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 civ