill legalizing same-sex marriage in a matter of weeks.

Others are mobilizing to defend traditional marriage.

The state's Catholic bishops declared today a day of prayer to defend marriage against serious challenges that include divorce and cohabitation.

One of the most serious challenges is the effort to change the very definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to allow same-sex marriage, Newark Archbishop John Myers said in a letter to all pastors.

A coalition promoting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman has collected 60,000 signatures and plans to solicit more online, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

Gay people are entitled to their rights, Deo said. They do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.

HOLDING BACK
As of mid-January, 2,329 same-sex couples formed civil unions. By comparison, 3,211 domestic partnerships, which offered far fewer rights, were formed in the year after they first took effect in 2004.

Prol said one huge reason for the lag in civil unions is that many same-sex couples have opted to marry in Canada. That may offer legal advantages down the road, Prol said, particularly if the federal ban on same-sex marriage is repealed or overturned.

Daryl Murphy and Ken Braidi were among the first couples in Scotch Plains to form a domestic partnership, but have held off forming a civil union.

My feeling is it's still not equal, Murphy said. Is this all we're going to get? If that's all we're going to get, maybe we should just do it.

The commission held hearings in Nutley, New Brunswick and Camden County and concluded the term civil union creates several problems. One of the most common: Couples in civil unions are denied benefits that are routinely granted to same-sex spouses in Massachusetts.

Legally, companies and unions with federally regulated health insurance plans can deny coverage to the same-sex partners of their employees, both in Massachusetts and New Jersey. But the commission found that Massachusetts law, by recognizing same-sex marriage, has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.

The panel also found the term civil union creates uncertainty, particularly in hospital settings.

Last summer, Gina Pastino and Naomi Cohen's year-old-son Griffin developed a high fever and Cohen took him to the emergency room. Pastino, who arrived later, said she had to explain their relationship to a hospital employee who didn't know what a civil union was.

I want to be able to say `This is my wife' and for everyone to understand what that means, Pastino said. She especially does not want to explain civil unions when you're in a health care crisis.

EFFECT ON CHILDREN
The panel found civil unions have a deleterious effect on gay and lesbian youngsters and those being raised by same-sex couples.

Lucy O'Brien came to that realization during a kitchen conversation with her 17-year-old son, Tom, who is gay. She was trying to reassure him, pointing to several gay couples they know in Montclair.

And he said, 'But they're not married,' she said. I suddenly got it that my son is acutely aware that he's a second-class citizen.

Deo, however, noted that only a half-dozen formal complaints of civil unions not being respected have been filed with the state Division on Civil Rights.

The civil union law is working, Deo said. For them to say it's not working is disingenuous. They're just basically pushing a political agenda.

The commission said the number of formal complaints cannot by itself be considered an accurate barometer of the act's effectiveness, and it heard significantly more during its hearings.

The gay rights organization Garden State Equality received 564 complaints of civil unions not being honored, according to its chairman, Steven Goldstein. He also is vice chair of the commission, whose report was endorsed by all 12 members.

Roberta Sklar, communications director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said New Jersey's experiment with civil unions was a step in the right direction that proved to be flawed.

New Jersey attempted to provide the equivalent of marriage without the name, Sklar said. It's not a model for the country, but a message. As well-intentioned as civil unions may be, they are not equivalent to marriage.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:23 PM | TrackBack

February 16, 2008

NJ Report Says Civil Unions Create Second-Class Status

GEOFF MULVIHILL
AP News

TRENTON—A commission established to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey has found in its first report that civil unions create a second-class status for gay couples, rather than giving them equality.

The report stops short of recommending that the state allow gay marriage. But it does find that gay couples in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex marriage, do not experience some of the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the initial report, which was scheduled to be made public Tuesday, the first anniversary of the state's first civil unions.

State lawmakers made New Jersey the third state to offer civil unions with a law adopted in 2006 in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that year that found gay couples were entitled to the same legal protections as married couples.

The civil union law sought to give gay couples those benefits, but not the title of marriage. As a part of the same law, the review commission was created to look into whether it was working.

Gay rights advocates say the civil unions do not deliver and have pledged to push lawmakers to vote to allow marriage. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would be willing to sign such a bill into law but doesn't want the issue to be taken up before the presidential election in November.

The activists say civil unions, in practice, do not offer the legal protections that marriage does. The commission largely agreed with them.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured — and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law — refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.
While employers in Massachusetts could legally do the same thing, most do not, according to the report.

The commission also finds that many people in the state do not understand civil unions, which create a second-class status.

The commission's report says the misunderstanding of civil unions makes it more difficult for a child to grow up in New Jersey with gay parents, or to be gay themselves.

Through Jan. 19, 2,329 couples had received civil union licenses, according to the state Health and Senior Services Department.

Some social conservatives have said the commission is slanted in favor of allowing gay marriage, and opponents of gay marriage have been pushing back in New Jersey.

Roman Catholic churches around the state have been planning special prayers on marriage for Sunday. A major aim is to promote marriage as being between only a man and a woman.

A conservative Princeton group, the National Organization for Marriage, has aired radio commercials that say allowing gay marriage would undermine some religious teachings that homosexuality is wrong.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:33 PM | TrackBack

December 31, 2007

NH Civil Unions at Midnight; OR Domestic Partnership on Hold

CONCORD, N.H—(Concord, New Hampshire) New Hampshire is becoming the fourth state to legalize civil unions and about 20 couples decided to be the first to take advantage of the new law with a late-night ceremony on the Statehouse steps.

Jennifer Major of Gilmanton, who helped organize the group ceremony, said festivities would begin at about 11 p.m. Monday with poetry readings and live music. The civil unions can take place once the law takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.

Major and her partner, Kelley Morris, planned to be among the couples saying I do.

Every single night … I come home from work and say 'Guess what we're doing on Monday?' She says 'Getting marriaged,' Major said last week. We have to keep pinching ourselves because it's Monday, not next Monday or two weeks from Monday.

Snow and freezing temperatures were forecast during the night. I don't have any winter coats with rhinestones and glitter, so I'm just going to dress warmly, she said.

At the bill signing in May, Gov. John Lynch called civil unions for same-sex couples a matter of conscience. How could any one of us look into the eyes of our neighbors, our friends or our loved ones if we continued to deny them these basic legal protections? he said.

New Hampshire joins Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey in legalizing civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

The new law says civil unions will provide same-sex couples with the rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage, except the name.

It also says New Hampshire will recognize legal same-sex unions from other states, but a group of conservative Republicans in the Legislature is working to undo that part of the law. A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 24.

The state estimated 3,500 to 4,000 civil unions will be performed in the first year.

Although New Hampshire's same-sex families will soon be able to protect themselves, at least at the state level, Oregon couples will not be so lucky.

PORTLAND, OR—A federal judge on Friday placed on hold a state domestic partnership law that was set to take effect Jan. 1, pending a February hearing.

The law would give some spousal rights to same-sex couples.

Opponents asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede after the Oregon secretary of state's office ruled in October that they had failed to collect enough valid signatures on a referendum to block the law.

The Oregon measure covers benefits related to inheritance rights, child-rearing and custody, joint state tax filings, joint health, auto and homeowners insurance policies, visitation rights at hospitals and others. It does not affect federal benefits for married couples, including Social Security and joint filing of federal tax returns.

After the Legislature approved the domestic partnership law this year, gay rights opponents launched an effort to collect enough signatures to suspend the law and place it on the November 2008 ballot for a statewide vote.

But state elections officials said this fall that the effort fell 116 valid signatures short of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law.

In court Friday, Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes the measure, said the state's review process was flawed, disenfranchising citizens who had signed petitions.

The state's largest gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, criticized the judge's decision.

It's unfair our families once again are bearing the brunt of this ongoing struggle, said Jeana Frazzini, a spokesman for the group.

Eight other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples - Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:12 PM | TrackBack

October 28, 2007

NJ Civil Union Law Falls Short, Commission Told

TINA KELLEY
New York Times

NUTLEY—Jodi Weiner, an electrician from Montclair, said that when she tried to get health benefits for her partner of nine years, she was told that her union's plans did not cover civil unions. It was only when she mentioned that they had been married in Massachusetts that her partner was able to get benefits.

"The words 'civil union' were not good enough for Sally and me to get equality in New Jersey, but the word 'marriage' is," she said at a hearing of the Civil Union Review Commission last month. "We can all talk about how the civil union law is supposed to work just like marriage. But in my case and others, it doesn't work that way in the real world."

In the last month dozens of couples spoke at three hearings of the commission, which was created by the State Legislature to monitor the effectiveness of civil unions. The hearings came a year after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay and straight couples in New Jersey should have the same legal protections.

Three of the seven justices said gay couples should be able to marry, and four left it for the Legislature to decide. Lawmakers voted in December to allow civil unions, and since then, about 1,900 gay couples have had their relationships formally recognized by the state.

But most of those who spoke at the hearings said that civil unions had not provided the protections they had hoped for. Many of them asked the commission to call on state officials to pass a marriage equality law in New Jersey, which would make it the first to legislate such a solution. (Massachusetts allowed gay marriage in 2003 in accordance with a court decision.) Referring to last year's Oct. 25 Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. Harris, Cindy Meneghin, a plaintiff in the suit, addressed the commission Wednesday night here in Essex County.

"It is not a happy anniversary, and it never will be, until the state of New Jersey fulfills that legal mandate and gives us the full equality of a marriage license," she said.

Under state law, civil union couples are supposed to get the same legal rights as married couples. But Steven Goldstein, a member of the commission and chairman of Garden State Equality, a statewide gay advocacy organization, said that 364 couples had told his group they had been denied benefits that married couples get. Six couples have filed formal discrimination complaints with the state.

Even if New Jersey allowed same-sex couples to marry, companies whose benefit plans are covered by federal law would not have to extend coverage to same-sex spouses. But in Massachusetts, most of those companies have done so anyway, said Tom Barbera, a labor leader in Massachusetts for the past 30 years.

"Employers also understand that without the term 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' to hide behind, if they don't give equal benefits to employees in same-sex marriages, these employers would have to come forth with the real excuse for discrimination," he told the panel at its first hearing, in New Brunswick. "Employers would have to acknowledge that they are discriminating against their employees because they are lesbian or gay."

In Vermont, which started allowing civil unions in 2000, couples are continuing to report legal problems and trouble obtaining benefits, said Beth Robinson, a lawyer there who has represented same-sex couples.

"We know in a civil union regime, the burden of inertia favors discrimination," she said. "An employer who wants not to discriminate needs to amend itself. An employer that wants to keep on discriminating simply needs to do nothing."

The 13-member commission, which includes representatives from the attorney general's office, the Department of Human Services, advocacy groups and others, is expected to report the results of the hearings to Gov. Jon S. Corzine and the Legislature by the end of the year, Mr. Goldstein said.

Several people who have obtained civil unions, including a number who work for the state, said that they had had no problems getting benefits for their partners. But they called for a marriage law to erase the stigma of what they consider second-class status.

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat, said he planned to reintroduce a marriage equality law soon. He said if the Legislature does not act, the State Supreme Court may need to consider whether civil unions have created full equality in the state.

"I think there has been more and more acceptance and understanding that gay persons should be able to share the same matrimonial happiness as any other traditional couple," Mr. Gusciora said.

Mr. Corzine, through a spokeswoman, Lilo Stainton, said on Wednesday that he would sign a marriage equality law, but would like to take up the issue in 2009, to avoid a national spotlight for the state during the presidential election next year.

Asked if he felt civil unions were working, he said through Ms. Stainton: "The answer is, yes, they're working out in the sense that people have rights that they did not have previously and are treated equally under the law. Whether there is a sense of full recognition of their connection with their partners is a fair question — but the bigger issue with regard to civil unions or marriage rights is a federal issue."

Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt, a Morris County Republican who said he would oppose a bill on marriage for gay couples, criticized the commission for not including anyone skeptical about civil unions. "A lot of people who favor retaining the law as it is basically feel disenfranchised by the entire process," he said. "I consider it to be a complete waste of time."

Few critics spoke at the hearings. One, Len Deo, told the commission here that a poll commissioned by his organization, the New Jersey Family Policy Council, showed 61 percent of state residents believe that same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose but do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.

Some straight residents testified at the hearings as well.

"When there's discrimination against any group of people, endorsed by the government, we are all diminished," said Lucy O'Brien of Montclair, who has three sons, one of whom is gay.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 4:27 PM | TrackBack

August 28, 2007

NJ Civil Union Review Commission Public Hearings

TRENTON—In accordance with N.J.S.A. 37:1-36, the public is invited to testify about the effectiveness of the New Jersey Civil Union Act, the State's new law which was enacted to provide committed same-sex c ouples the same rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of those in civil marriages.

Has the civil union law affected your family? How?

Are they comprehensive enough? Are revisions needed to the law?

Are there shortcomings in the law or its implementation?

The hearings will be heard at three locations: 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm

9/26/07 - Central Jersey

New Jersey Law Center

One Constitution Square

Ryder's Lane (off Route 1)

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

10/10/07 - South Jersey
Camden County College

Dennis Flyer Memorial Theater (in Lincoln Hall)

College Drive

Blackwood, NJ 08012

10/24/07 - North Jersey
Nutley Township Hall (3rd Floor Commissioner Chambes

One Kennedy Drive

Nutley, NJ 07110

All locations are wheelchair accessible. Certified ASL interpretation and real-time captioning (CART) will be provided for persons with hearing loss.

For any additional information regarding the hearings, or to request additional accomodations for persons with disabilities, contact the CURC Liaison, Esther Nevarez, at (973) 648-4816 or esther.nevarez@njcivilrights.org.

www.njcivilrights.org/curc.html

J. Frank Vespa-Papaelo, Esq. Chairman, NJ CURC
Steven Goldstein Vice-Chairman, NJ CURC
Stephen J. Hyland, Esq. Secretary, NJ CURC

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:07 AM | TrackBack

August 1, 2007

Benefits Testing Limits of Civil Unions

NY Times
by KAREEM FAHIM

NEWARK—United Parcel Service now grants full health benefits to same-sex partners of its employees, provided they have registered for a civil union in New Jersey (as opposed to, say, in Vermont). But FedEx does not provide benefits to the partners of its New Jersey workers — unless they happen to work at Kinko's, a FedEx subsidiary.

New Jersey's civil union law was supposed to fulfill the State Supreme Court's mandate that gay and heterosexual couples be granted the same rights and benefits. But more than five months after its adoption, gay-rights groups and those who have obtained civil unions said the reality of the law's application remained a hodgepodge, and that hundreds of people were struggling to persuade their bosses to treat their partners like spouses.

United Parcel, for example, changed course this week only after Gov. Jon S. Corzine intervened, sending a letter to the company to clarify its responsibilities under the state law and appealing to its executives' sense of decency and fair play.

The Corzine administration has heralded U.P.S. as an example to press other companies to provide benefits, and is relying on couples to come forward and complain if they feel they are being denied benefits. Gay-rights groups, meanwhile, have thus far shied away from going to court to overturn the civil union law, and instead hope to highlight such disparities to persuade the State Legislature to approve same-sex marriage by 2008.

Whether United Parcel's reversal this week was a step toward that ultimate goal is an open question. The couples now eligible for benefits may celebrate, but their success is seen in some circles as evidence that the civil union law can be leveraged to force equality, undercutting at least some of the argument that nothing short of marriage is adequate.

"Everyone behaved as you would hope sensible people would," said Ingrid W. Reed, director of the New Jersey Project at the Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics. "It's something we don't often see in public issues. The Legislature makes a decision, and very rarely gets feedback on how it's being implemented. Here, you quickly got a remedy, and it put everyone on notice that you have to be vigilant."

Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia University, said it was too early to judge the future of the state's experiment with civil unions.

"The pace of legal and public opinion change on this issue has been dramatic," he said. "The fact that private entities have not fully complied with the spirit of the New Jersey law within one year of the legislation is not terribly surprising. For social innovations to penetrate the private sector takes time."

The disparities, of course, do not stop at New Jersey's borders. Teamsters who work for United Parcel Service in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, are already eligible for spousal health benefits, but the company is currently reviewing the civil union laws in Vermont and Connecticut, a spokesman said.

And FedEx offers benefits to same-sex couples only in California, which requires companies with large state contracts to guarantee domestic partners the same benefits that spouses have. That means no to civil union couples here and in Vermont and Connecticut — and to same-sex spouses in Massachusetts.

"Each FedEx company makes independent decisions on what benefits are offered to its employee base," said Sandra Munoz, a spokeswoman, explaining the Kinko's exception. "Insurance costs are rising daily," she noted, adding that the company looks for coverage that meets a majority of its employees' needs.

And here in New Jersey, FedEx is hardly alone in withholding benefits. Mark Brower, who works at ShopRite, registered in February, the month the law took effect, for a civil union with his partner, Christopher Mastrian, who is self-employed. Mr. Brower's union, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262, told him over the phone that they would not extend benefits to Mr. Mastrian, and gave no reason.

"I was angry, disappointed," he recalled. "How could they break New Jersey law?" Mr. Brower eventually hired a lawyer, hoping a letter would bring the union around. So far, it has not. A union representative could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

Craig Ross said he works for a Fortune 500 technology company that he requested not be named for fear of retaliation. He asked the company to provide benefits for his civil union partner, Richard Cash, who had lost his job at an insurance company.

Mr. Ross said he was told that the company would not extend the benefits because of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as Erisa, which preempts state laws and allows self-insured employers to choose how to define "spouse." Mr. Cash pays $450 a month now for his own health care.

Andrew D. Sherman, a benefits consultant who works in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage became legal in 2004, said the law had made it easier for many companies to deal with the administrative hurdles that can scuttle benefits. "Marriage is a term they are familiar with, and know how to administer," he said. "They present a marriage license, and all the terminology and documentation are familiar."

In New Jersey, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the state's Division on Civil Rights, said the scope of the problems remained unclear because only four complaints had come to his office so far, while other gay-rights advocates cite some 200 couples as having problems getting benefits.

"Individuals who file are protected from retaliation," Mr. Vespa-Papaleo said, noting that the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission is planning public hearings this fall to discuss the law. "People shouldn't have to be experts on benefits law. That's what we're here for."

Ms. Reed said United Parcel's granting of benefits shows a meeting of the interests of both the state and the advocates for gay marriage, something she described as a "textbook case" of "constructive" activism.

"This is a decision that clarified the law," she said. "You found the one case that was clear, and you brought it to the media. And, you had the commitment of public officials."

For the state, United Parcel's decision was a win "for the fairness principle," Ms. Reed said. And for the advocates, she added, it showed that civil unions are not equal, "and you have to fight in each case."

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:47 AM | TrackBack

July 31, 2007

UPS to Provide Civil Union Benefits

MOUNT LAUREL—After persuasion from New Jersey's governor and attorney general, UPS Inc. said Monday that it would extend health insurance benefits to the civil union partners of gay New Jersey employees covered by a union contract.

The policy change has to do with New Jersey's civil unions law, which took effect in February, and seeks to give gay couples the same rights in the state as married couples.

Gov. Corzine sent Atlanta-based UPS a letter on July 20 asking the shipping company, also known as United Parcel Service, to change its stance. The letter was on behalf of a UPS driver and her partner.

The governor is extremely pleased to learn that UPS has done the right thing, said his spokeswoman, Lilo Stainton. He hopes that other companies will follow this excellent lead.

The company had previously said that civil union partners were legally different from spouses, and therefore, the partners were not entitled to the same benefits that spouses of the company's hourly workers receive.

Over the past week, however, we have received clear guidance that at least in New Jersey, the state truly views civil union partners as married, said Allen Hill, UPS's senior vice president for human resources. We've heard that loud and clear from state officials, and we're happy to make this change.

A UPS executive told Corzine about the change in person Monday.

The company has about 8,700 union-represented workers in New Jersey, but says it does not know how many are in civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say UPS's original legal interpretation was faulty — but not unusual.

They say that many other employers have taken the same stance. The advocates maintain that gay couples would get equal treatment only if they are allowed to marry.

UPS spokesman Norman Black said the company is reviewing its policies in Connecticut and Vermont, which also offer civil unions.

Management and administrative staff in the company nationwide already receive domestic partnership benefits.

Before Monday, the company had said it wanted to extend them to all its hourly union workers, but couldn't outside its collective bargaining agreement. The only exception was in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal.

The company says that it wants to extend domestic partnership benefits nationwide in its next contract with the Teamsters, who represent 238,000 of the company's 427,700 employees nationwide. The current deal expires July 31, 2008.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:19 AM | TrackBack

July 20, 2007

Gov. Corzine Releases Letter to UPS

TRENTON—Governor Jon S. Corzine today released the below letter to United Parcel Service and urged all companies in New Jersey to provide equal rights and benefits to employees in civil unions.

July 20, 2007

Mr. Michael L. Eskew
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
UPS Corporate Headquarters
55 Glenlake Parkway, NE

Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Re: Benefits for New Jersey Civil Union Partners

Dear Mr. Eskew:

On February 19, 2007, New Jersey’s civil union law took effect. The purpose of the statute is to ensure the equal treatment of committed, same-sex couples in New Jersey by providing those couples who enter into a civil union with all of the benefits, protections and obligations of marriage. An important component of the equality envisioned by the law is the provision of health and other benefits to civil union partners of employees on the same terms as are provided to employee spouses. To accomplish this goal, the New Jersey law mandates that employers operating in the State provide benefits on equal terms to civil union partners and spouses.

It has recently come to my attention that employers who self-fund employee benefits, such your company -- that is, companies who do not provide employee benefits through a contract of insurance -- may assert that federal law, namely the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), prevent enforcement against them of the mandatory provisions of New Jersey’s civil union statute with respect to employee benefits for civil union partners. While these statutes arguably provide that State anti-discrimination laws relating to employee benefits cannot be enforced against self-funded employers through legal action, nothing in federal law prevents self-funded employers from providing the civil union partners of employees with benefits on terms equal to those provided to spouses. It is my understanding that UPS has demonstrated this fact by going beyond the minimum requirements of federal law and providing benefits to the civil union partners of non-unionized employees. I applaud you for this decision, which represents a significant step toward eliminating inequality for committed, same-sex couples in New Jersey.

Equal benefits have not, however, been provided by UPS to the civil union partners of employees represented by collective bargaining agents. It is my understanding that a clause in the applicable collective bargaining agreement(s) providing benefits to employee “spouses” has been interpreted by UPS as not applying to civil union partners from New Jersey. This interpretation of the contract(s) leaves a subset of your employees, including employees who work in New Jersey, without benefits for their civil union partners, creating inequity at the workplace and furthering the inequitable treatment of committed, same-sex couples that the New Jersey law is intended to eradicate.

To the extent that the interpretation of “spouse” in the collective bargaining agreement(s) is based on the status of civil union partners under New Jersey law, I call to your attention a provision of the New Jersey civil union statute, N.J.S.A. 37:1-33, that provides that “[w]henever in any law, rule, regulation, judicial or administrative proceeding or otherwise, reference is made to . . . ‘spouse’ . . . or another word which in a specific context denotes a marital or spousal relationship, the same shall include a civil union pursuant to the provisions of this act.” The quoted provision makes plain that New Jersey law intends that civil union partners be viewed as spouses under all facets of New Jersey law and that a reference to “spouse” in a legal context, including in a contract, embraces civil union partners. This interpretation of “spouse” as it appears in the collective bargaining agreement(s) applicable to UPS employees who are in a New Jersey civil union would be consistent with New Jersey law and the intended purpose of the civil union statute. I urge you to reconsider your company’s reading of its collective bargaining agreement(s) on this point to facilitate implementation of the goals of the civil union law.

Apart from any purely legal considerations, the provision of employee benefits to civil union partners on the same terms as spouses would be more than a symbolic gesture of your company’s commitment to eliminating discrimination. Spousal benefits are a key element of the financial and physical well-being of working couples and their children. The provision of those benefits can, in some cases, mean the difference between the security of having health insurance, the financial strain of acquiring coverage at significant expense, or the risk of financial ruin by remaining uninsured. Surely, as a company with a longstanding commitment to its employees and the community, UPS would not want to make its employees and their families face these difficult choices based on the subtleties of the interaction of federal and State law, the happenstance that an employee is in a collective bargaining unit rather than an unrepresented position, and an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of a phrase in a collective bargaining agreement(s).

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours,
Jon S. Corzine
Governor

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 12:32 PM | TrackBack

June 20, 2007

Civil Rights Suit Filed in Ocean Grove Case

TRENTON—The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights announced today that it filed suit against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association for its failure to allow a lesbian couple to rent the Boardwalk Pavilion for a civil union ceremony.

As previously reported, the complainants, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster applied in March 2007 to use the Boardwalk Pavilion for their September civil union ceremony. Along with their application, the couple paid a $75 deposit. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association returned their fee and application, telling the couple that it would not rent the facility for their use.

The Association's President, Scott Rasmussen, later told the couple that, although the association allows the Boardwalk Pavilion to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit its facilities to be used for civil union ceremonies.

The Division on Civil Rights brought the complaint under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJ LAD), which prohibits discrimination in the use of public accommodations on the basis of civil union status. The Division is seeking compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, mental pain and suffering, and equitable relief permitting the couple to use the facility for the civil union ceremony.

A copy of the complaint is available here.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 1:49 PM | TrackBack

June 11, 2007

Ocean Grove Marriage Controversy Continues

by CAREN CHESLER New York Times OCEAN GROVE, NJ—Jan Moore and Emily Sonnessa, retired antique dealers in their 70s, have lived contentedly in Ocean Grove for a decade, maintaining a four-family home, tending their garden and socializing with friends in the flourishing local gay community. It never mattered to them that Ocean Grove was founded as a Methodist retreat and that a Methodist organization, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, owns all the land, including the parcel on which Ms. Moore and Ms. Sonnessa's house sits. The Methodists and gay residents coexisted harmoniously. Until now — now that Ms. Moore and Ms. Sonnessa, partners for 37 years, and two other lesbian couples want to use the pavilion on the boardwalk for civil union ceremonies. The Camp Meeting Association denied all three couples, saying that the pavilion is part of its church and that the Methodist Church does not approve of gay marriage or civil unions. We weren't even given the opportunity to fill out an application, Ms. Moore said. Evidently our interpretation of Christianity differs from the Camp Meeting Association's interpretation. Gays here are up in arms. Letters to the editor criticizing the church have appeared in the local newspaper almost weekly. Randy Bishop, an openly gay deputy mayor of Neptune Township, which includes Ocean Grove, has stated his opposition to the church's position. The association sought a meeting with New Jersey's public advocate, Ronald Chen, which is scheduled for Tuesday. Nancy Parello, a spokeswoman for the public advocate, said the association called after comments by Mr. Chen on the issue appeared in The Asbury Park Press. Ms. Parello said the public advocate's office had invited a representative of the Division of Civil Rights, part of the attorney general's office, to the meeting because the anti-discrimination laws are the agency's primary focus. Mr. Bishop said he was trying to broker a deal with Scott Rasmussen, the association's president. The association said it looked forward to hearing what state officials have to say. The Camp Meeting's values and heritage provided the foundation that has made Ocean Grove such a wonderful and welcoming community, the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the association's chief administrative officer, said in an e-mailed statement. We are confident that a solution will be found to uphold those values that is consistent with both the Methodist Book of Discipline and New Jersey state law. He said the church would not comment further. If the association had restricted use of the pavilion to Methodists, it might be able to argue that it had a religious exemption from discrimination laws, said Stephen Hyland, a lawyer from Westmont who specializes in family law involving same-sex couples. But because it allows heterosexuals of any denomination to use the pavilion, he said, it looks more like a public accommodation, not unlike a shopping mall. If it is found to be a place of public accommodation, then they can be found to be in violation of the law against discrimination, Mr. Hyland said. Some gay residents are aggrieved because they are such a large and active part of Ocean Grove's population. Gays own many of the shops and restaurants. Mr. Bishop, who owns a bed and breakfast here and headed Ocean Grove's Chamber of Commerce for 10 years, says gays were instrumental in revitalizing this sleepy seaside town. I'm disappointed that a place that prides itself, quite frankly, on a sense of community, is looking at some members of its own community and saying: ‘No, you can't do this. Not here,' he said. Mr. Bishop said that he could understand the association banning civil unions in Methodist places of worship, several of which are rented out for weddings, but that the pavilion is part of the community. Bands play there; children skateboard through it. It is even used during Ocean Grove's periodic Civil War Living History weekend for a debate that involves discrimination during the war, created from the papers of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. To me, that just seems ironic, Mr. Bishop said.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:18 AM | TrackBack

June 1, 2007

NH Gov Signs Civil Unions Bill

CONCORD—New Hampshire became the fourth state to legalize civil unions yesterday, as Gov. John Lynch signed legislation into law saying it was in keeping with the state's anti-discrimination tradition.

As more than 100 supporters gathered in the Executive Council chambers of the State House for the ceremony, Lynch portrayed the new law as a natural progression of the state's traditional values.

He called civil unions the New Hampshire way and the law a way to further the strengthening of New Hampshire families.

Dating back to the abolitionist movement, Lynch said, we in New Hampshire have had a long and a proud history in taking the lead in opposing discrimination. Today, that tradition continues.

The governor's office notified reporters of the bill-signing ceremony a little more than an hour before it took place, yet the room was jammed with supporters.

A conservative group later questioned if the governor's office provided such short notice to avoid possible protests.

Lynch signed the bill, declaring, This bill is now law, and handed his pen to state Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth, the bill's chief sponsor, as the crowd cheered loudly.

I've listened and I heard all the arguments, said Lynch. I do not believe that this bill threatens marriage. I believe that this is a matter of conscience and of fairness. It is never too soon to act to prevent discrimination.
The Senate passed the bill 14-10 in April, strictly along party lines, with the Democratic majority forcing passage.

The House had passed the bill three weeks earlier by a two-to-one margin, 243-129.

When the bill takes effect Jan. 1, 2008, New Hampshire will join Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey with civil unions. Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage and five other states allow for various levels of domestic partnerships.

The bill states that its purpose is to delineate the rights, obligations and responsibilities of parties entering a civil union.

It points to marriage and divorce laws for the legal details and allows, but does not require, clergy to perform civil unions.

The law also says any civil union or marriage legal in another state will be recognized as a civil union here.

ConserveNH, a new self-described conservative grassroots organization, criticized the governor and the new law.

Group chairman Paul Nagy said the group is disappointed that Governor Lynch has agreed to rewrite New Hampshire's marriage laws with this unpublicized signing of the civil unions bill. The governor and New Hampshire General Court should be on alert that while they have attempted to slide through this drastic change in New Hampshire's marriage laws with little public input and attention, every New Hampshire voter will be made aware of this unpopular payoff to liberal special interests. Nagy said the group will now push for repeal.

An emotional Splaine said after the signing, It's good that this was done the New Hampshire way. It was done through the legislative process.

He noted New Hampshire is the only state that has adopted equality in this way without a court requirement or court action.

State Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen said, New Hampshire voters did not have civil unions in mind when they gave Governor Lynch a Democratic majority last fall. The Democrats have gone too far, too fast with social policy.

But Splaine said the new law is so important in breaking down one more barrier of discrimination, and that is what New Hampshire, throughout our history, has been all about.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:19 AM | TrackBack

May 10, 2007

Ocean Grove Civil Union Ban Violates Law

OCEAN GROVE—The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's policy banning same-sex civil unions at the boardwalk pavilion appears to violate the law and should be reversed, state Public Advocate Ronald Chen said Wednesday.

The prohibition has angered some gay and lesbian residents, because it came after New Jersey legalized same-sex civil unions.

Some residents and business owners say they're troubled by the policy because of Ocean Grove's reputation as a welcoming community.

Chen issued his statement after an inquiry by the Asbury Park Press. Public Advocate spokeswoman Nancy Parello said they had received no other inquiries or complaints prior to that.

Scott Hoffman, the Camp Meeting Association's chief administrative officer, said the association's four approved locations for weddings and other ceremonies could not be used for the same-sex unions because the association adhere(s) to the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline in the use of our church facilities, which does not recognize the unions.

Hoffman said earlier published reports about the controversy that stated the association bans same-sex civil unions from the beach or boardwalk proper — while allowing other wedding ceremonies there — are inaccurate because the association does not allow any weddings or similar ceremonies except in four specific locations.

The sites are the boardwalk pavilion, the Bishop Janes Tabernacle, Thornley Chapel and the Youth Temple. Event coordinators help with the planning, he said.
If people had them on the beach or the boardwalk, that's not something that we have orchestrated, Hoffman said. There has never been a sanctioned wedding on the boardwalk or the beach.

When asked what the association would do if a same-sex couple simply appeared at the pavilion and took part in a civil union ceremony, Hoffman said, I don't think I probably should answer that. I just don't know.

He said the association asserts that it has the authority to ban same-sex civil unions by virtue of the unique legislation that sets aside the beach and boardwalk areas for the camp meeting and the mission of the camp meeting.

But Frank Askin, head of the Rutgers Law School's Constitutional Law Clinic in Newark, said that the association would have a stronger argument if it limited the use of those facilities only to members of the community.

As long as they open it up to the public, it becomes a public accommodation, he said. I don't think they can discriminate, and New Jersey is pretty strict on that.

Lee Moore, spokesman for state Attorney General Stuart Rabner, said Rabner would have no comment for now.

Neptune Deputy Mayor Randy Bishop — owner of a bed and breakfast in Ocean Grove and one of the first New Jersey elected officials to be joined in a same-sex civil union once they were formally recognized by the state — said he was disturbed by the controversy.

Bishop said that he can understand the association having to abide by religious dictates, but not why non-religious structures — such as the pavilion — would be off-limits to same-sex couples.

It saddens me that people who are honestly quite intimately involved in the community would be denied not religious structures, not going to the chapel or the auditorium, but places that really help define this community, he said. There is a significant gay and lesbian population in Ocean Grove, and people here tend to be for the most part very open and very accepting.

People are concerned, people are upset, and they want to see some resolution to this, he said.

Some business owners echoed Bishop's concern.

Barbara Bovaso, co-owner of the Bellevue Stratford Inn on Main Avenue, said she hoped the association would deal with the issue in the best way possible without discriminating against anyone.

I think people who want to dedicate themselves to one another, I don't care what their sexuality is, if they want to dedicate their lives for each other, that's a fabulous thing, she said.

Bovaso said she also is concerned that the ban could be blown up into a major issue.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:00 AM | TrackBack

April 26, 2007

NH Senate OKs Civil Unions

CONCORD, N.H. — A bill authorizing civil unions for gays cleared its last hurdle Thursday in New Hampshire, the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one.

The Senate passed the bill 14-10, sending it to Gov. John Lynch, who announced last week he will sign it.

To me this legislation is a credit to our state. We're making this move not because some court some place is telling us that we must, said Democratic Sen. Joe Foster of Nashua. We do so today because it is the right thing to do.

The bill's success is an about-face from two years ago, when a study panel recommended giving no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay couples. That panel, staffed mostly by supporters of a ban on gay marriage, concluded that homosexuality is a choice and endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Democrats won control of the Legislature last fall for the first time in more than a century.

New Hampshire will join New Jersey, Connecticut and neighboring Vermont in offering civil unions beginning Jan. 1. Vermont and Massachusetts were the first states to offer civil unions and marriage, respectively, to same sex couples in 2000 and 2004. Both moves followed court decisions.

New Jersey's civil unions also followed a court ruling. In Connecticut, a lawsuit challenging the state's marriage law was pending when lawmakers passed civil unions.

There are no active court challenges of New Hampshire's marriage law. Two years in a row, lawmakers defeated proposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Washington, Maine, California, New York and Washington D.C., recognize domestic partnerships. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer this week pledged to introduce gay marriage legislation in the next few weeks.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 3:59 PM | TrackBack

April 21, 2007

NJ Civil Union Licenses Increase

TRENTON—The number of applications from same-sex couples seeking licenses for civil unions increased in the second month that they were available, the state reported yesterday. According to figures released by the state health department, 373 couples applied in the period from March 20 to April 20, up from 229 in the first month after the civil union law went into effect on Feb. 19. Despite the increase, the number of applicants still lags behind the number of same-sex couples who applied for domestic partnerships in 2004, when that option became available and 1,700 couples signed up in the first month alone. Of the 373 same-sex couples who applied in the last month, 17 said that they had equivalent partnerships in other states or Canada.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:23 AM | TrackBack

February 23, 2007

Taxation and Civil Unions

TRENTON—The New Jersey Department of Taxation has clarified that partners in a civil union will receive treatment equal to that of a similarly situated married couple in regard to state taxes, including the New Jersey estate tax.

Because the federal goverment refuses to recognize same-sex couples, civil union spouses and domestic partners must continue to file federal taxes as if they are single. However, wherever New Jersey tax law references federal tax exemptions or filing status, New Jersey law will be interpreted as if federal law recognized civil unions in the same way New Jersey does.

The Civil Unions Act affects the following state taxes:

Real Property Tax

Civil union couples now have available the same property tax exemptions and relief as opposite-sex married couples.

Realty Transfer Fee Exemption

Transfers of real property from one civil union spouse to the other are entirely exempt from the New Jersey Realty Transfer Fee. (Note: The transfer may be subject to the federal gift tax.)

Property Tax Relief

Property Tax Reimbursement (Senior Freeze)

The Property Tax Reimbursement Program reimburses eligible senior citizens and disabled persons for property tax increases. The amount of the reimbursement is the difference between the amount of property taxes that were due and paid in the base year (the first all the eligibility requirements were met) and the amount due and paid in the current year for which the claimant is seeking the reimbursement, provided the amount paid in the current year is greater. All the eligibility requirements for the base year and for each succeeding year, up to and including the current year, must be met to qualify for the reimbursement.  Also, the same rights that apply to a surviving spouse, apply to a surviving civil union partner.  Opposite sex couples who marry and same sex couples who enter into civil unions in 2007, will be eligible to have their joint status applicable to the reimbursement beginning 2008, assuming all other eligibility requirements are met.

Homestead Rebate

The same rules that apply to married couples apply to civil union couples.  The filing status married, filing joint return or married, filing separate return may be used only if an opposite sex couple was married on December 31 of the tax year for which the rebate is claimed. As the same rule and treatment applies to civil union couples, they may begin to apply under married/civil union status in 2008 for tax year 2007.

Disabled Veteran's Property Tax Exemption

A civil union couple, one of whom has a United States Veterans Administration certification of wartime service-connected disability, may be entitled to a 100% real property tax exemption on their principal residence. The exemption is also available to the disabled veteran's surviving civil union spouse.

Veteran's Real Property Tax Deduction

The veteran and the surviving civil union partner of a deceased veteran or serviceperson who was a citizen and resident of New Jersey at death who had active wartime service in the United States Armed Forces and who was honorably discharged or who died on active wartime duty may now also be entitled to the $250 property tax deduction.

Senior Citizen's Real Property Tax Deduction

If one, or both, spouses in a civil union are at least 65 years of age or, if under age 65, permanently and totally disabled, then they may be eligible for a $250 deduction from local property taxes. The civil union couple's combined income must not exceed $10,000. The deduction is also available the surviving spouse if the deceased spouse was otherwise eligible.

Income Tax

For purposes of state income tax, civil union spouses will be required to file as either Married/Civil Union Couple Joint or Married/Civil Union Couple Separate, even though they will be required to file their federal income tax as Single. The first year in which civil union couples will be required to file as if married is for tax year 2007 in 2008. All exemptions and deductions available under state law to married couples will be similarly available to civil union couples.

Death Taxes

Transfer Inheritance Tax

Civil union spouses and domestic partners are treated as Class 'A' Beneficiaries, which means that transfers to the surviving partner are completely exempt from the New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax. For civil union couples, transfers to the deceased spouse's children, stepchildren, parents, grandparents or grandchildren are also exempt.

Estate Tax

Although based upon the federal estate tax in place in 2001, civil union couples have an unlimited marital deduction for transfers to a surviving spouse. Thus, all property passing to the surviving civil spouse is exempt from the New Jersey estate tax, but not the federal estate tax.

For civil union spouses who die with a gross estate of less than $2 million (the current federal estate tax exemption), this means the estate will be entirely exempt of state and federal death taxes.

Gift Tax

New Jersey does not have a gift tax. However, federal law requires the filing of a gift tax return for all transfers in any one year in excess of $12,000 (the current annual exclusion). Civil union couples do not have an unlimited marital deduction under federal law.

More Information

The Department's full notice is located here.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 3:32 PM | TrackBack

February 16, 2007

NJ AG Issues Opinion on Marriage Recognition

TRENTON—Attorney General Stuart Rabner today issued written advice to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics concluding that same-sex marriages entered into legally in another state or nation are valid in New Jersey, and should be recognized as civil unions once the state's civil union law takes effect this Monday.

Writing to help ensure uniform statewide practices, Rabner noted that …government-sanctioned, same-sex relationships validly established under the laws of other states and foreign nations will be valid in New Jersey beginning on February 19, 2007 and treated as either a domestic partnership or a civil union. The name of the relationship selected by other jurisdictions, however, will not control its treatment under New Jersey law.

According to the Attorney General, key to the manner in which same-sex relationships should be treated under New Jersey's impending civil union law is an analysis of the rights granted by other jurisdictions in comparison to those afforded under New Jersey law.

As a result, those same-sex relationships from other jurisdictions that most closely approximate a New Jersey civil union – that is, relationships that provide substantially all of the rights and benefits of marriage – will be treated as civil unions under our law, Rabner wrote in an opinion letter to Registrar of Vital Statistics Joseph Komosinski. Those same-sex relationships from other jurisdictions that most closely approximate New Jersey domestic partnerships – that is, relationships that provide some, but not all of the rights and obligations of marriage – will be treated as domestic partnerships under our law.

According to the Attorney General's opinion, same-sex civil unions entered into under the current laws of Vermont and Connecticut – and same-sex partnership entered into under California law – will be treated as legal civil unions in New Jersey. California's current domestic partnership law provides couples rights that closely approximate those of New Jersey civil unions.

Same-sex relationships from other jurisdictions that more closely approximate a domestic partnership will be treated as New Jersey domestic partnerships, Rabner said.

In addition, same-sex marriages established under the current laws of Massachusetts, as well as Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain, will be treated as legal civil unions in New Jersey.

The Attorney General thanked Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida for his work on this matter.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:02 PM | TrackBack

February 9, 2007

Civil Unions and Legal Confusion

By ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star Ledger Staff

Donna Waliky and Lill Rimac of Rockaway Township are registered domestic partners. Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross of Teaneck traveled to Vermont to form a civil union. Lianne Sullivan-Crowley and Julie Sullivan were married in Massachusetts before Princeton University made Lianne an irresistible job offer and they moved here.

They are among thousands of same-sex couples in New Jersey who have formed some sort of union recognized by some government. California, Hawaii and Maine also offer domestic partnerships; Connecticut authorized civil unions in 2005. Canada and some other countries recognize same-sex marriage.

Each of those arrangements will carry different legal consequences when New Jersey's civil union law goes into effect on Feb. 19. Some will automatically trigger all the benefits the new law provides; others will not. It remains an open question whether New Jersey will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

It's a mess, said Sally Goldfarb, a professor at Rutgers School of Law in Camden. I teach family law; I try to follow these issues. It's incredibly complicated.

This is the kind of uncertainty that arises when you have this proliferation of different legal statuses, Goldfarb continued. This is one reason why advocates for same-sex marriage say that marriages are the only sensible way to proceed.

In a landmark decision in October, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples must be allowed to form unions that carry all the benefits of marriage. But the justices gave lawmakers the option of calling those relationships something else, and the Legislature adopted the label civil unions.

This is how the law will affect same-sex couples who already have a legally recognized relationship:

Domestic partners

Donna Waliky and Lill Rimac met playing rugby, have been together for a decade and plan on staying together.

We had a wedding ceremony in 2001, your typical wedding ceremony without the legality of it, Waliky said. When New Jersey created domestic partnerships in 2004 to afford same-sex couples some legal protections, we signed up right away, she said.

They are among 4,546 same-sex couples who have registered as domestic partners, thereby gaining a dozen protections associated with marriage. Forming a civil union, as they plan to do, would give them all the rights and obligations — more than 800 — conferred by state law, but none of the 1,138 benefits or burdens that federal law applies to married couples.

David Buckel, an attorney with the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said that for the most part, gays and lesbians considering civil unions face the same issues as straight couples contemplating marriage. Both carry legal obligations, including responsibility for the other partner's debts and the possibility of one day having to pay alimony.

But there are a few considerations unique to same-sex couples. Buckel said for military couples, a civil union can potentially lead to a discharge under the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. It might also complicate efforts to adopt a child in some foreign countries that allow single parents, but not same-sex couples, to adopt, he said.

Buckel warned that if there are any potential immigration issues, it is incredibly important to consult a lawyer before entering a civil union.

The procedure for forming a civil union is identical to getting married. The couple go to the registrar of vital statistics in the town where either lives, bringing along a witness who can verify their identities. They complete an application and pay $28. Then they must wait 72 hours. They pick up their license, take it to the public official or clergy member performing the ceremony, and file the completed paperwork attesting that they have formed a civil union.

At that point, they're all set. They're in a civil union, said Joe Komosinski, the state registrar of vital statistics. Their old domestic partnership will automatically terminate.

Komosinski said the only time domestic partners must end their existing relationship is if one of them wants to form a civil union with a new partner. Then, just as a married person must get a divorce before taking a new spouse, the domestic partnership must first be dissolved in a proceeding before a judge.

If the same two people are entering into a civil union, they don't have to have it (their domestic partnership) terminated, Komosinski said.

Civil-union partners

When Connecticut recognized civil unions, its attorney general ruled that couples who had already formed such unions in Vermont had valid civil unions that need not and cannot be repeated in Connecticut.

In New Jersey, it will be different. Valid civil unions from Vermont and Connecticut will be recognized here, but if the couple wants a new civil union ceremony in the Garden State, they can have one.

Each year, roughly 1,000 married couples remarry their existing spouses. Komosinski said some were married in other countries and all the documents are in a foreign language, while others want to renew their vows.

Couples in civil unions will have the same opportunity. The procedure is the same as forming a civil union, with two exceptions: they check the box marked reaffirmation of a civil union and they need not wait 72 hours. They can have the ceremony performed immediately.

One reason to pause, Buckel said, is that couples who are civil-unioned in two states might have the double trouble of court proceedings in both places if they break up.

Married same-sex couples

The big question — the one that could start the next court battle — is whether New Jersey will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and if so, as what: marriages or civil unions?

We're researching it, Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida said. I want to get an answer before the bill becomes effective.

Stephen Hyland, a Westmont lawyer who specializes in legal problems of same-sex couples, said, I think to be safe, a couple that was married in Canada should be civil-unioned in New Jersey. But he said he might not give the same advice to a couple that wed in Massachusetts and moved here, because they have a stronger claim that their marriage should be given full faith and credit.

Of all the unresolved issues, none is more contentious.

Yesterday, the state's Catholic bishops released a letter urging believers to reach out to neighbors, legislators and the governor with the simple message: 'Preserve the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.'

Buckel said the state could have avoided a lot of problems by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The State of New Jersey is spending a lot of money and resources to figure this out, Buckel said. It's a lot more than bumps; I would call them brick walls. Some people are going to get hurt when they hit those walls.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 12:01 PM | TrackBack

February 2, 2007

Insurers Cap Mayors Civil Union Coverage

By JOHN WIHBEY
Star-Ledger

Public officials who choose to defy the state's new civil unions law will find themselves largely out of luck — and insurance funds — if lawsuits are filed against their towns.

The Municipal Excess Liability Joint Insurance Fund — which serves 374 member towns in the state — has passed a policy to cap payouts on civil union discrimination claims at $25,000.

The local Morris County fund recently approved an identical policy.

The fund's policy would limit the amount paid to towns for claims arising out of any loss, cost, or expense pertaining to … the performance, failure to perform or refusal to perform a marriage or civil union, according to county fund documents.

The state attorney general has ruled that officials who perform marriages must also make themselves available to perform civil unions, though they may avoid the issue altogether by choosing to do neither. That legal clarification follows landmark legislation passed Dec. 14 that allowed gay civil unions in New Jersey, a law that will go into effect Feb. 19.

The statewide insurance fund passed the policy on Jan. 3 to preempt attempts by officials to use public insurance funds to challenge the law and essentially finance a test case, according to David Grubb, the fund's executive director.

He said it appeared that some officials might challenge the law by performing marriages but not civil unions, and it would not be appropriate to spend public money in order to fight that issue up and down the courts.

Though the statewide insurance pool is not required to provide funds for intentiona violations of the law, it must provide insurance money until a judge determines the law-breaking was deliberate, Grubb said. That little catch could have cost a seven-digit number in insurance payouts, he said.

The Morris County Joint Insurance Fund, which insures 30 of the county's 39 municipalities, unanimously passed the resolution Jan. 10 capping payouts, said Ellen Sandman, a commissioner who oversees coverage issues with the fund. She said, The law is the law, and the county fund moved to bring its policies in line with the evolving situation.

Denville Mayor and Freeholder Gene Feyl, who initially said he would not perform a civil union if asked to by a gay couple, said yesterday he no longer objects to it, and his thinking has changed since Attorney General Stuart Rabner's ruling clarifying the matter.

But the mayor said his schedule is now too busy to continue performing nuptials.

Feyl also said he embraces the insurance fund's policy change. I certainly support that because I don't think that many municipalities want to fund a lawsuit for someone consciously violating the law, he said.

Chester Township Mayor Benjamin Spinelli, who said he will perform civil unions, applauded the insurance cap, saying the mayoralty is not a forum for our personal views … Civil unions exist. It now comes with the duties of the office.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:34 AM | TrackBack

January 27, 2007

Couples Gather to Learn About Civil Unions

by FRED R. SAVANA
Bucks County Courier Times

Beginning Feb. 19, same-sex couples can begin registering to strengthen their legal commitment in the state of New Jersey.

The state will begin performing civil unions on Feb. 19, which is none too soon for many who have been waiting years to have the same protections offered to heterosexual couples.

On Wednesday night, about 60 people attended a panel discussion at the Raven in New Hope, just over the bridge from Lambertville, to learn more about the process and what it will mean to enter into a civil union.

Stephen Hyland, a New Jersey attorney who assisted with creating the state's civil union law, told the audience that while New Jersey has had domestic partnerships for some time, a civil union will extend their rights and responsibilities.

I like to emphasize the responsibilities and the obligations, said Hyland.

Like a marriage, partners will have the right to expect support, said the attorney. Couples with children will have legal parenting responsibilities and ending the relationship will be similar to a divorce.

It's not an easy process to get out of a civil union in New Jersey, Hyland said.

The ceremony, which can be conducted by anyone who can perform a marriage, will be recognized in other states that have similar laws, including Vermont, Connecticut and California. However, the federal government does not recognize the union.

Public officials who perform marriages, such as mayors, are obligated to either perform the unions or give up officiating at marriages, Hyland said. Some mayors in New Jersey have said they would stop performing marriages if it meant they would have to perform civil unions, said the lawyer.

New Hope's mayor, Larry Keller, said he would gladly perform civil unions if they were legal in Pennsylvania.

For Craig Ross, 45, and Richard Cash, 53, of Somerset, N.J., a civil union is a step in the right direction but falls short of what they want.

It's a huge difference in our minds, said Ross of not being able to marry. It's sanctioned like a marriage but in reality, it's not one.

Still, said Cash, It's better than nothing.

The law will provide greater protection for couples when it comes to hospital visitation and the authority to make medical decisions for a partner, the ability to own property jointly and the ability to adopt.

Cash and Ross, like many in the audience and on the panel, agreed that within the next several years, marriage will become legal for same-sex couples in a growing number of states and, said Hyland, will face less public opposition.

Stephen Glassman, chairman of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said he was unhappy to report that Pennsylvania does not offer the same protections as its neighbor in New Jersey.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:48 AM | TrackBack

January 11, 2007

NJ AG: Clergy Exempt From Civil Union Law

TRENTON—When New Jersey's civil unions law comes into effect next month churches will not be obligated to perform ceremonies the state's Attorney General said Thursday.

In a legal opinion released by his office Stuart Rabner said that clergy are exempt from the state's anti-bias law.

'There is no statutory bar to a member of the clergy declining to solemnize civil unions in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs, even though that religious figure regularly solemnizes marriages, Rabner wrote.

The opinion followed a warning last month to municipal officials that under the law if they performed marriages they were legally obligated to conduct civil unions. (story)

A survey by one New Jersey newspaper last month, shortly after the civil union bill was signed into law, found almost all mayors in the state would refuse to perform a civil union ceremony.

Under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination any official who performs ceremonies for opposite-sex couples but refuses to conduct civil unions could be removed from office and subjected to fines beginning at $10,000 for the first offense Rabner said.

The civil union law was the result of an October ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. Whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.

The legislature opted for civil unions. The law goes into effect on Feb 19. Couples can begin applying for licenses on that date with the first ceremonies 72 hours later.

The law offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner's employer.

But it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.

The Roman Catholic and some other churches said they were relieved by Rabner's legal opinion while other denominations such as the Metropolitan Community Churches, United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Church said were not concerned because they planned on holding union ceremonies.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:05 PM | TrackBack

January 2, 2007

Civil Unions Lack Widespread Recognition

by Robert Schwaneberg
STAR LEDGER
TRENTON—The Commonwealth of Massachusetts considers Stacey and Jessie Harris married. But every April, the Harrises get a reminder the legal recognition their state extends to same-sex couples like themselves goes only so far. Although they can file joint state tax returns, they must file their federal income taxes separately.

It makes me more conscious that the federal government doesn't recognize my marriage, said Jessie, who lived with Stacey at the Jersey Shore for several years before they returned to their native Massachusetts in 2005.

Thousands of same-sex couples in New Jersey will soon learn what the Harrises already know. Although a law signed Dec. 21 by Gov. Jon Corzine promises same-sex couples who form civil unions all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities that flow from marriage, it comes with a giant asterisk.

It really means all of the state benefits of marriage. Like Massachusetts, New Jersey is powerless to grant same-sex couples the benefits that federal law bestows on married heterosexuals. And federal law does not recognize same-sex partnerships, regardless of whether they are labeled marriages or civil unions.

There are a plethora of federal rights that are significant that remain denied, said Elizabeth Cooper, a professor at Fordham Law School.

Thomas Prol, a Lyndhurst lawyer who co-chairs the New Jersey State Bar Association's committee on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, said the U.S. General Accounting Office has tallied 1,138 sections of federal law in which benefits depend on whether a couple meets the federal definition of a marriage: one man and one woman. The most important affect federal taxation, immigration, bankruptcy, Social Security, veteran's benefits and federal workplace protections for pensions and family leave.

Stephen Hyland, a lawyer with offices in Princeton and Westmont, said same-sex couples who form civil unions will have significantly less rights in total than heterosexual married couples.

Even so, Cooper said New Jersey's civil union law — the third in the nation after Vermont's and Connecticut's — represents a major step forward for lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey.

David Buckel, an attorney with the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said that for most same-sex couples, the state rights associated with marriage matter more than the federal benefits. He explained that is because state law addresses very basic, elemental protections that can really make a family secure.

They include the ability to visit a hospitalized partner, to stay in a shared home after one partner dies and to obtain health insurance for the whole family through one partner's coverage. They also include the ability to sign prenuptial agreements and, should the relationship end, to have a judge determine who gets custody of the children and whether either partner is entitled to collect alimony or child support.

In all of those areas and more, the law promises same-sex couples who form civil unions "equality" with married heterosexuals.

The same-sex couples who will be most hurt by the denial of federal protections are those in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, Buckel said

Then it's really all about the federal government, because it's a question of whether they can stay together at all, Buckel said. Under federal immigration law, American citizens who marry foreigners can bring their spouses into the country, but only if they are of the opposite sex.

And the Internal Revenue Service treats couples in civil unions differently than married heterosexuals.

Just deciding which filing box to check will be a challenge. The choices on federal form 1040 are: single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household or qualifying widow or widower.

John Traier, a certified public accountant in Clifton, said couples in civil unions will not be able to file joint federal income tax returns. Depending on whether they have children, they will have to file as single or head of household, he said.

And while filing joint state income tax returns should save them money, clearly there is more to be gained by filing a joint return on the federal side than on the state side, Traier said. He explained that is because federal tax rates are much higher and the federal tax code provides more deductions than New Jersey's gross income tax.

The reason couples in civil unions will not get all the benefits of their married heterosexual neighbors is a 1996 act of Congress that changed centuries of federal law.

Historically, the federal government looked to state law to determine whether a couple was married. If Massachusetts, for example, said they were, that was good enough for Uncle Sam.

That all changed when it looked like Hawaii might become the first state to recognize same-sex marriage and opponents launched a preemptive strike. Congress passed, and then-President Bill Clinton signed, the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

It said that for purposes of federal benefits, 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. It also said no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed by another state.

As a result, even if the New Jersey Legislature had allowed same-sex couples to marry, those marriages would not be recognized by the federal government and would not entitle those couples to federal benefits.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:07 AM | TrackBack

December 19, 2006

Gov. to Sign NJ Civil Unions Bill on Thursday

By Tom Hestor, Jr.
Associated Press

TRENTON—Gov. Jon S. Corzine said he hopes to sign civil unions into law on Thursday, which would give gay couples the same rights as married couples, but is worried that mayors will be able to refuse to conduct the ceremonies.

That would not be equal treatment under the law, but I would like to understand what the rights and obligations are, Corzine said Monday, adding that his lawyers were reviewing the bill.

The legislation would make New Jersey one of five states with the most benefits and protections for gay couples, including the right to have health insurance through a partner's employer.

Mayors aren't required under state law to perform marriages, and the civil unions bill doesn't alter that discretion. Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has said he will not perform the ceremonies and vowed Monday to not back down.

This is the first time in history an American is being told to perform a ritualistic ceremony no matter what you believe in, Lonegan said. I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it.

The Legislature approved civil unions Thursday in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. In the October ruling, the court gave lawmakers six months to act and left it to them to decide whether to call the gay unions marriage or something else.

Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer with expertise in marriage law, said mayors who perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples but refuse ceremonies for gay couples won't violate the civil union law but may violate anti-discrimination laws.

It would not be equal treatment, Hyland said. Mayors have a right to conduct wedding ceremonies or not to conduct them, but I think to say we're only going to conduct certain types of ceremonies opens the door pretty widely. It does raise discrimination questions.

If Corzine signs the bill Thursday as he hopes, the law would become effective Feb. 19. Couples would face a three-day waiting period before they can register their unions.

The governor said he wasn't sure what action he would take if his lawyers tell him the legislation allows mayors to reject civil union requests. Corzine could conditionally veto the bill, under which it would be sent back to lawmakers for revision. Or, he could sign it and hope lawmakers amend it.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of gay rights group Garden State Equality, praised Corzine for considering the issue. He contended that, had lawmakers called the unions marriages in the legislation, there would be no question over whether mayors could balk.

Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the organization that represents mayors and municipal officials was reviewing the bill. He said his group is looking into what penalties mayors might face if they refuse to perform civil unions.

We have asked our attorneys to look into it, Dressel said. But nothing will be definitive until the governor signs the bill into law.

In the United States, only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and California offers domestic partnerships that have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Since 2004, New Jersey has had a more limited version of domestic partnerships.

Among the benefits to be conferred on gay couples under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:22 AM | TrackBack

December 16, 2006

Some NJ Mayors Balk at Civil Unions

by Katie Wang
Star-Ledger

TRENTON—For mayors, standing before a love-struck couple as they say I do is one of the lighter and more pleasant aspects of their job.

But yesterday, mayors across New Jersey found themselves grappling over that duty when it comes to gay couples who may ask them to preside over a civil union ceremony.

I'm still up in the air about it, said Mount Arlington Mayor Art Ondish. If a same-sex couple stopped in today and asked me to perform a ceremony, I don't know what I would do.

The Legislature approved gay civil unions on Thursday, but no date has been set for Gov. Jon Corzine to sign the bill into law. Corzine, who supports civil unions, said he wants to review the bill to make sure it complies with a state Supreme Court ruling that calls for equality for gay couples.

The law would take effect 60 days after the governor signs it, forcing mayors to decide if they are willing to officiate gay civil unions. Under the state statute, judges and mayors have the right to officiate weddings, but are not required to do so.

The civil union bill gives mayors the same discretion, but does not specify if they would be penalized if they open their doors to heterosexual couples but turn away gay couples.

Stephen Hyland, an attorney in Princeton who has tracked the bill closely, said mayors who pick ceremonies based on sexual orientation risk being sued under the state's strong antidiscrimination laws.

What are the duties of a public official? he said. A public official cannot choose to carry out those duties on behalf of one person and not on another person.

Sally Goldfarb, a law professor at Rutgers University in Camden, said mayors would be obligated to follow the state's antidiscrimination laws and perform ceremonies for straight and gay couples equally. At the same time, some mayors might decide to stop performing ceremonies altogether.

The question is, have they done that to avoid same-sex civil unions? Goldfarb asked. That is hard to prove.

Somerville Mayor Brian Gallagher said he has performed dozens of marriages since taking office in 2004, but is hesitant about doing the same for gay couples.

Quite honestly, it's a hot potato, he said.

Gallagher said he would like more guidance from the Legislature or the New Jersey Conference of Mayors on the issue.

Timothy McDonough, the longtime mayor of Hope Township in Warren County and an executive officer with the Conference of Mayors, said the organization is taking a hands-off approach on the issue. McDonough said he personally has no problems officiating gay civil unions.

We are going to leave it up to the individual mayors, McDonough said. I think there are obviously some mayors who do not agree with this.

Denville Mayor Gene Feyl is one of them.

Feyl said he is very selective about whom he will marry. He only marries couples who are Denville residents who agree to have counseling with him before they exchange vows.

If a same-sex couple came to me and asked me to perform a ceremony for them, I would say no, Feyl said. I think a ceremony to join them would raise the union to a level of marriage. I could not do that.

Manville Mayor Angelo Corradino said given the choice, he would rather not preside over gay civil unions.

If I'm forced to do it, I will, he said. But I'd really prefer not to.

That's not the case in Maplewood, an Essex County community with a large gay population that enthusiastically welcomed same-sex couples to register as domestic partners in 2004. Mayor Fred Profeta said he is strongly in favor of presiding over same-sex civil unions.

The fight is not over, is it? Profeta said. And Maplewood is going to be at the forefront of this fight.

Then there are others, such as Newark Mayor Cory Booker who shun that part of the job altogether. Booker said he prefers that couples turn to religious leaders instead of him.

It's a sacred commitment that I think too many people take lightly, he said. I think it's best done with a religious leader.

At the same time, Booker applauded the bill and supports the rights for gay couples.

I think New Jersey has taken a very important step forward, he said. It's preserving a fundamental ideal in America of equal treatment.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 1:03 PM | TrackBack

NJ Civil Unions Provide Limited Benefits

by Geoff Mulvihill
Associated Press

TRENTON— With New Jersey on the verge of passing a civil unions law for same-sex couples, Rick Connolly called his insurance company to see if he could add his partner of 23 years to his homeowner's policy.

His partner could be added, Connolly was told, but not the same way as a spouse. The difference: If Connolly died, his partner would not be able to keep the policy.

The response is example of the confusion and frustration that might be in store for any gay couples who expect civil unions in New Jersey will give them the same rights as married couples.

"This is the first time in my life I've felt like going to a politician and saying, What's going on here? said Connolly, 63, of East Hanover, a former Army officer who is now retired from a career in the telephone industry.

The state Legislature, under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, approved the civil unions bill Thursday. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he anticipates signing it, but has not said when.

For gay and lesbian couples, civil unions represent an upgrade from the domestic partnerships that the state has offered since 2004. Instead of getting a handful of benefits, the couples would be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage that the state can confer.

Many of those rights come into play only in emergencies or major life changes. Among them are adoption rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision-making rights, alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court.

But there are areas where the state does not have control.

Gay couples in New Jersey will not be married _ or entitled to the same benefits _ in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer who published a legal guide to New Jersey's domestic partnership, said federal taxes would be complicated for gay couples in New Jersey.

They won't be able to file their federal returns jointly. But to file jointly on their state tax forms, they will still need to fill out the joint federal forms and send them to New Jersey, Hyland said.

Also, the civil unions bill requires companies that offer health insurance to spouses of their employees also offer it to civil union partners of workers. But for the civil union partner _ unlike a spouse _ those benefits would have to be reported as income to the IRS and would be subject to taxes, Hyland said.

Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits and may not be able to collect their pensions, which fall under federal regulation, said Felice T. Londa, an Elizabeth-based family lawyer who represents many same-sex couples.

There's another major tax issue regarding breakups of the relationships. Under federal law, alimony is not taxed.

But support paid from one partner to another when civil unions are dissolved would likely be subject to federal gift taxes, said Daniel Serviss, a Woodbridge-based matrimonial lawyer.

Additionally, the couples in civil unions won't necessarily have those unions recognized when they travel in states outside of New Jersey.

David S. Buckel, a Lambda Legal lawyer, said he's heard of couples planning vacations that would take them only to Massachusetts, which lets gay couples marry, and California, Connecticut and Vermont, which have laws similar to the one headed for passage in New Jersey.

Even if gay couples in New Jersey could marry, the rights they have in the Garden State might not be recognized under the laws of the federal government or other states, experts say.

But Londa said marriage would put them in better position to sue for those rights. If it were a marriage, she said. It gives you standing to challenge. That's the issue. If you call us anything else, you can't challenge federal laws that deny us equal rights.

Gay rights advocates expect more stories like Connolly's, too.

Connolly said he and his partner have been careful to protect each other. They registered as domestic partners on July 10, 2004 _ the first day New Jersey couples could do so legally. They have power-of-attorney agreements that give each other the rights to each other's property and to make medical decisions for one another _ a step most married couples would not need to take.

Connolly said making sure insurance is in order is another precaution he's taking to protect his partner.

A spokesman for his insurance company, USAA, a San Antonio-based firm that covers current and former military members and their families, said the company is aware of the civil union legislation in New Jersey.

"We follow legislation in all the different states. We're complying with it 100 percent," said spokesman David Snowden.

He also said that in a case like Connolly's, a non-married partner in a domestic partnership or civil union could be added to the policy, but could not keep it if the first partner died.

Lawyers say the company's position would probably break New Jersey law because it would treat civil union couples and married couples differently.

It's largely up to New Jersey officials to educate companies who do business in the state about civil unions and what they mean _ and to enforce the rights, according to insurance industry officials.

That makes Connolly nervous.

Will state regulators tell companies to get out of New Jersey if they don't grant rights in New Jersey? he asked.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 12:51 PM | TrackBack

December 14, 2006

NJ Legislature Adopts Civil Unions

New York Times
LAURA MANSNERAS

TRENTON—The Legislature voted on Thursday to make New Jersey the third state in the nation to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples. In doing so, it moved quickly to fulfill a court mandate to provide equal rights to gay couples but frustrated people on both sides of the emotional issue.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign the measure into law, said, I think we're doing the right thing.

In joining Vermont and Connecticut in establishing the parallel institution of civil unions, New Jersey shunned the option of opening marriage to same-sex couples. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, and it has a residency requirement; some same-sex couples have married in Canada.

New Jersey's new unions, which would take effect 60 days after the governor gives the nod, would expand on the domestic partnership arrangements the state has had since 2004. Gay couples would gain benefits like adoption privileges, inheritance rights and the ability to take a partner's surname without going to court.

But gay-rights advocates continued to contend Thursday that the separate institutions were inherently unequal and promised to keep pushing for nothing short of marriage itself.

We're planning a massive rally the day the civil union law takes effect, to pre-empt the idea that this is a day for celebration, said Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay-rights group.

Still, about 20 supporters of gay rights who had gathered in the gallery for the hourlong floor debate cheered when the Assembly voted 56 to 19 in midafternoon to approve the measure. They also applauded when Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Princeton Democrat, said, The distance between nothing and civil unions is greater than the distance between civil unions and marriage.

But Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, a Republican from Ocean County, said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.

The Senate passed the bill 23 to 12.

The civil union law was written under pressure, in response to a directive by the New Jersey Supreme Court seven weeks ago that the state grant gay and lesbian couples exactly the same financial benefits and legal rights as married heterosexual couples.

The Supreme Court gave the Legislature 180 days to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry or placed on a separate, parallel track. Both houses quickly settled on the civil union route, sending it through in just 10 days from introduction to final votes.

While the Legislature was instructed not to fall short of equality in the benefits it extended, conservatives lobbied to reserve the word marriage for heterosexuals, and on Thursday Republicans tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I believe the foundation of our state is families, marriage, one man, one woman, said Senator Robert W. Singer, the Republican from Jackson who sponsored the amendment proposal. Why do you want to crumble that? We're not taking away anyone's rights, just sanctifying what marriage is.

Without the amendment, the legislation leaves open the possibility of allowing same-sex marriage.

Give us two to five years, said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, the Newark Democrat who introduced the civil unions measure. In a year and a half or two years we'll see that the world hasn't collapsed, heterosexuals are still getting married and God hasn't thrown fire and brimstone on us.

Mr. Caraballo said proponents of gay marriage could not have pushed through a full marriage bill by the court's deadline in April.

He noted that just three years ago, it was a struggle to enact the limited package of rights and benefits that characterize domestic partnerships. We had to twist arms to get 41 votes, he said.

But Mr. Goldstein pointed to the legislators, including some Republicans, who had said the civil union bill did not go far enough. Today's debate for civil unions could be summed up in two words: buyer's remorse, for legislators who wish they were voting for full marriage equality, he said.

David Buckel, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said after the Senate vote, This law hit with a dull thud.

Mr. Buckel represents the couples whose lawsuit led to the Oct. 25 Supreme Court decision, in which the justices held unanimously that to deny them the full rights accorded married heterosexual couples violated their equal protection rights. He said he would consult his clients about going to the court again to argue that the new law does not meet its mandate.

Few legislators have said explicitly that they oppose civil unions. In the floor debate Thursday, several Republicans raised other objections (no Democrat voted against the measure).

Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt of Morris County contended that the Supreme Court had overreached, saying, I expect once again this Legislature will surrender its authority as it has many times in the last 40 years.

Social conservatives had focused their efforts on retaining the traditional definition of marriage. Len Deo, the president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said at a news conference Thursday with Senator Singer that the civil union bill moves us toward same-sex marriage.

People have a right to rights, Mr. Deo said, but they don't have a right to redefine an institution that's served us well for 2,000 years.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:06 AM | TrackBack

NJ Legislature Passes Civil Unions Bill

Star-Ledger
by KATE COSCARELLI

TRENTON—Lawmakers voted today to make New Jersey the third state in the nation to allow gay couples to form civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of married couples.

The historic votes by both houses of the state Legislature came just 50 days after the state Supreme Court declared New Jersey's constitution requires equality for same-sex couples and gave lawmakers six months to enact change.

The bill amending New Jersey's 1912 marriage law was adopted over the objections of social conservatives — who said it threatens the sanctity of marriage and who railed against judicial activism — as well as of gay-rights activists, who pressed lawmakers to call it marriage. The court had left it to the Legislature to decide whether to use that term.

The bill passed 56-19 in the Assembly, and 23-12 in the Senate. Five members abstained in each house.

Today, the people of the state of New Jersey, through us, proclaim the dignity of all relationships, said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex), a sponsor of the bill (A3787). The measure, he said, is nothing short of recognizing love matters.

Civil unions would give gay couples all the rights and obligations of their heterosexual counterparts — everything from the right to prenuptial agreements to equal application of adoption, child support and alimony laws.

Gov. Jon Corzine commended lawmakers for their swift action and said he would sign the bill once his staff ensured it complies with the Supreme Court ruling. The review is expected to be finished in a matter of days. The law would go into effect 60 days after it is signed.

I've been for civil unions for a long time, Corzine said.

The governor said it's possible civil unions could evolve into gay marriage, but stressed it's important not to get so far out in front of the public that we're not dealing with general society's belief.

Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to allow gay marriage. Corzine's signature will make New Jersey the only state besides Connecticut and Vermont to allow civil unions.

California has a strong domestic partnership law that provides most of the rights of civil unions, according to the Marriage Law Foundation in Utah.

Piece of History

The votes in Trenton came after brief but passionate speeches.

Lawmakers on both sides of the debate quoted the Bible. Supporters of civil unions invoked the indignities of racial segregation as reason to offer equal protection to same-sex couples. Some opponents said they objected on religious grounds. To counter arguments that the measure would harm the sanctity of marriage, one lawmaker cited the nuptials of pop music star Britney Spears, who was once married for a weekend before seeking annulment.

Assemblyman Michael Panter (D-Monmouth) said it was important to make a small piece of history.

We have a moral obligation in our state to not condone discrimination, Panter said. We cannot tell any taxpaying citizen who they can and cannot love.

Assemblyman Ronald Dancer (R-Ocean) said his personal faith prevented him from supporting the bill.

I cannot compromise my religious beliefs and faith, Dancer said. Let marriage be known by no other name, nor let marriage ever be redefined.

Other opponents said they resented the fact they were being ordered to act by the court.

I am offended that the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered this body to act in 180 days. There is a thing called the separation of powers, said Assemblyman Michael Doherty (R-Warren).

For the past two years, gay couples have been able to register as domestic partners, which granted them some rights. More than 4,000 couples have done so.

Those registered as domestic partners have the right to visit a hospitalized partner and to inherit from a deceased partner who has not written a will. But the law did not include many other rights, such as the ability to sue over a spouse's death or the law's protection over the secrets that spouses tell each other.

Princeton lawyer Stephen Hyland, who wrote a book on the domestic partnership law, said of legalizing civil unions, It's going to make a big change for the better for many same-sex couples who take advantage of the law.

Some lawmakers said they were glad to vote for the measure but sorry it did not extend the name of marriage along with the rights.

While I am disappointed that we haven't gone all the way &helip; it's the best we can do today, said Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), the Legislature's only openly gay lawmaker.

Gallery Applause

Same-sex couples and gay-rights activists packed the galleries of both the Assembly and Senate, many consulting a seating chart to determine which lawmaker was speaking. They sat side by side with dozens of opponents of the measure. Both groups erupted into applause so often during the debates that they were admonished to stay quiet.

The measure was opposed by a variety of groups, including the N.J. Coalition To Preserve And Protect Marriage. Many said the process was too fast and could end up in court again.
In 10 days they have changed 3,000 years of culture. The public wants to be heard, said John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families.

Gay-marriage supporters were muted in their enthusiasm.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, said he was jubilant about the number of lawmakers who seemed open to gay marriage. He plans to launch an aggressive campaign.

So help me God, we're going to win marriage equality in New Jersey in one to two years, he said.

The bill also creates a 13-member commission to study the impact and implementation of the new law. Lawmakers said they are likely to wait until the commission has time to study the law before beginning any effort to get gay marriage approved.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:53 AM | TrackBack

December 12, 2006

NJ Senate Committee Approves Civil Unions

by Kate Coscarelli
Star-Ledger

State lawmakers could vote later this week on a measure to allow gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions with the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

The bill (S-2407) cleared a second hurdle yesterday when the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced it with a bipartisan vote. An Assembly committee approved a nearly identical measure last week. Both houses are scheduled for voting sessions on Thursday and the bill is likely to come up. Gov. Jon Corzine has indicated he would sign the law.

This is a step in the process. It's a step in the right direction, said committee vice chairman Sen. John Girgenti (D-Passiac).

The vote at the standing-room-only meeting came after two hours of testimony. Some of those attending wore buttons expressing their positions, such as marriage equality or one man one woman. About 50 people asked to address the senators, but only a handful testified before the vote.

The legislation is in response to the state Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of seven same-sex couples who sued to marry. The court ruled the state constitution entitles those couples to all the benefits and duties of marriage but left it to lawmakers to decide how they are provided.

At the hearing's outset, Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), sponsor of the bill, said the bill reflects the reality of the political and social mood in New Jersey and told the committee it is important to preserve rights for same-sex couples.

Once the rights are in place, we can work on the words.

Gay rights activists yesterday testified the legislation does not go far enough because marriage is the only word the world understands.

Robert Kriestat, a Lutheran pastor from Convent Station, said he'd like to marry his partner of 37 years. He was one of a group of clergy who said not allowing everyone to marry was unjust. They brought more than 6,000 postcards from like-minded residents.

I am really kind of tired of hearing that I should be patient and wait longer for something that everyone else already enjoys, Kriestat said.

On the other side, Princeton University professor Robert George supported conservatives' equal benefits idea that would give rights to all pairs of people unable to marry, such as elderly siblings. He said that takes the vexing issue of sex out of the equation.

John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, said legislators are moving too fast on an issue that deserved more debate.

Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) advocated another approach — putting the idea to voters, which got applause from the audience.

Overall, there was little satisfaction with the measure, even though it was approved.

Sen. Robert Martin (R-Morris) said, I am disappointed the bill doesn't identify what the bill really wants to do, which is call it same-sex marriage.

In all, eight members voted to approve the bill. Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) voted against it. Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) abstained. Cardinale said he did not vote because he was cut off.

At day's end, Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said the legislation —which does not say marriage is only between a man and a woman — is acceptable for now. A civil unions bill is going to pass … that gives us tremendous hope for marriage equality.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 1:31 PM | TrackBack

December 11, 2006

NJ Assembly Committee Advances CU Bill

New Jersey Law Journal
by Michael Booth

The New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday recommended passage of legislation that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions but explicitly avoids mention of the word marriage.

After hours of testimony from same-sex couples and advocates who say the bill fails to meet their expectations, and conservative religious grsoups that want no civil unions, the committee passed the measure, voting along party lines, 4-2.

The 64-page bill, A-3787, was fashioned in response to the state Supreme Court's Oct. 25 ruling in Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, which gave the Legislature 180 days to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples — by amending the marital laws or creating civil unions similar to those permitted in Vermont.

Sponsor Wilfredo Caraballo, D-Essex, and committee Chairwoman Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex, said they would have preferred the first route but were realistic that such a measure had little change of passage in either house.

A Quinnipiac University poll made public Thursday reported that 60 percent of New Jersey residents favor civil unions with 35 percent opposed, while only 50 percent want to permit gay marriage.

This is a very good bill, said Caraballo. It's not the end, but it's a good place to start.

Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign whatever legislation passes both houses, so long as it grants same-sex couples equal rights. He said he prefers the civil unions bill.

No one at Thursday's hearing testified in favor of the legislation. Same-sex advocacy groups and couples went first, and urged the committee to vote against the bill, arguing that it would create second-class citizenship for the state's 20,000 same-sex couples.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, thanked Caraballo for at least trying to write legislation that attempts to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, but fears it would not go far enough.

Goldstein is the legal guardian of his 42-year-old, severely autistic brother and said that if something happens to his parents or to him, he hopes his partner would be able to take over. But even if Caraballo's bill became law, he is not sure that would happen.

I live in fear every day that because we don't have the word 'marriage' ... some government official will say, 'I don't care about your civil union, said Goldstein. My brother will become a ward of the State.

Stephen Hyland, a Princeton and Westmont attorney, specializes in estate planning for same-sex couples and said flaws in the bill needed to be addressed before it is voted on. Most of the problems, he said, involve Caraballo's reliance on the Vermont civil union statute in that the New Jersey version includes legal language that is not used here.

Caraballo said the legislation had been amended since its introduction to address those concerns.

Edward Barocas, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the bill impermissibly created a second-class tier of citizens.

It's a separate system and label, said Barocas. If we were doing this based on race, we would be decrying it and calling it abhorent. Separate is never equal.

David Buckel, the senior counsel for the New York-based Lamda Legal Defense Fund who argued on behalf of the same-sex plaintiss in Lewis v. Harris, said those couples, as well as others, want to be able to say they are married.

The name of 'marriage' is important, said Buckel. This bill creates discriminatory civil unions.

Conservative religious leaders then lined up to oppose the bill as well, but for othe reasons. They also derided the Court for inserting itself into the legislative process and forcing societal changes without public support.

The Court gutted the constitution, said John Tomicki, representing the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage and the Leaguge of American Families. You have the right to say no to the courts.

He urged the committee, without success, to slow down and closely examine the bill before taking action.

The hearing took an ugly turn at one point. After a woman involved in a same-sex relationship testified alongside her two young children, a man in the audience began yelling child abuse as she left the committee room.

The committee's two Republicans &mdash former Chairman David Russo of Bergen County and Christopher Connors of Ocean County — cast the two opposing votes. The measure now goes to the full Assembly for consideration. Senate President Richard Codey, D-Essex, and Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, are sponsoring an identical version, S-2407, in the Senate, and teh Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider it on Mondayy.

The Legislation attempts to be as comprehensive as possible in ensuring there are no gaps in legal rights.

The bill specifically outlines that members of same-sex partnerships will have full rights to partners' insurance, health care decisions, benefits, tax breaks and the like.

Those applying for a civil union license would have to meet the same statutory requirements as those applying for a marriage license, and would have to pay the same $28 fee.

In the statement, the sponsor indicated that the bill is meant to be read liberally and that the rights listed are not necessarily complete. The bill enumerates some legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses which would apply in like manner to the parties in a civil union, however, this list should not be construed to be an exclusive list of such benefits, it says.

The same people who perform marriages would be allowed to perform civil union ceremonies. Prenuptial agreements between same-sex partners would be viewed the same as those entered into by heterosexual couples. Dissolution of civil unions and equitable distribution would be treated equally, as would child custody and visitation.

The bill would go into effect 60 days after being signed.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:04 AM | TrackBack

November 15, 2006

NJ Women Named as Birth Parents

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, A.P.

MOUNT LAUREL—In some of the first legal fallout from a state Supreme Court ruling that gives same-sex couples in New Jersey access to the same rights as married couples, two women will be listed on the birth certificate of a baby born this week in Burlington County.
In a closed family court proceeding on Monday, a day before the child was born, the state and the women agreed that both women should be listed as the baby's parents in light of the landmark high court ruling last month. A judge agreed with the state and the women, lawyers said.

The Supreme Court last month ruled that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights in New Jersey as married couples. But the court left working out the details - including the important one of whether the unions should be called marriages - to lawmakers and gave them six months to act.

In the decision, the court specifically mentioned the state's artificial insemination law. Under it, the husband of a woman who gives birth after being artificially inseminated is listed on the birth certificate as the father. But no such provision is made in the law for lesbian couples and, usually, only the birth mother is listed on the baby's birth certificate.

As a result, lesbian couples often go through lengthy and costly adoptions to give both women equal rights as parents.

Parental rights are especially important to children because they establish inheritance rights and custody should a parent die. Listing both parents on a birth certificate also allow the child to be covered by the health insurance of either parent.

The Burlington County women, who are registered as domestic partners in New Jersey, did not want their names made public, said their lawyer, Hill Wallack partner Stephen J. Hyland.

Hyland said his clients' question is one of many legal issues the state may have to iron out before the Legislature takes action on gay unions.

Other issues, he said, include whether the rights for same-sex couples should be retroactive. For instance, should babies conceived by artificial insemination to lesbian couples before last month's ruling have both women listed on their birth certificates? Also, for children born that way in other states, how should their parentage be recognized in New Jersey?

Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida said Hyland's clients are the first he knows of in New Jersey to take advantage of new rights granted by the Oct. 25 Supreme Court ruling.

DeAlmeida said the state has not taken a position on whether the rights granted in the landmark decision should be retroactive.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:28 AM | TrackBack

November 13, 2006

Support for Civil Unions Outweighs Marriage

TRENTON—Support for same-sex marriage in New Jersey was significantly less than that for civil unions in a poll taken shortly after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexuals.

A little more than half of the Rutgers-Eagleton poll's 809 respondents favored changing the state constitution so that gay marriages would be banned. In June, a poll showed the opposite, with a little more than half opposing such a constitutional amendment. Some lawmakers reacted to the ruling by calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Leaders in the legislature, along with the governor, have said they would not favor such a move. Instead, lawmakers plan in the next months to debate what to call the nuptials.

Some gay marriage advocates, cheered on by the gay rights group Garden State Equality, are calling for not only the marriage rights, but also the name. Thursday's survey shows those activists are in for an uphill battle. In the poll, about three in 10 adults surveyed wanted to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while 4 in 10 wanted civil unions.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:15 AM | TrackBack

July 13, 2006

CT Court Rejects Marriage Ban Challenge

HARTFORD—A Connecticut state superior court judge ruled yesterday that gay and lesbian couples have not been harmed by the state's decision to legalize same-sex civil unions rather than grant them full marriage rights. Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman wrote that civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law.
Judge Pittman ruled that the Connecticut Constitution requires equal protection and due process of law, not equivalent classification of protections and processes.

Last year, the Democratic-controlled legislature passed, and Republican Governor Rell signed into law, a bill legalizing civil unions. But it defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Eight couples sued, claiming civil unions are an inferior status and that Connecticut's marriage laws should be changed.

A lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders says the group will appeal the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says the ruling leaves open the possibility that the legislature could reconsider extending marriage to same-sex couples. But he says the decision rejects arguments that lawmakers be required to do so.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:56 AM | TrackBack

July 3, 2006

PA Marriage Amendment Fails

HARRISBURG—The Pennsylvania Legislature recessed for the summer without passing an amendment that would have prohibited same-sex marriage and, perhaps, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The Pennsylvania Assembly had passed a version of the amendment that prohibited all same-sex unions, including marriage, domestic partnership and civil unions. The Pennsylvania Senate, however, passed a version that struck the language prohibiting civil unions and domestic partnerships. The two houses were unable to reconcile the different versions prior to the end of the legislative session. As a result, the proposed amendment died.

The Pennsylvania Constitution may only be amended by passing a proposed amendment in two separate legislative sessions, after which the proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of the state's voters in a general election.

Because of the failure to pass the proposed amendment in the current session, the earliest that an amendment could be placed on the ballot would be 2009.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:05 AM | TrackBack

June 22, 2006

PA Senate Approves Marriage Ban

HARRISBURG—By a 38-12 vote, the Pennsylvania Senate approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban recognition of same-sex marriage. The Senate bill must now be reconciled with the House version, which included a ban on civil unions and other same-sex unions.

Last week, the Senate approved an amendment that struck the language that would have prohibited marriage alternatives, such as domestic partnership or civil unions. Because of this amendment, passage in the current session is not assured.

Under Pennsylvania law, the Constitution can only be amended if the exact same bill is passed in two consecutive legislative sessions and is subsequently approved by the voters on a referendum. The current legislative session ends on August 7 and the legislature goes on vacation next week. If the House does not approve the bill as amended by the Senate prior to the end of this session, then passage of the amendment will be delayed until at least 2008.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:02 AM | TrackBack

June 14, 2006

PA Proposed Marriage Ban Amended

HARRISBURG—A proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, the Senate Committee approved an amendment that removed a ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships in the state.

HB 2381 now moves to the full Senate, where its passage is uncertain. Approval of the change to the bill by the Committee has upset the original sponsors of the bill, who believe that civil unions and domestic partnerships are simply marriage substitutes. These opponents of equality for same-sex couples are now concerned that debate on the bill as amended will delay and, perhaps, prevent passage of the bill in this session.

The process of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution requires an identical bill to be passed by both the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, after which the voters must approve the bill in a votor referendum.

For more information see this story on 365gay.com.

For the text of the bill, see the legislative history on this site.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:40 AM | TrackBack

March 2, 2006

IRS Warns Same-Sex Couples Not to File Joint Returns

WASHINGTON, DC—The Internal Revenue Service has begun warning tax preparers, businesses and state governments that same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts or registered as domestic partners in states such as California and New Jersey must file separate income tax forms.

Citing the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, the IRS says that the US government does not recognize anything other than legally married opposite-sex couples.

The law allows straight couples who are married to divide their incomes when they file jointly, usually meaning a lower tax rate. Same-sex couples, even if registered as domestic partners, in civil unions, or in legally-recognized marriages, are not entitled to file their federal returns jointly, and attempts to file a joint returns could lead to fines or other penalties.

The IRS issued a similar warning soon after same-sex couples became able to marry in Massachusetts last year. Last year a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a gay couple in Minnesota claiming they deserved a tax refund because they were legally married and should be granted married taxpayer status.

People who receive health insurance from their state or local government or through their employer for their spouses or domestic partners are additionally hit with taxes. Employer-paid dependent health benefits are not taxed when it involves an opposite-sex married couple. But, since the IRS is unable to recognize same-sex relationships because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the benefits are considered imputed income to the extent the employer pays the benefit on behalf of the same-sex partner. In some cases the tax outweighs any savings.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 6:08 PM | TrackBack

September 20, 2005

CT AG: State May Recognize NJ Domestic Partners

HARTFORD—Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued a legal opinion today concerning the recognition of out-of-state civil unions and same-sex marriages in that state.

Civil unions performed in other states are entitled to full faith and credit in Connecticut, will be recognized, and need not be repeated here, Blumenthal said. Out-of-state same-sex marriages have no legal force and effect here. Because out-of-state same-sex marriages are not recognized as marriages or civil unions under Connecticut law, same-sex couples may enter into a civil union in Connecticut.

Connecticut's law allowing civil unions between same-sex couples takes effect Oct. 1.

Blumenthal issued the opinion to the state Department of Public Health (DPH) Commissioner J. Robert Galvin. It is the DPH's Registrar of Vital Records that administers the official civil union and marriage papers in the state, which are issued through city and town clerks' offices.

This opinion concerns a new, developing area of law — uncharted legal territory in Connecticut, Blumenthal said. Our courts, obviously, will be the ultimate source of answers. After a careful, critical review of our law, I believe that out-of-state same-sex civil unions and certain domestic partnerships must be honored in Connecticut. Because our state legislature has defined marriage as a union between only a man and a woman, our state will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Such couples, however, may enter into civil unions in Connecticut.

Currently, Vermont is the only state outside of Connecticut that allows civil unions, and Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriages. Several states, including California, New Jersey, and Maine, allow some form of same-sex domestic partnership.

Blumenthal said our courts will conclude that Connecticut law and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution require Connecticut to recognize Vermont civil unions and California same-sex domestic partnerships because California's Domestic Partnership Act provides a particularly broad range of benefits to same-sex couples. Other out-of-state, legally authorized same-sex domestic partnerships may be recognized as civil unions in Connecticut, depending on how specific provisions of other states' laws compare to ours.

In determining whether Connecticut will recognize a civil union, same-sex marriage, or same-sex domestic partnership from another state, Blumenthal's office reviewed state law and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which governs the extent to which one state must recognize the laws of another state.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause provides that:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Blumenthal said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to apply another state's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.

Connecticut courts have ruled that a state may decline to recognize a same-sex marriage entered into in another state if it violates the public policy of that state. While the Connecticut legislature has chosen to adopt civil unions here, it has specifically defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:21 AM | TrackBack

August 17, 2005

VT High Court to Hear Custody Case

MONTPELIER, VT—Oral arguments in the custody dispute involving a Vermont woman, her former civil union partner now residing in Virginia, and their daughter are scheduled for September 7, 2005 before the Vermont Supreme Court.

Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins were registered in a Vermont civil union four years ago while residing in Virginia. The couple jointly decided to have a child, who was born to Lisa in April 2002. The couple subsequently moved to Vermont where they lived for over a year before Lisa decided to terminate the civil union and move, with their child, back to Virginia. Shortly thereafter, the couple filed for dissolution of the civil union.

During the Vermont proceedings, the court issued temporary custody to Lisa, with visitation rights to Janet. Lisa (now claiming to be an ex-lesbian) began resisting the visitation order, with the help of a far-right christian legal organization, and subsequently filed for custody and a determination that she was the sole parent in a Virginia court.

The Virginia court claimed jurisdiction over the case, in defiance of the federal Parental Kidnapping Act ("PKA"), on the basis that Virginia law prohibited the court from recognizing the civil union and therefore giving "Full Faith and Credit" to the Vermont custody determination. Soon after, the Virginia court ruled that Lisa was the sole parent, that Janet had no rights regarding their child, and awarded custody to Lisa.

In the meantime, the Vermont court issued a contempt of court citation against Lisa for her failure to abide by the Vermont court's custody order.

At this time, Janet has appealed the Virginia ruling in Virginia, and Lisa has appealed the Vermont order to the Vermont Supreme Court. Most court watcher's believe this case will be appealed by one side or the other to the United States Supreme Court.

For the latest news, see this story. For more background information on the Vermont case see the GLAD web site. For information on the Virginia case, visit the Equality Virginia site.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:24 AM | TrackBack

July 5, 2005

Oregon Civil Union Bill Unlikely to Pass House

SALEM, OR — An omnibus LGBT civil rights bill that includes civil unions and the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Oregon's nondiscrimination act is likely to receive a vote in the Senate this week.

The bill would create a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

The bill also adds sexual orientation to a law that forbids discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, color, religion and several other factors.

It has the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski and is expected to pass the Democratically controlled Senate with little difficulty.

The Oregon Senate will be making a very important statement about prohibiting discrimination in this state and providing all of Oregon's families with stability and security, said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D-Portland).

But, the bill's chances of getting through the House are considered slim to none.

Republicans control the House and Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) said she has no intention of allowing it to come to vote.

Minnis said that the civil unions section of the bill violates the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The GOP stonewalling of the legislation has the support of the Oregon Catholic Conference and other religious groups.

Even though the bill was amended to carefully differentiate between civil unions and marriage opponents say it amounts to the same thing.

Our argument is that they are amending every marriage statute, said Tim Nashif, political director for the Oregon Family Council.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 2:21 PM

July 4, 2005

Fewer Vermont Civil Unions as Options Increase

BRATTLEBORO, VT — In the last six months of 2000, when Vermont was the only state in the nation recognizing anything resembling marriage for gays and lesbians, 1,709 couples were joined in civil unions.

The popularity has waned every year since and has plummeted since Massachusetts began permitting same-sex marriages a year ago and several Canadian provinces did the same.

For all 12 months of 2004, 711 couples obtained civil unions and we won't even come close to that this year, said Rich McCoy, chief of public health statistics at the state Health Department.

I would say the primary reason is same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, McCoy said. Many, many of our civil unions in the first couple of years were to couples in Massachusetts. Also … the numbers we had coming from Canada dropped off. Now Connecticut has its own civil union law. We did get couples from Connecticut.

Civil unions have been most popular with out-of-state couples. Of the 7,549 couples who have had civil union ceremonies since July 1, 2000, only 1,137 have been Vermonters. There have been 78 dissolutions, or divorces. Slightly more than two-thirds of the couples have been women, McCoy said.

Elsewhere, California couples can register with the state and qualify for all the benefits of marriage except for the right to file taxes jointly. Oregon is close to becoming the third state to offer civil unions.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 2:48 PM

July 2, 2005

Fifth Anniversary of Vermont Civil Unions

BRATTLEBORO, VT—Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh were among the very first same-sex couples in the nation to be legally joined as spouses when Vermont's civil union law went into effect. They're happy to be celebrating their fifth anniversary — but they still wish they could get married.

As gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts have won full marriage rights, and several communities have recognized same-sex marriages, even fleetingly, the civil union certificate that Farnham and Puterbaugh got on July 1, 2000, seems a little like second best.

I think people have accepted civil unions, without any question, Farnham said. Don't get me wrong, it's still a compromise. I would still like full marriage benefits, but it's better than what we had.

In the first five years of Vermont's law, 7,549 couples have joined in civil unions, all but 1,137 of them from out of state. Roughly two-thirds have been women. There have been 78 dissolutions.

Activists who observed Friday's fifth anniversary of the Vermont law going into effect say it stops short of full equality for gay and lesbian couples. They plan to renew their push for full marriage — something newly granted in Spain and expected soon in Canada.

We knew from the outset it wouldn't get us where we need to go, which is full inclusion and equality for gay families, said Beth Robinson, the lead lawyer in the suit that led to civil unions. I think we've got plenty of work ahead of us.

Opponents have remained largely silent since 2000, when Vermont's Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples were being unconstitutionally denied marriage rights. Activists sought full marriage rights then, but lawmakers following the lead of Gov. Howard Dean decided the public was not ready for such a big step.

The Rev. Craig Bensen, who helped lead an opposition effort five years ago, said opponents would organize against any initiative for marriage.

The legislative psychology, based on what I've been observing, is that neither side and certainly not the middle sees any great desire on anybody's part to reopen the debate, just because of the huge amount of fallout that came with it the first time around, Bensen said. I think it would get very hot again.

A major complaint about civil union is that it is recognized in only one other state: Connecticut. Otherwise, when couples leave Vermont, they don't have any guarantee that partners can visit each other in a hospital or the authority to make medical decisions if one partner is incapacitated.

Farnham said they were going to a party this weekend in New York state.

Legally in New York state we are not related to each other, she said. When you travel out of state people do not realize the benefits that we do not have, that you can't carry them across the state line.

Sandi Cote-Whitacre said that when she and her partner, Bobbi Cote-Whitacre, travel out of state they take along a sheaf of legal documents, including powers of attorney and other contracts that seek to make their relationship clear.

They both also are approaching retirement age and want to be married because that's the only way the federal government allows one partner to qualify for the other's Social Security and other pension-related benefits.

Still, even their civil union has benefits. Their auto insurance bill, for example, was halved to $600 because their insurer recognized them as spouses as soon as Vermont's law went into effect.

At that point we had been together 33 years and you think you've related to each other on every level possible, Sandi Cote-Whitacre said. But when we got up the next morning it was different and I don't know what was different about it. That was the intangible that civil union gave couples. It added another level of commitment that I was surprised at and so was Bobbi.

The very first couple to join in a civil union — Carolyn Conrad, 34, and Kathleen KP Peterson, 46, of Brattleboro — are happy with what they've got.

It doesn't make any sense to me to quibble over a word when I know that for me the civil union has been spectacular. And if it's not enough for somebody else I'm sorry about that, but I'm really happy having a civil union, Peterson said.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 2:45 PM

June 18, 2005

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Civil Union Dissolution

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court today rejected a lawsuit by a group of conservative lawmakers and others to overturn a northwest Iowa district judge's ruling that dissolved a lesbian couple's out-of-state civil union.

The justices said the group had no legal standing to challenge the decree by Judge Jeffrey Neary and therefore no right to intervene.

Chief Justice Louis Lavorato's ruling did not address the issue of whether Neary erred when he dissolved the Vermont civil union.

The justices agreed with opponents of the group's lawsuit, who argued that many people have strong opinions about marriage, as they do about divorce, child custody, zoning and many other issues … if everyone were allowed to petition for simply because of ideological objections or strongly held philosophical beliefs … then there would be no limits to the petitions brought.

Iowa law has never permitted such unwarranted interference in other peoples' cases, the argument continued. Simply having an opinion does not suffice for standing.

The ruling apparently allows Neary's order and the divorce to stand although the state does not recognize same-sex marriages.

Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez, who live in Sioux City, went to Neary for the divorce in August 2003. They entered their civil union in Bolton, Vt., on March 25, 2002.

Neary's November 2003 ruling came amid a national debate that began a month earlier when Massachusetts' highest court ruled that a state prohibition against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The arguments have played out elsewhere, most recently in California, where same-sex couples this year were granted access to divorce court in order to divide assets and decide alimony and child-support issues.

Neary signed the divorce papers during a brief daily period when judges meet with attorneys and approve routine orders. He said he didn't realize the two people in the divorce were women until after he signed the papers.

But when he discovered the facts, he declined to withdraw the order, and a few weeks later amended it to say that he ended only the civil union in Vermont, not a marriage.

His critics say that he should have sent the two women back to Vermont if they wanted a divorce, and that he encroached on the Legislature's authority to make law.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:06 AM

June 2, 2005

VA Woman Appeals Custody Ruling to VT Supreme Court

MONTPELIER, VT — Attorneys for a Virginia woman contend that state's law should be followed in a child custody battle arising from a broken civil union in Vermont.

The argument is contained in a recent filing in Vermont Supreme Court by attorneys for Lisa Miller of Virginia. It is the latest court action in a custody case that has led to a series of conflicting rulings in the civil union split of Janet Miller-Jenkins of Fair Haven and Lisa Miller of Virginia.

Attorneys for Miller had asked Rutland Family Court Judge William Cohen to give full faith and credit to the judgments reached in Virginia, which found she is the sole parent to 2-year-old Isabella, a child she bore after artificial insemination. At the time, the two women were joined in a civil union performed in Vermont.

Cohen had rejected the request. Attorneys for Miller have since appealed that ruling to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Lawyer Rena Lindevaldsen of the Florida-based legal group, Liberty Counsel, representing Miller, recently submitted a filing in the case to Vermont's highest court.

Under Vermont law, because Lisa and Janet were residents of Virginia, with the intent to continue to reside in Virginia, at the time they traveled to Vermont to enter into a civil union, and Virginia prohibited same-sex unions, they could not enter into a valid union, Lindevaldsen wrote.

Vermont has a similar rule prohibiting Vermont residents from traveling to another state to enter into a marriage that is prohibited by Vermont laws … Vermont policy is clear that Vermont does not tolerate its citizens traveling to other states to enter into a legal union considered void in Vermont, and then coming back to Vermont to try and force Vermont to recognize those unions.

Attorneys for Miller-Jenkins have until June 7 to file a response in Vermont Supreme Court. She is represented in the appeal by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders based in Boston. Miller-Jenkins' attorney could not be reached Tuesday for comment.

The women were living in Virginia when they agreed four years ago to enter into a civil union in Vermont. The pair then returned to Virginia and decided Miller would conceive a child through artificial insemination.

Isabella was born in Virginia in April 2002 and the two women later moved to Vermont. The women then broke up, dissolving their civil union in Rutland Family Court.

Miller moved with the child back to Virginia, a state where civil unions are not recognized. She sued in Virginia for full custody and a judge there later granted her request.

Miller-Jenkins had opposed the Virginia action, arguing that a proceeding was already underway in Vermont. Her attorneys have since appealed the Virginia court's decision to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Miller-Jenkins argued that a judge in Vermont already had given her temporary visitation rights.

The case has attracted national media attention, highlighting the fate of children in relationships sanctioned in one state but not in others.

In his decision in December rejecting a bid to grant full-faith and credit to the Virginia ruling, Cohen cited the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which was designed to eliminate jurisdiction battles between states with conflicting provisions in child custody disputes.

Without the national standards for enforcing custody rulings, noncustodial parents still had reason to snatch their children and petition the courts of any number of haven states for sole custody, the decision read.

Cohen wrote that once a state takes jurisdiction in a case, no other state may take jurisdiction over that custody dispute. And, he wrote, because Vermont first had jurisdiction in this case, he is not bound by any decision reached in a Virginia court.

Miller's attorneys argue in the recent filing that the case should be decided in Virginia, in part, because she was artificially inseminated in Virginia, gave birth to Isabella in Virginia and continued to live in Virginia until four months after Isabella's birth.

Miller's attorney also disagreed with Cohen's take on the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

… even if the PKPA precludes a court from taking jurisdiction of a parentage action after another court had already issued a custody or visitation determination, the later enacted federal Defense of Marriage Act permit Virginia to refuse to recognize any rights created by virtue of the civil union, the filing stated.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:01 AM

April 26, 2005

Conn. Civil Union Bill Online

Here is the Connecticut Civil Union Bill, Public Act No. 05-10, as signed into law.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 1:43 PM

April 25, 2005

Conn. Civil Union Passage Marred by Protests

HARTFORD — About 3,000 protesters gathered at the state Capitol Sunday to denounce lawmakers who voted in favor of legislation last week that made Connecticut the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples.

Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, urged opponents of the bill to vote against lawmakers who supported it in next year's elections.

Civil unions are merely a stepping stone to redefining marriage, he said at Sunday's rally. Anyone who voted for this bill voted for same-sex marriage.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed the bill last week after it overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. The law, which takes effect in October, also defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Vermont is the only other state to allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry.

Meanwhile, about 80 gay rights activists took part in a mock wedding ceremony on the Capitol lawn Sunday, criticizing civil unions as second-class citizenship. Many said they were happy the state approved civil unions but wished lawmakers had given gays and lesbians full marriage rights.

Janet Peck and Carol Conklin, plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit challenging the state's marriage laws excluding same-sex couples, said they have always dreamed of marrying each other. They said they don't know if they'll get a civil union.

We just see ourselves holding hands, looking into each others' eyes, pledging our love and commitment, Peck said. It's a vision we've had for 29 years.

Capitol police had extra forces out Sunday to maintain order at the rallies. One man was detained after trying to approach the rally against civil unions and mouthing off, said Capitol Police Chief William Morgan. It was unclear if he would be charged.

On the Capitol steps, Brian Mock held a sign chastising the governor that read Truth is not RELL-ative. He said he had little hope that lawmakers would repeal the civil union statute, but said they need to know voters are watching.

I do believe in stepping up for what you believe, he said, because God is looking down at what you are doing.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 5:23 PM

April 21, 2005

CT Governor Signs Civil Union Bill

HARTFORD — Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell wasted no time Wednesday signing a bill creating civil unions in the state less than an hour after it passed its final hurdle in the legislature.

The bill gives same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage.

The House voted 85-63 last week after a clause was added defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. The addition of the marriage clause had been set by Rell as a requirement before she would agree to sign it.

The Senate version of the bill sailed through that body on a 27-9 vote a week earlier (story) but without the marriage definition.

Today, the Senate approved the inclusion of the definition to the cheers of supporters in the public gallery.

The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country, said Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, and one of a few openly gay state lawmakers. Love Makes a Family, a gay rights organization that wanted legislators pass a gay marriage bill, called civil unions an important step toward protecting the rights of same-sex couples. But Anne Stanback, the group's executive director, said the fight is not over.

As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality, she said.

Connecticut's legislature has recognized the existence and reality of same-sex families, and has stepped up to the plate to provide those families with much-needed protections said Mary L. Bonauto, director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Civil Rights Project.

They have not chosen the simplest, fairest way to provide those protections — marriage — but we look forward to the time when Connecticut's same-sex couples will be able to legally wed.

Massachusetts is the only state which allows same-sex marriage. Connecticut now becomes the second state to legalize civil unions after Vermont.

Last week Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he would press that state's legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 2:18 AM

April 14, 2005

CT House Approves Amended Civil Union Bill

HARTFORD — The Connecticut House of Representatives late Wednesday night passed the civil unions bill, giving same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage.

The House voted 85-63. The Senate version of the bill sailed through that body on a 27-9 vote last week. In the House today, though, it faced stiffer opposition.

The House amended the bill, under prodding by conservatives and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, to add a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

A similar amendment was rejected by the Senate last week. The bill must now return to the Senate.

During debate on the bill Rep. Al Adinolfi (R-Cheshire) said the amendment did not change his mind about opposing the legislation.

This bill is the same as same sex-marriages except it's called civil unions, he said. If you have identical twins, one is named Mary, and one is Jane, one is Joe and one is Jim. They're still twins.

But Rep. Robert Farr (R-West Hartford) said the amended bill was a reasonable compromise. It recognizes that some people want to keep marriage between a man and woman while providing rights to same-sex couples and encouraging them to make commitments, he said.

Rell, who supports civil unions in principle on Tuesday night sought a legal opinion from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, asking if the bill, without the marriage definition could be interpreted to allow same-sex marriage. Blumenthal said Wednesday that was emphatically, unequivocally not the case.

If the governor is concerned about authorizing same-sex marriages, she can sign this bill with a high degree of comfort, Blumenthal said. Emphatically, unequivocally, without any doubt, this law in no way would permit same-sex marriages in Connecticut.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the bill's chief proponents, said he expected the Senate to take up the bill in about a week. McDonald predicted the revised bill would pass in the Senate.

He called the amendment adding the definition of marriage political comfort food for people uncomfortable with gay marriage.

If that provides the political coverage they need to vote for this legislation, so be it,McDonald said.

The House also amended the bill to restrict civil unions to people ages 18 and older. There had been a provision, similar to one in the state's marriage law, that would have authorized a probate judge to allow people younger than 18 to join in a civil union.

The House gallery was filled with people from both sides, - advocates wearing bright yellow stickers with the word Equality in bold black letters, and opponents wearing white ones that said Protect Marriage.

Following the House vote Rell issued a statement saying, I am pleased that the House of Representatives passed this amendment and made it clear that while we will recognize and support civil unions, marriage in Connecticut is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that 56 percent of registered voters support civil unions. However, when it comes to actual marriage, 53 percent of those polled oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:17 AM

April 11, 2005

State Laws Create Legal Problems for Same-Sex Couples

NEW YORK — When John Langan's longtime partner died in a New York hospital as a result of what Langan believes was medical malpractice, he did what many bereaved spouses might do: He sued for wrongful death.

Three years later his suit is hung up in legal wrangling. The hospital claims Langan has no right to sue because he and his partner—despite being joined in a legal civil union in Vermont—were not married under New York law.

The case illustrates the confusion and uncertainty that are likely to plague same-sex relationships in the United States for the foreseeable future because of the patchwork nature of the law, experts say.

Massachusetts allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. Vermont permits civil unions, as Connecticut is poised to do. California has domestic partnerships (which, like civil unions, are marriages in all but name). But the federal government and 43 states, including Illinois, have laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. On Tuesday, Kansas became the latest state to approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions.

So what happens when two men who are married in Massachusetts move to Illinois?

Does their marriage blink on and off like a strobe light as they fly across the country? asked Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman.

According to Debra Braselton, a family-law attorney in Oakbrook Terrace, laws regulating who can marry are the province of individual states. But states routinely recognize marriages from other states, unless those unions are prohibited or against public policy.

Historically, such exceptions have included incestuous, polygamous and interracial marriages. In recent years, most states have added same-sex marriages to the list of unions that violate their public policy.

Supreme Court decision?

Koppelman believes the ultimate question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal in this country is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The U.S. Supreme Court will avoid the issue as long as it can, he predicted. (It wasn't until 1967 that the court decided states could not ban mixed-race marriages.)

Nevertheless, many of the traditional benefits and obligations of marriage, such as the right to inherit property or make medical decisions, are likely to be upheld for same-sex couples as the law evolves.

The alternative—what Koppelman calls blanket non-recognition—would lead to absurd results, he said. For example, a same-sex spouse could marry again in another state without having to dissolve, or even disclose, the earlier marriage. If the children of a same-sex marriage were kidnapped and taken to another state, a non-biological parent would have no right to get them back unless he or she had formally adopted them.

Ruling appealed

In the New York case, a state court ruled in 2003 that the Vermont civil union between John Langan and Neal Conrad Spicehandler made Langan a spouse with the right to sue the hospital where Spicehandler died. Lawyers for St. Vincent's Hospital, however, have appealed to a higher court.

Langan, 43, was incredulous at having his relationship with Spicehandler called into question. He said he and Spicehandler had been together 16 years, living like an old married couple in a suburb of New York.

Maybe we didn't have the word 'marriage,' said Langan, an insurance agent, but we knew in our hearts that we were legally married.

If getting a same-sex union recognized is hard, getting out of one can be even harder. Courts in several states are struggling with the question: How can you dissolve a marriage that you don't recognize in the first place?

Vermont is the only state where a couple who were joined in a civil union can be readily separated. Although 85 percent of the 7,400 civil unions performed so far have been for out-of-state couples, dissolutions are granted only to Vermont residents. By contrast, Massachusetts, where an estimated 5,000 same-sex marriages have been conducted, will not grant marriage licenses to couples whose union would not be legal in their home state.

Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez of Sioux City, Iowa, asked a local court to dissolve their Vermont civil union in 2003. A judge agreed, but his order has since been stayed. A group of conservative lawmakers and clerics appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, saying the district court could not dissolve a relationship that was not legal. Iowa bans same-sex marriages and does not recognize same-sex civil unions.

Koppelman believes one can address the administrative question [of how to treat same-sex marriage] without taking any position on the moral one.

Courts did that in the past in the context of interracial marriage.

Pearl Mitchell and Alex Miller, a mixed-race couple from Mississippi, moved to Chicago and were married in 1939. Six years later, Mitchell died without a will, leaving land she had owned in Mississippi. Miller claimed the land, but Mitchell's relatives objected, saying the marriage could not be recognized for any purpose in Mississippi.

The state Supreme Court decided the marriage was valid in that context.

Similar questions are expected to arise over the next few years in the context of same-sex marriage.

But Koppelman predicts judges will find some issues easier to solve than others. Rights that people can confer on one another through legal agreements and declarations—such as inheritance and medical power of attorney—probably will be recognized, he said. So if a gay couple from Massachusetts have a traffic accident in Illinois and one spouse is hospitalized, he said, the other spouse likely will be allowed to make medical decisions for the patient just as a spouse would be.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:29 AM

April 7, 2005

NYC Extends Recognition to Same-Sex Relationships

NEW YORK — New York City will recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions - but only if they were performed outside the state in areas where they are already legal.

The announcement was made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's special counsel, Anthony W. Crowell and comes two months after the mayor appealed a ruling by a New York City judge that denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples violated the state constitution.

While the appeal works its way through New York's appeal process, the Mayor's decision to recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who went out of state to marry or form civil unions was welcomed by LGBT civil rights activists.

We applaud Mayor Bloomberg for taking a step in the right direction and working to ensure that same-sex couples who live in New York City and have been married in Canada, Massachusetts and other places are now as legally married as a couple who got a license at City Hall, said Allan Van Capelle, the executive director of Pride Agenda.

New York City becomes the sixth locality in New York State to pro-actively affirm that it recognizes marriages of same-sex couples, according them the same rights as all other marriages within their local jurisdictions. Other localities are Buffalo, Rochester, Brighton, Ithaca and Nyack. The announcements follow Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's opinion that marriages and civil unions of same-sex couples performed outside the state should be treated as valid marriages in New York State.

The Mayor's pro-active announcement on same-sex marriage means that 8,591,000 of New York State's 18,976,457 people, or more than 45% of the state's population, live in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is a legal fact, said Van Capelle. Given that Massachusetts has a population of only 6,349,000 people, there are now more New Yorkers living in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been declared legal than there are people in all of Massachusetts.

But, it may be a year or more before gay and lesbian New Yorkers find out if they will be allowed to marry in their own state.

A bid to expedite Bloomberg's appeal, and one in Ithaca where a judge ruled against same-sex marriage, was rejected by the state's highest court last month. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the cases must work their way through the lower court appeals process first.

In addition, those marriages performed in New Paltz are not recognized by the state.

But, while the issue of same-sex marriage drags on in the courts a poll released Wednesday shows that most people in New York State support marriage for same-sex couples.

The Global Strategy Group survey found that 51% of New Yorkers support marriage for same-sex couples while 42% do not. A similar Global Strategy Group poll conducted for the Pride Agenda last year in March 2004 found 47% in support of marriage and 46% opposed.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 6:46 PM

CT. House Likely to Pass Civil Union Statute

HARTFORD — Legislation granting same-sex couples civil unions is expected to encounter little difficulty in the House following yesterday's wide win in the Senate.

On Wednesday, the Connecticut Senate voted 27 - 9 to pass the bill.

Today, House chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor (D-East Haven) predicted that the civil-union bill is likely to pass the 151-member House with about 90 votes in support.

But, Gov. M. Jodi Rell wants changes in the legislation before she is willing to sign it.

A spokesperson for the governor said Thursday that although Rell continues to support the concept of civil unions, she wants to see a definition of marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman included in the bill.

A proposal to include the definition was rejected by the Senate on a 23-13 vote. Without the definition, the governor's office said, Rell may veto it.

As the civil unions bill makes its way to a House Vote, a new poll suggests that it has the support of a majority of people in Connecticut.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows that 56 percent of registered voters support civil unions. However, when it comes to actual marriage, 53 percent of those polled oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The survey, also shows that Democrats are more accepting of both same-sex marriage and civil unions than Republicans. The poll, taken before the Senate vote, shows that Democrats back both civil unions and gay marriage, 66 percent and 53 percent respectively. Republicans are narrowly divided on civil unions, 45 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed, but 70 percent oppose gay marriage.

The telephone poll of 1,541 Connecticut registered voters from March 28 to April 4 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 6:42 PM

April 6, 2005

CT Senate Approves Civil Union Bill

HARTFORD — The state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that would make Connecticut the first state, absent court pressure, to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples.

Senators voted 27-9 in favor of the legislation, which proponents say will likely clear the House of Representatives, possibly as early as next week. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has not taken a stand on the bill, but has said she supports the concept of civil unions.

I believe that our most precious and important job is to make sure the rights of all our citizens are protected where they exist and expanded where they don't exist, said Democratic Sen. Mary Ann Handley, who is part of a group of legislators who plan to press for gay marriage in Connecticut.

The vote came a day after Kansas became the 18th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thirteen other states passed such prohibitions last year, while Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee plan elections next year on constitutional bans.

Gay rights proponents originally hoped to pass a bill similar to the Massachusetts law that allows same-sex couples to marry. But legislative leaders determined there was more political support this session for Vermont-style civil unions, which extend the same rights and privileges of marriage, but without the marriage license.

According to the 2000 census, there are 7,400 same-sex couples in Connecticut.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 10:25 PM

NY State Bar Ass'n Approves Rights for GLBT Couples

ALBANY, NY — On April 2, 2005 at the New York State Bar Assn's recent annual meeting, the NYSBA's House of Delegates approved a Resolution of the Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples.

The House voted to call on the Legislature to enact legislation that will afford committed same-sex couples the ability to obtain the comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities now afforded opposite-sex couples through a statute creating a domestic partnership registry, a civil union statute, or an amendment to the statutory definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It is left to the Legislature, in the exercise of its policy-making authority, to choose the appropriate option.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 3:58 PM

March 22, 2005

Conn. Civil Union Bill Advances

HARTFORD — A bill to allow civil unions in Connecticut has passed another key committee in the legislature despite a Hartford Republican's attempt to derail the measure.

The Appropriations Committee voted 30-15, with ten absent, in favor of the legislation.

Rep. Al Adanofi (R-Hartford) asked for a delay in the debate because this is the week leading up to Easter.

To bring this up during the holiest week on the Christian calendar is no more than an insult to Roman Catholics who believe this violates the sanctity of marriage, Adinofi said.

Co-chairwoman Denise Merill (D-Storrs) turned down Adinofi's request.

This hearing is solely for the fiscal impact of the bill on the state and potential mandates on municipalities, Merrill said. There will be more time to address the merits of the bill.

Two reports on how civil unions would affect the state's finances differ greatly.

A report prepared by legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis, said that civil unions would cost the state $1 million a year in lost tax revenue and cost municipalities another $1.5 million a year for health insurance, pensions and other benefits for town and city workers who enter into civil unions.

But, a second report, by an economist at the University of Massachusetts, said that Connecticut would actually benefit by civil unions.

Lee Badgett said that any tax revenue loss would be offset by other revenue increases, such as sales taxes paid for wedding services.

Badget said her analysis shows that that Connecticut would actually gain about $2 million if Connecticut decides to allow civil unions. If the state allowed gays couples to marry the benefit would be about $3 million.

The civil unions bill would extends all of the state rights and responsibilities for married heterosexual couples to gay and lesbian couples, but not include any federal benefits.

The legislation has already passed the Judiciary Committee (story) and is expected to be sent to the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee before facing a Senate vote in the coming weeks. It has the support of Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Resources

• Text of S. B. 963 (pdf only)
• Legislative History

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 9:04 PM

March 2, 2005

Conn. Gov. Favors Civil Unions, Not Marriage

HARTFORD, CN — Connecticut's Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell, has thrown her support behind civil unions in the state.

I don't believe in discrimination of any sort, and I want people to have equal rights and equal opportunities, Rell told reporters.

But, she reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage.

The governor's remarks are expected to add momentum to see the bill passed.

Earlier this week, Love Makes a Family, the LGBT group fighting for full marriage rights in Connecticut said it was abandoning a marriage-or-nothing position that could have derailed the bill.

The bill passed a key committee in the legislature last week.

Nevertheless, the measure is still opposed by conservative churches.

Rell said she had not evaluated the specific wording in the civil-unions bill, but, the concept I don't have trouble with, Rell said.

It was her first comments on the legislation. Although she has repeatedly stated that she is opposed to same-sex marriage she had given mixed signals on civil unions until now.

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor (D-East Haven) the judiciary co-chairman and a supporter of civil unions said Rell's remarks will help attract undecided lawmakers to the legislation.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:42 PM

February 23, 2005

Conn. Civil Union Bill Passes Key Vote

HARTFORD, CN — A bill to allow civil unions in Connecticut passed a key committee in the legislature Wednesday to the anger of LGBT civil rights organizations.

Gay groups had been pressing for acceptance of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, calling civil unions a half measure.

We believe civil unions would write second class citizenship into our law, said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family.

Nevertheless, the Judiciary Committee voted 25-13 in favor of the legislation. It gives gay couples many of the same state rights as married heterosexuals, but does not allow them to get a marriage license. Nor it does it cover the hundreds of federal rights of marriage.

The bill still needs approval from the full legislature and the governor's signature. If that occurs, Connecticut would be the first state in the nation to voluntarily create a civil union system.

Vermont is the only state to have civil unions, but that system resulted from a court decision.

Stanback said her group will fight the civil unions bill, urging lawmakers to vote it down.

But, the all or nothing approach has angered some within the gay community.

Betty Gallo, a longtime lobbyist for Love Makes a Family, terminated her contract because she disagreed with the strategy.

Gay marriage foes are also calling on lawmakers to reject the civil unions bill. Wednesday they lost a bid to amend the bill to require the state to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Another proposal to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage also died.

There are loving, committed relationships among couples in the state of Connecticut who deserve our protection, said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee. McDonald is one of the few openly gay legislators in Connecticut.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:37 PM

January 11, 2005

Iowa Supreme Court to Review Lesbian Divorce

DES MOINES—The Iowa Supreme Court this week will hear a challenge to the granting of a dissolution of a civil union to two lesbians by a lower court judge more than a year ago.

The divorce had been granted to Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez. The Sioux City women had a civil union in Vermont in 2002 in Bolton, Vt. and then returned to Sioux City to live.

Neither of the women contested the dissolution, and Woodbury County District Judge Jeffrey Neary in November 2003 granted their petition.

Neary later said that it was not until after he had signed the divorce decree that he realized it involved a same-sex couple, but added that it would not had altered his decision.

Neary said he believed that under the legal concept of full faith and credit, he would be able to grant the divorce of a union that is legal in another state. The divorce also could be granted by applying equity and partnership laws that govern the business world, he said. He later altered the decree to reflect the broader scope.

But, a group of conservative lawmakers said the ruling violated the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that granting a divorce, Judge Neary was acknowledging same-sex marriage.

The group appealed to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling.

Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief last June, signed by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Central Iowa, that urged the court to throw the case out. The brief argued that none of the parties involved in the challenge have legal standing to interfere in the case because they aren't harmed in any way by Judge Neary's decision.

This week's oral arguments will focus on whether individuals have the right to interfere with the trial court's authority.

We will urge the court to recognize that disapproval of gay couples doesn't give these groups or individuals the right to interfere in other people's personal lives, said Camilla Taylor, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office, who will argue the case on Friday.

A judge in his rightful authority has already addressed this matter. Iowa judges regularly resolve a wide range of matters between couples who live together, regardless of the status of their relationship or whether they're married. said Taylor. A handful of legislators and others have tried to insinuate themselves into this particular case because this time it involves two lesbians.

In November, Iowans voted to retain Judge Neary , despite aggressive efforts by antigay groups to unseat him.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:17 AM

January 9, 2005

Civil Union Controversy Wanes in Vermont

MONTPELIER, VT - Less than five years ago the idea of gay couples joining in a legal union akin to marriage was enough to rip apart the very social fabric of this small New England state that prides itself on its sense of community.

Yawning rifts opened between neighbors and even in families under the symbols of the two sides in the debate: black and white Take Back Vermont signs among opponents and green and white Vermont: Keep it Civil stickers for supporters of the state's first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

Now, after 7,364 same-sex couples from around the world have been legally joined as spouses, civil unions have become a part of that social fabric.

In a turnaround, Democrats who were largely blamed for forcing Vermont to confront the issue have returned to their place of political dominance in the Statehouse. The new General Assembly even includes five openly gay men, up from just one when civil unions were enacted.

I think there's still a small slice of the population who, for their own personal, religious reasons, can't abide anything to do with gay and lesbian people, said Steve Kimbell, a lawyer and lobbyist who represented civil- union advocates in 2000.

However, for a growing majority, the fact that life has gone on as usual means it's OK. More and more people are understanding who gay and lesbian people are around them, Kimbell said.You can't be mean to people you know. These are people in the fabric of everyday life.

Exit polls during this past fall's elections found that 36 percent of voters supported civil unions and 40 percent would support granting same-sex couples full marriage rights. Only 21 percent said there should be no legal recognition of gay relationships.

Vermont's resolution of the issue seemed tame by comparison to developments elsewhere around the country. A decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized full marriage for gay and lesbian couples. That emboldened officials in several communities around the country to officiate over same-sex weddings.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:20 PM

December 8, 2004

Virginia Custody Ruling Appealed

RICHMOND, VA — In a case that has attracted national attention because it highlights the starkly different treatment lesbian and gay parents experience across state lines, Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Virginia and Equality Virginia today appealed a case in Virginia on behalf of a woman who is being denied visitation with her child despite a clear court order from Vermont.

The case revolves around a two year old girl born through artificial insemination to Lisa Miller-Jenkins. At the time she was in a relationship with Janet Miller-Jenkins which had been formalized by a civil union in Vermont where they resided.

When the relationship between the two women soured and they split up, a judge in Vermont gave Janet Miller-Jenkins temporary visitation rights with the child.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins fled with her daughter to Virginia which has some of the most anti-gay legislation in the country. She then went to court in that state seeking sole custody of the child.

Janet Miller-Jenkins fought the application on the grounds that the case was already before the court in Vermont. But, Judge John R. Prosser ruled that since the mother resided in Virginia, a Virginia court would hear the case. (story) Subsequently Prosser ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins was the sole parent and that Janet Miller-Jenkins is nothing more a friend to the child.

A Family Court judge in Rutland, Vermont then found Lisa Miller-Jenkins in contempt for moving to Virginia and disobeying a court order involving the child's custody.

Last month Vermont Judge William Cohen has ruled that under the state's civil unions law, Janet Miller-Jenkins must be regarded as a co-parent.

It was the first time that a Vermont judge has ruled for co-parenting using the civil unions law, but the ruling pits the state against Virginia.

The conflicting court orders led to today's appeal, which asks a state court to overturn the Virginia ruling.

The appeal cites the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and Virginia's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. In this case, both laws make it clear that the Vermont court alone has jurisdiction in the matter and cannot be interfered with — and the federal kidnapping law requires that the Vermont order be enforced in Virginia, Lambda Legal says.

The lower court in Virginia was way off base to a ignore well thought-out and effective federal law designed to prevent this kind of jurisdiction-shopping by parents who are unhappy with their custody arrangements, said Lambda lawyer Greg Nevins.

The marriage law Lisa's attorneys are using doesn't apply here - federal law governing custody arrangements trumps it all. The Vermont court had already begun considering this case and it alone has jurisdiction over it. Period.

My daughter has a right to have access to both of the parents she was born to. I'm in this for her — she is all that matters, said Janet Miller-Jenkins.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:08 PM

November 22, 2004

Custody Battle Pits Vermont Against Virginia

A nasty co-parenting battle being fought out in two states between an estranged lesbian couple is expected to wind up in the US Supreme Court and could include the issue of whether states which do not recognize same-sex relationships must honor civil unions from those which do.

The case revolves around a two year old girl born through artificial insemination to Lisa Miller-Jenkins. At the time she was in a relationship with Janet Miller-Jenkins which had been formalized by a civil union in Vermont where they resided.

When the relationship between the two women soured and they split up, a judge in Vermont gave Janet Miller-Jenkins temporary visitation rights with the child.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins fled with her daughter to Virginia which has some of the most anti-gay legislation in the country. She then went to court in that state seeking sole custody of the child.

Janet Miller-Jenkins fought the application on the grounds that the case was already before the court in Vermont. But, Judge John R. Prosser ruled that since the mother resided in Virginia, a Virginia court would hear the case. Subsequently Prosser ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins was the sole parent and that Janet Miller-Jenkins is nothing more a friend to the child.

A Family Court judge in Rutland, Vermont then found Lisa Miller-Jenkins in contempt for moving to Virginia and disobeying a court order involving the child's custody.

Now, Vermont Judge William Cohen has ruled that under the state's civil unions law, Janet Miller-Jenkins must be regarded as a co-parent.

It is the first time that a Vermont judge has ruled for co-parenting using the civil unions law, but the ruling pits the state against Virginia. Both judges ruled correctly according to the laws of their respective states, said Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School.

It's this kind of jurisdictional collision that's going to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mello said.

Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution states must accept each others' laws. Some legal scholars say the case also could bring into question federal DOMA.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 6:01 PM

November 18, 2004

NYC Mayor Calls for Pension Plan Recognition of Same-Sex Partners

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Wednesday called for the city's pension funds to treat municipal workers in same-sex marriages in the same way as those in traditional marriages.

The mayor directed his appointees on the city's five pension fund boards to support the call. Bloomberg does not have the majority of appointments on the boards but LGBT activists in New York say they are hopeful the change will be approved.

We applaud the mayor for treating LGBT families the same as all other families for the purposes of the pension fund, Empire State pride Agenda executive director Alan van Capelle said.

Same-sex couples who are married deserve to be treated the same as all other families.

Bloomberg said he based his decision on a legal opinion by the city Law Department.

If approved, same sex couples who are legally married or involved in a civil union with a city employee, would receive pension benefits - including accidental death benefits.

Those eligible would include people who were married in Massachusetts, Europe, or Canada, and those in civil unions performed in Vermont.

It is not known how many people would be affected. The pension plans include all city sanitation workers and roads crews to police and teachers.

While it remains unclear if the pension plan administrators will follow Bloomberg's call, they have been actively involved in supporting LGBT issues in the past.

The plan, one of the largest in the nation with huge numbers of voting shares in Fortune 500 companies, has helped force more than a dozen corporations to adopt policies that specifically bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Last month the New York State pension plan said it would recognize same-sex marriages.

Van Capelle said the mayor needs to go one step further.

We are urging the mayor to take the same steps as five other municipalities have taken in New York State and provide same-sex couples who are legally married with every right and responsibility where marital status is a factor, van Capelle said.

Although same-sex marriage is not available in New York State, last March Attorney General Eliot Spitzer citing the state's comity law said that marriages of same-sex couples performed elsewhere are completely valid in New York State and must be treated as such.

The municipalities of Nyack, Ithaca, Buffalo, Brighton and Rochester followed suit by fully recognized legal out-of-state same-sex marriages, giving them the same rights as all other marriages within their local jurisdictions. In Rochester, for example, surviving spouses of veterans, including same-sex spouses, are entitled to certain types of city licenses and property tax exemptions.

The mayor's announcement came a week after he was ordered by a court to implement a law forcing contractors that do more than $100,000 of business each year with NYC to offer benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian workers equal to those the companies give heterosexually married couples.

The Equal Benefits Law was passed by Council, vetoed by Bloomberg and then overridden by council. The mayor then took it to court arguing that city money should not be used to advance social issues.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 5:41 PM

September 29, 2004

VA Court Continues to Ignore VT Custody Jurisdiction

A Frederick County judge Tuesday ruled that the former partner of a lesbian mom had no right to joint custody even though her right as a co-parent had already been determined by a court in Vermont.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins entered into a civil union with Janet Miller-Jenkins in Vermont where they resided. When Lisa had a baby by in vitro fertilization, Janet was legally recognized as a co-parent.

When the relationship soured, a judge in Vermont gave her temporary visitation rights with the child. Lisa fled with the child, now aged two, to Virginia which has the strictest anti-gay laws in the country regarding same-sex relationships.

Lisa went to court in Virginia seeking sole custody.

The battle between the two women became so embittered it dragged the courts of the two states into the dispute.

Janet fought the application on the grounds that the case was already before the court in Vermont. But, Judge John R. Prosser ruled that since the mother resided in Virginia, a Virginia court would hear the case.

A Family Court judge in Rutland, Vermont then found Lisa Miller-Jenkins in contempt for moving to Virginia and disobeying a court order involving the child's custody.

Tuesday Judge Prosser ruled that Lisa as the birth mother was the only person with any legal right to custody of the child. He said that Lisa can decide whether to allow visitation by her former partner.

Janet's lawyer said he is planning an appeal of the ruling.

A Virginia law passed earlier this year outlaws same-sex marriage and civil unions and declares that either, performed outside the state, is invalid in Virginia. It also disallows partner benefits in the state.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:25 AM

September 8, 2004

VT, VA Custody Dispute Escalates

A Family Court judge found a woman in contempt for going to Virginia and disobeying a court order involving the breakup of her civil union and the custody of a child.

Judge William Cohen's decision continues a legal dispute that pits the courts of Vermont against those in Virginia, where competing decisions have been issued.

In the latest, Cohen granted a request by Janet Miller-Jenkins that he hold her former partner, Lisa Miller-Jenkins, in contempt for failing to abide by a temporary visitation order he handed down earlier this year.

Lisa chose to bring her action initially in Vermont because of the rights and benefits Vermont's law provide her, the judge wrote in an eight-page decision.

But when she realized that there were obligations and burdens to go along with those rights and benefits, and decided that under the specific order issued by the Vermont court the benefits were outweighed by the burdens, she changed her mind and decided to go elsewhere.

The case has drawn national media attention, focusing attention on the fate of children in relationship sanctioned in one state, but not in others.

The women were a couple in Virginia when they decided four years ago to enter into a civil union in Vermont. They then went back to Virginia and decided to have Lisa Miller-Jenkins conceive a child through artificial insemination.

Isabella was born in Virginia in April 2002. The two women later decided to move to Vermont before they broke up. Last year when the women dissolved their civil union, they agreed to allow a Vermont judge to rule on custody. However, Lisa Miller-Jenkins took the child and moved to Winchester, Va., suing for full custody in that state, where civil unions are not recognized.

Janet Miller-Jenkins, who lives in Fair Haven, contested the action, saying a judge in Vermont had already given her temporary visitation rights with the child.

Late last month a Virginia judge ruled in Lisa Miller-Jenkins' favor, and took jurisdiction in the case.

Virginia Circuit Judge John Prosser recognized Lisa Miller-Jenkins as the girl's sole parent.

The judge based his decision on that state's Affirmation of Marriage Act, a law that bars the state from recognizing same-sex civil unions. Prosser also said that Virginia's new law prevents him from recognizing the Vermont case or rulings issued from it.

Despite the latest contempt finding in Vermont, Cohen decided against imposing any sanctions against Lisa Miller-Jenkins, at least for now.

Janet Miller-Jenkins' lawyer, Theodore Parisi, said her attorneys in Virginia intend to appeal that court's ruling.

The ultimate issue here is whether or not the Virginia court has to give full-faith and credit to a Vermont order which derives from the civil union statute, Parisi said.

Attorney Judy Barone, who represents Lisa Miller-Jenkins in the Vermont proceeding, said she is considering whether to seek the right to appeal Cohen's most recent order.

I think we have confusion between two states ordering two different things, Barone said. Obviously, this will have to be decided by some higher court to reconcile the two courts.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 11:12 PM

August 25, 2004

VA Court in Custody Jurisdiction Fight with VT

RICHMOND — A Virginia judge on Tuesday claimed jurisdiction to decide a child custody case between two women who had entered into a civil union in Vermont, a move that could set a legal precedent for same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized in some states and not others.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins, 35, who dissolved her civil union with Janet Miller-Jenkins in Vermont last year, has sued in Virginia's Frederick County Circuit Court to establish sole parental rights over the couple's 2-year-old daughter, Isabella.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins gave birth to Isabella in Virginia in April 2002 and has lived in the state since last year.

Janet Miller-Jenkins, 39, contested the action, saying a judge in Vermont already gave her temporary visitation rights with the child. Her attorney, Joseph Price, argued that because a custody proceeding is already under way in another state, both state and federal law prohibit Frederick County Judge John R. Prosser from ruling in the case.

But Phil Griffin, Lisa Miller-Jenkins' attorney, said that because Virginia does not recognize Vermont civil unions, Prosser should not be held to the rulings of judges under the civil union law.

This is first time a judge has been asked to recognize a Vermont civil union as a valid marriage contract. And he declined to do so, Griffin said.

Prosser set another hearing for Sept. 9 to make the order final. Price said he will appeal.

Prosser's decision was hailed as a victory by anti-gay groups supporting Lisa Miller-Jenkins.

This is about Lisa's right to have her parental rights determined by a court of law, said Kevin Blier, director of the Center for American Cultural Renewal.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and gay rights advocates said the ruling could set a dangerous precedent.

The reason child jurisdiction statutes were enacted was to prevent exactly this scenario — parents fleeing with children from one jurisdiction to another, because they don't like the custody rulings of a state, Rebecca Glenberg, a lawyer with ACLU, said in a statement.

Price said the decision could turn Virginia into the Las Vegas of gay divorce.

If you had a civil union in one jurisdiction and you wanted to be clear and free of the responsibilities under it ... you could just move to Virginia and none of those responsibilities would exist anymore, he said.

Virginia earlier this year passed one of the most restrictive anti-gay laws in the country, prohibiting civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 8:01 AM

VA Court Ignores VT Custody Ruling in Civil Union Dispute

RICHMOND — A Virginia judge on Tuesday claimed jurisdiction to decide a child custody case between two women who had entered into a civil union in Vermont, a move that could set a legal precedent for same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized in some states and not others.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins, 35, who dissolved her civil union with Janet Miller-Jenkins in Vermont last year, has sued in Virginia's Frederick County Circuit Court to establish sole parental rights over the couple's 2-year-old daughter, Isabella.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins gave birth to Isabella in Virginia in April 2002 and has lived in the state since last year.

Janet Miller-Jenkins, 39, contested the action, saying a judge in Vermont already gave her temporary visitation rights with the child. Her attorney, Joseph Price, argued that because a custody proceeding is already under way in another state, both state and federal law prohibit Frederick County Judge John R. Prosser from ruling in the case.

But Phil Griffin, Lisa Miller-Jenkins' attorney, said that because Virginia does not recognize Vermont civil unions, Prosser should not be held to the rulings of judges under the civil union law.

This is first time a judge has been asked to recognize a Vermont civil union as a valid marriage contract. And he declined to do so, Griffin said.

Prosser set another hearing for Sept. 9 to make the order final. Price said he will appeal.

Prosser's decision was hailed as a victory by pro-family groups supporting Lisa Miller-Jenkins.

This is about Lisa's right to have her parental rights determined by a court of law, said Kevin Blier, director of the Center for American Cultural Renewal.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and gay rights advocates said the ruling could set a dangerous precedent.

The reason child jurisdiction statutes were enacted was to prevent exactly this scenario — parents fleeing with children from one jurisdiction to another, because they don't like the custody rulings of a state, Rebecca Glenberg, a lawyer with ACLU, said in a statement.

Price said the decision could turn Virginia into the Las Vegas of gay divorce.

If you had a civil union in one jurisdiction and you wanted to be clear and free of the responsibilities under it ... you could just move to Virginia and none of those responsibilities would exist anymore, he said.

Virginia earlier this year passed one of the most restrictive anti-gay laws in the country, prohibiting civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:52 AM

June 22, 2004

NY Hospital Appeals Civil Union Recognition

A suit that produced a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time in the US that a civil union performed in Vermont is valid in another state is being challenged in a New York appeals court.

The case involves the partner of a gay man who died in a New York City hospital.

The hospital is appealing a lower court ruling last year that found John Langan could sue the hospital over the death of his partner Neal Conrad Spicehandler.

In February 2002, Spicehandler was struck by a car driven by a New Jersey man who was on a days-long hit-and-run spree that ultimately injured two dozen people on several Manhattan streets.When he was taken to St. Vincent's, in Greenwich Village, with a broken leg, the only person Spicehandler asked the staff to call was Langan, who in turn called Spicehandler's other family members.By the time Langan arrived at the hospital, Spicehandler was being taken into surgery to repair the leg.

A couple of days later, on Valentine's Day, Spicehandler's broken leg was operated on a second time.He, Langan and the rest of the family all thought he would be fine, and were told that he would be released from the hospital within a few days.

Langan waited for Spicehandler to return from the surgery that night, visited with him and kissed him goodnight.Early the next morning, Langan was awoken by a call from St. Vincent's Hospital telling him that Spicehandler was dead.

The couple had been together since 1986.In November 2000, shortly after civil unions became legal in Vermont, 40 family members and close friends attended a ceremony where the couple exchanged vows and rings.Over the years, Langan and Spicehandler's biological families recognized them as spouses and considered them part of their families.

When St. Vincent's was unable to satisfactorily explain how the routine surgery turned fatal, Langan and Spicehandler's mother, Ruth, sued St. Vincent's for wrongful death and medical malpractice.They seek to recover for Spicehandler's pain and suffering before he died, as well as lost financial support.

The hospital argued that Langan was not entitled to sue because same-sex unions are not legal in New York.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice John Dunne disagreed. Dunne noted that common-law spouses from other states are regularly recognized as spouses in New York and said, [I]t is impossible to justify, under equal protection principles, withholding the same recognition from a union which meets all the requirements of a marriage in New York but for the sexual orientation of its partners.

The hospital appealed and Tuesday a four-judge appeals court heard oral arguments in the case.

Paul Blutman, the lawyer for St. Vincent's told the appeals court that Dunne had overstepped his authority and contradicted the state Legislature's decisions not to recognize gay partners as spouses.

Judges can't change law where the Legislature has spoken, attorney Blutman said.

But, Lambda Legal, arguing for Langan said that Dunne was upholding a long legal history in the state.

New York has a long history of respecting a legal spouse status that was created somewhere else, even if New York wouldn't allow that spouse to be created here, Lambda lawyer Adam Aronson said.

Aronson argued that Langan and Spicehandler's relationship was entitled to equal protection under New York's constitution and that their 15-year relationship was equivalent to a marriage and should be treated as such.

New York's highest court has ruled that a gay partner is equivalent to a family member in a case involving a rent-controlled apartment, Aronson said.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and five New York state bar associations have filed briefs supporting Langan.

Posted by Stephen J. Hyland at 7:43 AM