Folks have been saying this for a while. Still, rather than just asking for marriage from the beginning, I still think it's much smarter to push for civil unions, then work your way to marriage as society increasingly becomes accustomed to those civil unions (no locusts) and thus is increasingly willing to give gave couples more. It's what the religious right does all the time. They don't actually try to repeal Roe v. Wade, they slowly whittle away at it until Roe is just a shell of its former self. They gradually and incrementally approach their goal in a way that the public shrugs off and accepts because each small step doesn't seem that big a deal.
The Garden State legislature, ordered by its high court to either allow gays and lesbians full marriage rights or create civil unions chose the latter, hoping that separate and equal would work. As we know, that hasn't been the case. A new Zogby poll shows that most New Jersey voters are sure that heterosexual marriage will survive if the civil institution is opened to gay and lesbian couples -- and they are ready for that change. From Garden State Equality:
* By 63% to 31%, New Jersey voters say they'd be fine with the state legislature upgrading civil unions to marriage equality.
* By 72% to 21%, New Jersey voters say state legislators would be in no electoral danger if they enacted marriage equality.
* By 61% to 29%, New Jersey voters say they expect the state to enact marriage equality within just a couple of years.
Zogby asked the baseline question - do you favor marriage equality versus civil unions - in two ways. Results are 48% to 45% for marriage equality in one question, 48% to 30% in another.
And a significant 35% of respondents said they would be less likely to do business with a company that denies equal benefits to gay employees. 20% said "much less likely."
What will Rudy Giuliani say about this, considering he thinks New Hampshire has "gone too far" with civil unions? What if "the people" decide to tell their lawmakers to upgrade those CUs to marriage -- is that going too far as well?
One portion of Defense of Marriage Act (the one Hillary Clinton supports retaining), ensures that when you cross state lines, a same-sex marriage could be, depending on what state you're in: 1) null and void, 2) a domestic partnership, or 3) a civil union, with varying rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof).
The pressure worked. United Parcel Service, urged by New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in a letter last week to extend benefits to partners of employees, will now recognize the state's civil union law, which declares CUs are entitled to equal recognition under the law as civil marriage.
As you will see below, UPS wanted to extend the benefits, but the company read the law as preventing the company from doing so. From Lambda Legal:
"We are pleased to see that UPS has decided to do the right thing in the end and provide benefits to the same-sex civil union partners and families of its employees in New Jersey," said David S. Buckel, Marriage Project Director of Lambda Legal and the attorney who represented the UPS employees. "In a statement, UPS's Senior Vice President of Human Resources said 'Based on initial legal review when this law was enacted, it did not appear that a "civil union" and "marriage" were equivalent.' UPS is joined by hundreds of employers around the state in hearing that civil unions are different from marriage and that is to be expected when people are given second-class status. The consequences to such ongoing mistakes are severe, and rather than going employer to employer and explaining civil unions one by one, the legislature has a quick fix: allowing same-sex couples to marry."
In May of this year, Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier, who is a driver for UPS who requested to have her civil union spouse, Heather Aurand, added to UPS's benefit plan so that the couple would not have to continue paying for a second, inferior, health insurance plan for Heather and could stop paying down a second yearly deductible. UPS responded with a letter outlining why it was denying spousal benefits to Brazier and Aurand, saying, "In summary, you cannot add Ms. Aurand as a spouse because New Jersey law does not treat civil unions the same as marriages,[emphasis added] and the Plan requires a dependent spouse to be a spouse as defined under applicable state law." Aurand is a stay-at-home parent who is raising the couple's three children. The couple has been together for over seven years.
Tom Walton, 42 is also a UPS driver who asked to have his civil union spouse and partner of 15 years with, Mearmon Davis, 44, added to his healthcare plan and was denied as well, but following advocacy by Lambda Legal and a letter from Governor John Corzine, was advised he could now add Davis to his benefit plan.
As I said in my earlier post on this issue, when the legislature was forced by the state Supreme Court to ensure that gay and lesbian couples received equality under the law as married couples, it decided to create a "separate but equal" civil unions rather than open civil marriage to same-sex couples. However, that structure prevents the use of the word "spouse," which companies are using to deny benefits because that term is legally reserved for married couples.
For presidential candidates clinging onto civil unions as a panacea to the "problem" of the demand for marriage equality, they need look no further than the Garden State to see that there will be a legal quagmire from day one.
We can't let today pass without noting that it's the first day same-sex couples could sign up for civil unions in New Jersey. Lots of coverage in the traditional media. Here's the NY Times article. But, the best coverage I've seen has been over at Blue Jersey including video of the first civil union in the state.
Also, check out Blue Jersey's Think Equal campaign. They've got some of the best -- and only -- ads on the issue of gay marriage. Says a lot that a couple of young straight guys, Juan Melli and Jack Bohrer, have come up with some of the most compelling arguments for same sex marriage equality.
