Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

	NJ Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Could someone provide a reference for the transcrip for the "N.J. Supreme Court Oral Arugments" section

Thanks

Contents 1 "Selected quotes" 2 Deleted Background material 3 Merge 4 Misguided renaming of DP article

[edit] "Selected quotes"

Are they really useful? 68.39.174.238 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Background material

I snipped the following from the beginning of Background for being off-topic. Preserving it here in case parts merit use somewhere else. Also wondering what the source might be:

Before the 21st century; gay people in most western and Islamic countries were severely discriminated against and consensual sexual acts were unlawful in most states and punishable by a death sentence as recent as the 1950s and 1960s in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Beginning in 1960; anti-gay laws were done away with or decriminalized throughout the Western World. The first same sex marriage in modern times in the western world took place in Copenhagen, Denmark on 1st October 1989 with the legal marriage of Axel & Eigil Axgil, along with ten other couples in Copenhagen.

Today being a gay person in nearly all Islamic Countries is still punishable by death/ Even where there is no Government Law against being gay; Gay people can be arrested, tried and given a death sentence by the Religious Courts--even if one is not Islamic--such happened in the now famous Queen Boat case in Cairo in which many were arrested simply because they were thought to be gay. About the same time a seventeen year old private university student received a 17 years sentence in prison including 2 years hard labor, for posting a personal profile on a gay dating site. He stood accused of "offences" to the public good, the honor of society, and a contempt to moral principles and social tradition. He sentenced by the Jahah court in Cairo by A'laa Deen Shoja'a under the supervision court chief justices Rida Shazzli and Mohamed Moheb in 2004. In 2005 Iran executed by hanging two teenage boys who were in love with each other because they admitted to being gay. It is also illegal in Jamaica where every day 15 gay people are murdered and where letters and articles appear in the "Gleaner" justifying these crimes against humanity; admitting that you are gay anywhere in the Caribbean is like signing your own death warrant so it is not a place to go on honeymoon.

In the Americas; many of the laws which discriminated against gay people and punished them with death sentences go back to the founding days of the English and Spanish Colonies. These laws were based chiefly on religious canons and superstitions. Many gay people were often accused of consorting with the Devil or being a witch. The first capital offense and execution for being gay and having consensual sex between two people of the same sex in the New World took place in 1566 in what is today Paris Island,South Carolina where a French translator and Guale Indian Chief were in love with each other and had consensual same sex. The chief was released. The translator was taken to St. Augustine, Florida and tried for sodomy and garroted secretly because he was 'a sodomite and a Lutheran' according to Johnathan Katz's Gay American History.

It is strange that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote against cruel and unusual punishments in the US Constitutition, wrote into the revised colonial Laws of Virginia that those who were guilty of 'sodomy' should be punished not with death but in the case of a woman---have a hole one and one-half inch in diameter cut into her nose and if a man that he be castrated. As we can see this is cruel and unusual and makes no logical sense for such treatment during the age of Enligthenment/ Jefferson equated Sodomy with rape, bestiality, polygamy. However, at least a gay person would escape with their life. In England from 1492 to 1890; gay people could be sentenced to transportation (the lightest sentence) or drawn and quartered , boiled in Oil or and then hung and burned or given hard labor with a lengthy jail sentence. A century later; the situation had improved somewhat but still was bad. Oscar Wilde was sentenced to hard labor at Reading Goal (pronounced 'redding') which greatly injured his health and left him a broken man. He was forbidden to see Bossie, his life partner, again but did in France briefly where Napoleon had made life more confortable for gay people in his codes. In 1950; England decriminalized gay people and in the 21st century recognized same sex marriages while the United States lingered in the past on these issues.

Later other States enacted laws that dealt with acts against Nature which were rather arrogant ignorant laws that did not recognize that homosexuality occurs in all life forms and is just as natural as is heterosexuality. Yet as late as 2005; a man was arrested in North Carolina for 'crimes against nature" even after such laws were ruled invalid.

The Hawaiian Supreame Court ruled in 1996 in Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341 that it was unconstitutional to not allow same sex marriages. This had the effect of putting up a wall of defenses on the Continent among State Legistlatures. Sadly, Hawaii,(aways traditionally has been one of the most unbiased and non-discriminatory places on earth from the time it was a Nation to a State) through the efforts of the Christian right wrote discrimination into their constitution to restrict marriage between a Man and a Woman, only.

On 26 June 2006; the US Supreame Court ruled in Lawrence vs Texas that consensual sex between consenting same sex people is legal and that all Laws throughou the United States which are to the contrary are unlawful and unconstitutional. This ruling opened the way for legal recognitition of same sex marriages.

— edgarde 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Shouldn't the merge be to Domestic partnerships in New Jersey, since that is the outcome? Redirect from here, of course. — edgarde 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, DPNJ is the shorter article, only 2 paragraphs, whereas SSMNJ has a good deal of legislative & judicial history. The real problem is the name: the new status will be civil unions; I'm not sure whether domestic partnerships will continue to be an option there or not.

On a larger scale, there's a problem with naming many US state DP/CU/SSM articles--no consistency in titling, and some, like NJ, are listed under two different titles. Personally, I'd like to see them all merged, state by state, under a standard format/title: maybe "Same-sex unions in [state]"?

There also ought to be, I think, at least a stub article of the same heading for each of the 50 states, plus territories, where developments could be noted as they happen. But that's a huge project I'm not about to undertake alone.  :-) Textorus 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Domestic partnerships in New Jersey should remain its own article, for now at least. I do not know whether that law was repealed, amended or left alone by the civil union bill. It should be noted that the domestic partnership law applies to opposite-sex couples over a certain age, so I am not sure it belongs in an article about same-sex marriage anyway. Obviously further research is required, and I do not think the domestic partnerships article is hurting anybody as things stand now. Neutron 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the bill, and I found a few relevant provisions relating to domestic partnerships, which probably should be added to that article, but I think it would be "cleaner" to wait until the governor actually signs it rather than adding it now and having to update it in 2 days. Section 91 of the bill states that as of the bill's effective date, no new domestic partnerships may be registered except between persons who are at least 62 years old. Interestingly, the original version of the bill stated that persons 62 or older entering into a domestic partnership would have to be of the opposite sex, but that was removed. So now a same-sex couple aged 62 or older would have a choice between a civil union and a domestic partnership, and an opposite-sex couple aged 62 or older would have a choice between marriage and domestic partnership (the latter is already the case), but for those below 62, civil union will be the only option for same-sex couples. Section 91 also preserves domestic partnerships that have already been entered into, and permits existing domestic partners (of the same sex) to enter into civil unions, which automatically terminates the domestic partnership. Section 94 of the bill establishes the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, one of the specific tasks of which will be to "review the “Domestic Partnership Act,” P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-1 et seq.) and make recommendations whether this act should be repealed." I think these provisions support keeping the domestic partnership article, with editing to reflect the new provisions. Neutron 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great info, Neutron! That really clarifies things. Why don't you put this into the DP article, with link to the legislation? So if DP remains a separate option in NJ, I guess the article should stand. But then should the other article be renamed "Civil Unions in New Jersey"? Textorus 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge, they are two seperate concepts. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Information from a mail sent out by Garden State Equality:

What if we're domestic-partnered in New Jersey? Do we have to do anything to end our domestic partnership before we get a civil union?
No, you don't have to do anything to end your existing domestic partnership. According to the new civil union law, when you get a civil union, your domestic partnership is automatically superceded by the civil union. If you and your partner choose not to get a civil union but instead prefer to stay with the far fewer protections of your existing domestic partnership -- why anyone would prefer that, we don't know -- your domestic partnership will be unaffected. For same-sex couples, once the civil unions law takes effect, only civil unions and not domestic partnerships will be available. As you may remember, New Jersey's domestic partnership law enacted in 2004 also allows opposite-sex couples older than 62 to register as domestic partners. Such opposite-sex couples will still be able to register as domestic partners, even after the civil unions law takes effect.

--John Kenneth Fisher 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Merge tag, as DP's will continue to be available in NJ. However, shouldn't we be renaming SSMNJ to "Civil Unions in New Jersey" now? There's probably another tag somewhere to use for that idea, but I don't feel like tracking it down right now, and don't feel bold enough to rename the article myself. Anyone else care to "be bold"?  :-) Textorus 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misguided renaming of DP article

Heads up: GLGerman has mistakenly renamed DPNJ to CUNJ. I don't know how to fix that. Here's the message I left on GL's talk page:

GL, you should not have renamed this article as "Civil Unions in New Jersey" because the state will continue to offer domestic partnerships. Existing same-sex DP's are not required to sign up for civil unions; they can remain as domestic partners. Also, no new same-sex DP's will be allowed, but DP's will still be available only for opposite-sex couples over age 62. So the article needs to remain as a separate category of legal relationship. Go read the discussion of this issue on the talk page for "Same-sex marriage in New Jersey" to get a better understanding of what has just taken place in that state's laws.

Textorus 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But on the other side, Textorus, there is the new law for civil unions after Corzine signed it now and that´s so the future in New Jersey and not domestic partnerships; so it´s better to have an article over "civil unions in New Jersey".

There should not be two articlse over "domestic partnerships in New Jersey" and over "civil unions in New Jersey"; that can be part in one article of the legal status für gay partners in New Jersey; and the articlename should be "civil unions in New Jersey"GLGerman 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)GLGerman