NJ's Civil Unions AREN'T WORKING

I, like almost everyone I know, have been too submerged in preparing for finals lately to really post much, but this article was too good to be left unposted or unread. Straight from the fabulous Pam Spaulding's blog, this article highlights the REAL DIFFERENCES between civil unions and marriages. I've heard too many people in my life recently tell me to get over the semantics and "take what you can get" in the way of civil unions; but that's simply not good enough. Separate is NOT equal, and I will never settle for less than what I constitutionally deserve.

I'm only posting the first (and best) part of the blog post, but you should definitely go here and read the whole thing if you're interested.

NJ Commission: Civil Unions 'encourage unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children'
by: craigkg
Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 02:52:20 AM EST

In a report due to be be released soon (10 AM here), a New Jersey commission charged with (among other things) "evaluat[ing] the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the [New Jersey Civil Union Act,] collect[ing] information about the act's effectiveness [... and] determin[ing] whether additional protections are needed" has unanimously found New Jersey Civil Unions to be deficient in providing the protections readily availed to those married in New Jersey:

This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

The commission report has not yet been released, but the Associated Press obtained a copy of the report by the Civil Union Review Commission and released a wire story on it. The commission was created by the Civil Union Act when it was passed and signed into law in 2007. The Civil Union Act was passed in response to the October 2006 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v Harris that required the state to "either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days" to grant the constitutional rights bestowed by marriage for same sex couples. Since its formation, it has held several hearings and taken public testimony on nine different occasions hearing from over 150 people. It released an initial report in February and the initial conclusions of that report showed the Commission was leaning towards marriage equality finding

1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.
3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.
6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.
8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color.
9. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.

While the commission is likely to add to these findings in its final report based on testimony taken and evidence gathered since the initial report, this list of initial conclusions is not likely to be diminished in any way. Its chorus of rationale for supporting the extension of marriage equality in the Garden State is only likely to grow longer. Indeed, as stated above according to the the AP report, the final report will state "This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted this on my Facebook yesterday, and a friend of mine who has a civil union in NJ had this to say in response:

"Great note [Leesh]. I actually wrote a nice (short, damn studying) letter to my NJ Assembly Reps and Senator asking them to vote in favor of marriage equality when it is reconsidered.

For [my husband] and I, who have a civil union, we too have felt the difference that is based merely on the words 'civil union' instead of marriage. When I tried to gain coverage under [his] insurance, which is part of the reason we got the civil union when we did, they told us "It's not even worth it to submit your civil union certification. Our office will not even look at it. You need either a marriage license, or a letter certifying your intent to remain together, a lease or mortgage with both your names on it, a joint checking or credit account with both names on it, and at least one bill with both names on it." If we had been "married," we wouldn't have had to provide more than our marriage license. Kinda ridiculous.

And I don't mean to look a gift horse in the mouth. I'm thankful that the company provided coverage, and provided 'another route' for non-married, same-sex couples. Their explanation to us for why they didn't want our civil union certificate was simply that they had no idea what it meant. We were either married, or unmarried, and if we were unmarried, we needed to provide everything under option B.

I wrote this into my letter to the NJ reps, and I asked them to consider that all my family wants is the same rights, responsibilities, and social recognition as theirs, nothing more. We just want to be equal. Cross your fingers, and for those of you in NJ, write some letters!"

The findings of this committee may seem "vague" or far-fetched, or as if they don't really have an impact on couples that actually have civil unions, but my friend here proves otherwise. And, unfortunately, people may be inclined to scoff at his experience and say something like, "Well, you were obviously able to give them what they requested, and you got your insurance coverage. What's the big deal?"

Well, why should we have extra red tape and proverbial hoops to jump through, just to get the legal protections that the NJ Supreme Court has declared should be rightfully ours?