Q&A Friday
My staff told me that we've had a few inquiries this week about a topic not usually addressed by state legislators, but which is very prominent on the national agenda: gay marriage. I thought I would share my viewpoint on that issue here today.
It seems to me that it is the obligation of government to ensure equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, and also to ensure equal rights for same sex couples. When it comes to healthcare issues, tax status and other benefits, there should be absolutely no difference in what is available to heterosexual couples and what is available to homosexual couples. New Jersey has already made some strides in this area, with the passage a few years ago of an act which provided a great number of these benefits to committed homosexual couples and unmarried couples of any orientation who are seniors. We still have some progress to make, but I am happy to say that our state is ahead of many, many others in this respect.
The fact that the word "marriage," which has very heavy religious connotations, describes our legal adult partnerships even for heterosexual couples is somewhat troubling in our modern existence. In my opinion, couples of any sexual orientation who are willing and able to commit to each other should be able to do so equally under the law, but perhaps we should not be referring to the official legal side of that commitment as "marriage," since obviously the term means different things to different people. If all couples have equal legal access to the benefits of commitment, each can choose privately how to define that commitment as far as religion or spirituality.
Although I believe that it may be time to rework the language we use in our current law, not necessarily just include homosexual couples in what is essentially an inappropriate term, I would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. In my opinion, efforts to enact such bans are rooted in hatred and ignorance, and really should have no place in the discussion.
In the current political climate, this is a very controversial issue, but I hope we will see some changes in the coming years.
Have a great holiday weekend everybody, and please don't forget to find a way to honor the men and women who lost their lives serving our country. I will be at the East Windsor/Hightstown Memorial Day parade on Monday; maybe I'll see some of you there.
posted by Mike Panter at 5/26/2006 02:22:00 PM
6 Comments:
Thank you for addressing this issue, and for expressing so eloquently the feelings of many people. I am very glad to know that my Assemblyman would not support such a discriminatory ban!
5:00 PM
Thanks for expressing a reasonably sophisticated & caring view. Maybe it's time to take the loaded word "marriage" out of the civil definition of all domestic partnerships, & let couples define it for themselves, & religions do what they will according to their own precepts & doctrines. I never again want to see in Jersey the kind of stiff-necked attitude that happened with the Ocean County Freeholders.
6:46 PM
bob, very refreshing to hear your views on same sex unions. I hope we have folks like you in PA (thats where i'm from, and im not even gay). I think that religion and religious beliefs should all be a personal expereince that should have nothing to do with social existance.
isnt it true that most of the violence in this world is religiously driven?
9:54 AM
Assemblyman, it is wrong to accuse those who in good conscience before God oppose the state officially sanctioning homosexuality of being hateful and ignorant.
Dismissing them by demonizing them is little different that those who demonize homosexuals. By doing so, you are just creating a new class of people who can be ostracized by society and that with the sanction of the government.
Those who believe God is real and really does have the right as the Creator to set the moral rules mankind is to live by are not all crazed fanatics. There may be a few, but no fewer than gay rights supporters who firebombed a pastor's house and made death threat phone calls against him, his wife and their children. How would you react to a phone caller that said they know where your children are and where they go? I was there.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when those such as you proclaim yourself as tolerant while being intolerant of those you disagree with. It may be politically expedient, but it does not make it right.
12:28 AM
Assemblyman,
This is going to come before the Assembly in the next 179 days. You have clearly said you do not support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Assemblymen Gusciora, Caraballo and Stack have voiced support for a bill to support same-sex marriage. Will you post your feelings on this issue for us all to see?
Thank you,
Sharon GR
8:30 PM
Thanks very much Kathy, Bob and Sharon for your messages. This is certainly a very divisive issue, and we've received 400+ e-mails (and counting) from constituents who have expressed very different views on gay marriage and/or same sex unions.
I went to law school in Boston and have kept in touch with a number of friends who are working in government there who support gay marriage. They believe that when MA legalized gay marriage the sky did not fall, and I think it would be hard to find anyone who can honestly say that its legalization has detracted from the meaningfulness of heterosexual marriage. Or for that matter, that the legalization of gay marriage will somehow lead to legions of otherwise heterosexual adults choosing to enter same sex unions instead (which sounds silly I know, but people have almost suggested that the example legalization sets for young people will be detrimental). Others have invoked the word "procreation" repeatedly as if same sex couples might decide to "become" heterosexual and bear children if legal rights are not afforded to same sex partners.
I am certainly not an expert on this, but believe strongly that gay people are born that way and do not "choose" a certain lifestyle anymore that someone can "choose" their ethcicity or other personal traits. I know some people will disagree with me on this, but when gay people tell me they have known their whole lives, who is anyone to question them?
I have never felt that government should legislate relationships between any law abiding, taxpaying adults who are not hurting others, and one could argue that to not legalize gay marriage would be condoning a "separate but equal" legal framework regardless of whether same sex unions are afforded equal rights in other areas.
Others have written with a view I respect that "marriage" is a religious, and traditional, designation that should not be tampered with . . . and defining it as being between a man and a woman is important.
I do not think the legislature went far enough when we passed a law providing additional rights for same sex couples. Personally, I would never support any position which claims that hospital visitation, property rights, tax treatment, health benefits and other rights given to heterosexual couples should not apply equally to same sex partners. I also think we need to do a better job enforcing these rights since without this, any legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.
I will fully support the equal rights demanded by the court in legislation to create same sex unions. I do think however, that too much time is being spent, and too much controversy is being generated, by keying in on the word "marriage" and that should not be our focus. As one NJ resident said in the Star Ledger, he wants equal rights but as far as labeling it "marriage" he would be happy if it were called a "pumpkin" instead.
While I would support same sex unions, at this point I do not think legalizing gay marriage should be our focus - nor do I think there is adequate support for this in the legislature.
As far as banning gay marriage constitutionally, I would oppose that as well. This debate will continue for a long time I expect, as it did for women's rights, civil rights and other social causes that took years to conclude. I simply do not believe our constitution is a place to "ban" any kind of rights to enforce even a majority's view of morality. Clearly the citizens of other states disagree with this given the referendums which have passed.
I would appreciate any thoughts or guidance but wanted to write something that reflected my sincere thoughts at this stage.
Thanks, Mike
2:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home