NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

http://www.njo.com/news/jjournal/ind...6722244221.xml


State Senate votes legal recognition for same-sex couples

Domestic partners bill sent to McGreevey


Friday, January 09, 203


By John P. McAlpin
Associated Press writer

TRENTON - Gay and lesbian advocates cheered, hugged and some openly wept as the state Senate voted yesterday to give them many of the same rights as legally married couples.

Without a word of opposition, the Senate voted 23-9 to approve a bill granting those rights. Gov. James E. McGreevey is likely to sign the measure into law shortly.

Gay and lesbian advocates campaigned to make New Jersey the fifth state to recognize domestic partners. Conservative and religious groups opposed the measure, saying it threatened traditional marriage values.

When the vote was tallied, many of the several hundred supporters who crammed into the Senate gallery cheered.

"I absolutely kissed the floor," said Lambda Legal campaign manager Steven Goldstein, who then boasted that he and his partner will quickly move to the state and register.

"It's the coming of age of the power of the gay and lesbian community in New Jersey," Goldstein said. "The debate was free of any rancor. There wasn't a single member of the state Senate speaking out against gay rights."

Under the legislation, domestic partners would get access to medical benefits, insurance and other legal rights. New Jersey would also recognize such partnerships granted in other states. The bill does not authorize gay marriage, which is against the law in New Jersey.

Among the three Democratic senators from Hudson County, Bernard Kenny and Nicholas Sacco voted to approve the bill and L. Harvey Smith did not vote.

To obtain domestic-partner status, a couple would have to share a residence and show proof of joint financial status or property ownership or designation of the partner as the beneficiary in a retirement plan or will. Details on registration have yet to be worked out.

The bill would not force businesses to offer health coverage to same-sex partners of employees but would require insurance companies to make it available. It would also allow a surviving partner to gain property rights and other survivors' benefits.

The measure also includes some benefits for domestic unions between unmarried heterosexual couples age 62 and over.

"These couples are our friends. These couples are our neighbors," said Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex. "They deserve our respect, our support and our vote on this bill today."

Sen. Raymond J. Lezniak, D-Union, said he loves his church, but rejected the stance Catholic leaders have taken on rights for same-sex couples.

"On secular matters, on legal matters on relationships between two people, it is not infallible," Lezniak said.

Gay and Lesbian organizations celebrated the vote, saying it would finally provide same sex couples with rights such as being able to get medical information about a partner who is hospitalized.

"It creates a legal relationship between same sex couples who until now were legal strangers," said Laura Popel, president New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition.

Michael Blake of the Stonewall Democrats said the legislation will give same sex couple legal recognition that their relationships are valid.

Conservative groups were outraged by the vote and threatened to fight any law in court. John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, said the bill discriminates against unmarried heterosexual couples who are domestic partners under age 62.

"Opposite gender people do not have these rights," Tomicki said.

"I am outraged that the state Senate would approve such a bill because of the number of problems with it in terms of discrimination in regards to both sex and age," said Bishop Austin L. Harrold of the Interdenominational Christian Community Church in Jersey City.

Harrold rejected the argument that heterosexual couples under 62 may simply get married if they seek similar benefits.

"Maybe they don't want to get married," he said, "because it's been a long tradition, especially in the black community, that people live together without getting married, which used to be called shacking together."

And yet another blow to moral decency...

Re: NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

Ummm, excuse me ?:mad: :confused: :eek: :mad:

The Oklahoma Senate is now considering two measures. One that would make it illegal to recognize gay marriages in Oklahoma and another to forbid them. That's the Bible Belt for ya.

I'm not sure how I feel about this personally. On one hand, I think folks should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. On the other, I see that this is as much a financial matter as it is a moral one. You'll be paying for gay spouses on your insurance, gay couples will pay less taxes, etc.

Re: NJ Senate Approves Legal Recognition to Gay Couples
 

Since when has this been a "long tradition" in the black community? My mommy's head nearly spun when I told her that I was planning on moving in with Mr Munch--and my parents are hardly conservative. :confused:

I'm excited about this, myself. Legal recognition is a good thing to have in case of death or illness, as well as other times.

What some one else whiches to do in there private life should not lower your standard or morality, nor should it infringe on you being able to educate others of your ethics (like children)


Christia

Granting recognition of these aberations lends false legitimacy to gay marriage making it seem acceptable and natural. Of which it is neither.

That is in your opinion. Not every one beleives like you.

Its not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. Be one a christian, a jew, or even an atheist darwinist all must recognize that this is completely unnatural and for the religious sects it is clearly immoral.

It is not a fact. There is very strong biological evidence that in many, if not most cases, homosexuality is manifested in brains that have slightly different development than that of those in heterosexual people. Homosexuality may not be normative, but evidence suggests that it is quite natural.

Natural? It serves no purpose, mankind was not made for this biologically. I personally believe homosexuality is a choice but even those who believe that it is in their brain innately so to speak, they cannot argue that it serves any purpose nor can one argue that mankind was made for this in any way shape or form.

This plus homosexuality have been occuring since ancient times, there is evidence of this in practially all cultures, and most of the cultures not tolerated it if not embraced homosexuality. There were many laws governing how and when then can expess them self with some one of the same gender.

Christia

eta:
Maybe the purpose is to make people happy and feel comfortable. To me that is enough.

Yes, if that's the way that people are born, then it is natural. I agree that the existence of homosexuality seems to serve no purpose. In the grand scheme of things, there may be a biological purpose to homosexuality that we are just not aware of.

Some people are born left-handed, and some people are born homosexual. I can't explain why, but that doesn't mean that these biological realities don't exist.

Of course homosexuality has a purpose. It prevents over population. There was a study on homosexuality in, I think it was hamsters, or someother small mammal. When the population grew out of proportion with the available resources needed, there was a greater number of homosexual animals born.

Oh ye high and mighty "christians," it really doesn't matter what you think about the issue, the whole premise behind human life is free will. Whether you understand that being gay is natural or are still in denial, it's up to those people to decide how they want to live. Try paying more attention to your own choices instead of worrying about everyone else's.

I slightly resent that, considering I am raised by devoted (but open and not JUDGEMENTAL) catholics. I love my faith and I would neve change it, it is just thoses creepy people who whatever they personaly do not beleive in blame it on God or whatnot. I have a friend that says that God hates people with piercings yet I can show it in the Bible (old test.) where a women was given a nose ring to show people that she chosen..... To each and their own and long as I am not seeing it (gay or straight) in broad day light I don't care. Strangly enough I see more "breeders" get it on in the public then gay people. Talk about lack of morales.