Separate and Not Equal (NY Times)

[IndianaGreen]

Separate and Not Equal

Published: December 20, 2008

Civil unions are an inadequate substitute for marriage. Creating a separate, new legal structure to confer some benefits on same-sex couples neither honors American ideals of fairness, nor does it grant true equality. The results are clearly visible in New Jersey, which continues to deny same-sex couples some of the tangible civil benefits that come with marriage.

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey has long said that he would sign a measure granting the right to marry to couples of the same sex. We are heartened that he has declared that that should happen sooner rather than later.

We hope Mr. Corzine intends to prod legislators into passing such a law early in the 2009 session. That would make New Jersey the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples through legislative action. Three other states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have done so through the courts. Unfortunately, California voters approved a ballot measure in November rescinding that right, at least for now.

Mr. Corzine made his statement after a state commission released its final report on New Jersey’s two-year-old civil union law. The commission noted the hurt and stigma inflicted by shutting out gay people from the institution of marriage. It also found that civil unions do not assure gay couples of the same protections, including the right to collect benefits under a partner’s health insurance program and to make medical decisions on behalf of a partner who is unable to do so. The panel concluded unanimously that the state should enact a law to remove the inequities.

We regret that the leaders of the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature do not view this issue with the same urgency. Senate President Richard Codey, for instance, said recently that progress in civil rights areas “is typically achieved in incremental steps.” We suspect that political expedience is clouding Mr. Codey’s sense of fairness. Next year in New Jersey, the governorship and all seats in the Assembly are up for grabs in an election. Some Republicans already are talking about making their opposition to same-sex marriage a campaign issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/opinion/20sat4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Xipe Totec]

1. I would say that marriage is an inadequate substitute for civil unions.

The problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony; It should not have ANY legal standing with the state.

The states should stop recognizing marriages as legal binding contracts, and require all married people to also join in civil unions.

Only civil unions should be recognized by the state.

Mexico solved this problem, in this way, in the 1800's. Marriages are not recognized by the state.

[IntravenousDemilo]

2. And Canada solved the problem by mandating that marriage is a civil, rather than religious, act.

In other words, religious wedding ceremonies have no legal force and are just window dressing unless the marriage has been solemnized and licensed by civil authorities. That's opposite to what the Mexicans did. One country allows gays to get married, and the other doesn't. And in the country that does permit equal marriage for homosexuals, the sky hasn't yet fallen, and there's no going back.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Same sex civil unions were legalized in Mexico City in November 2006

and in the state of Coahuila on January of 2007, essentially making civil unions legal in all of Mexico (by law, each Mexican state must recognize the laws granted to individuals of the other states).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901880.html