The Impact of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation in Collingswood
For more than an estimated 130 unmarried, same-sex couples in Collingswood, the vetoed bill could have been an opportunity to legally wed.
Photos
Two weeks ago, both houses of the New Jersey state legislature passed the “Marriage Equality and Religious Exception Act,” a same-sex marriage bill that was later vetoed by Governor Chris Christie.
Whether or not the measure eventually becomes law, Collingswood Patch examined some demographic data from the 2010 U.S. census in an effort to understand the potential impact of such legislation on families in the borough.
One common reason given by same-sex couples for the need for legal recognition of their marital status is to establish certain protections for their children.
In 2000, researchers Gary Gates and Jason Ost of the nonpartisan Urban Institute calculated that 10,000 children are being raised by gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey in their study, “A Demographic Profile of New Jersey's Gay and Lesbian Families.”
In that same study, the pair reasoned that “New Jersey's same-sex families with children are already at some economic disadvantage compared to their heterosexual counterparts. The lack of marriage rights could be exacerbating that situation.”
As of the 2010 census, Collingswood is home to an estimated 132 unmarried, same-sex couples: 77 male-male and 55 female-female. Of those households, 22 are raising children (10 male-male and 11 female-female couples).
Comparatively, the 2010 census also estimates that Collingswood is home to 576 unmarried-partner households, 444 of which are heterosexual couples. Of those, 122 are raising children. There are also an estimated 2,320 traditional husband-wife households, 990 of which are raising children.
For same-sex couples who are interested in commemorating their commitment to one another in a civil union of some sort, “New Jersey (and the larger tri-state are) continues to be a strong market,” said Kathryn Hamm, President of GayWeddings.com, an online wedding planning site that caters to same-sex couples.
In an e-mail to Collingswood Patch, Hamm said, the niche in which her business operates has been a lucrative one nationwide for more then a decade.
“Our company was founded by my straight mom back in 1999,” she said. “There wasn't a hint of marriage equality in the air in those days; nonetheless, couples were tying the knot.”
Therefore, Hamm said, even if New Jersey doesn’t enact a law that puts the civil union on equal legal footing with traditional marriage, couples will continue to exchange vows in some form or another.
For religious officiants who object to same-sex marriage, the religious exception component of the “Marriage Equality and Religious Exception Act,” indicates that “someone with a different religious opinion does not have to marry a gay couple…but the state of NJ would recognize all marriages,” Hamm said.
Only five states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa) plus Washington D.C. have legalized gay marriage. Only two others (New York and California) legally recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
“The difference will be the amount of paperwork they have to do to complete their taxes, create their wills and other legal agreements, and whether or not they’ll choose a New Jersey civil union or hop across state lines and tie the knot legally in New York,” she said.
Rich Wilson
7:11 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
It should be noted that, even in those states that have attained marriage equality, this is only true within the state. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is federal legislation, married same sex couple and civil union couples have no access to federal benefits. This means filing state taxes as couples, but federal as separate, it means any benefits such as health benefits for a same sex spouse are taxable by the IRS (and FICA). There are many restrictions when it comes to 401Ks and retirement plans if a spouse dies. (The 401K immediately becomes taxable income in a way that it does not for an opposite sex spouse). A same sex spouse, even if married, cannot collect social security if a spouse dies, no matter how long they have been together.
I am certain that marriage equality will eventually come to this country, but at the moment, the rights and responsibilities drip from a leaking faucet while those of us thirsty to have our relationships given full recognition, wait for the tap to be open to fully quench that thirst.
LaFaye Smith
7:23 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
I absolutely agree with the Governor on this issue.Once this becomes law then the schools and other institutions will be required to incorporate this in thier guidelines and plannng. I believe that marraige has its guidelines and same sex marraiges is and should not be a part of marraige. I also believe that where an individual finds his or her happiness is where they should be, however it is and should not be the concern of anyone but the individuals involved. This society we live in wants to embrace too much. Some things are best kept in private..Adam and Eve keeps coming to mind.
OldDaveNJ
9:39 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
@LaFaye Smith -- as indicated in the article, and the previous comment, as long as the government grants certain rights, benefits, and protections based on marital status, the civil definition of marriage has to be worded so that citizens are treated equitably as per the Equal Protection Clause of the NJ State Constitution, and the EPC of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. You can't simply ignore that fact by saying that "some things are best kept in private."
libsrsic
10:01 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
@oldDave,
when you say, "the civil definition of marriage has to be worded", you're saying the definition of marriage to be changed, which it can't be. (That is social engineering at its best, i.e, change the meaning of words). If you want equality, change the civil union laws to mirror the "protections" of married people.
OldDaveNJ
10:19 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
@libsrsic -- the common-use definition of marriage already has changed to some extent to include same-gender marriage. (See Merriam-Webster for example.) And there is nothing that can be done to civil union laws at the state level to really provide equal treatment to same-gender couples. Most NJ companies that provide health coverage to spouses of straight, married employees, for example, are perfectly free to refuse such coverage to the partners of civil-unionized employees. That is a big deal for same-gender couples, and there is nothing that can be done about it at the state level, since most such health plans are governed by ERISA, a federal act that recognizes only "marriage" ... not "civil unions." And having parallel "separate-but-equal" systems typically doesn't work in more fundamental terms ... as noted in the report from the NJ Civil Unions Review Commission. It was not long ago that a NJ bridal shop owner illegal refused service to a same-gender couple because of her confusion over the distinctions between "marriage" and "civil unions." And five years after the creation of civil unions in NJ, calls for more education to resolve those kinds of problems are wearing a bit thin.
SpeakUPNJ
10:53 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Seems likeThe Patch likes to over work this issue. Not sure why putting the issue on a ballot for all to see and decide vs pushing it in through the backdoor with partisan legislation is such a bad thing? So here we go again. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay "marriage" is not a "civil" rights issue. Try being openly gay in Islamic countries and you'll really find out what civil rights are, like the Christians who are being slaughtered in Africa. Everything that the author wants for gay marriages can be obtained through Civil Unions and improving the legislation around them. So what is the real issue - Re-defining MARRIAGE at the demand of a select segment of the population. OK...So if THAT is the real issue then voting for it is the only correct answer. The issue today is a fundamental one in America to a majority of Americans. Why not be satisfied that the issue gets on the ballot and New Jersey finally gets to decide by voting?
OldDaveNJ
11:03 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
@SpeakUPNJ -- again, as I noted in a previous comment, your assertion that NJ civil union laws provide equal treatment for same-gender couples in NJ, or can be tweaked to do so, is simply not true for both legal and sociological reasons.
Philip Chandler
10:58 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
LaFaye - With all due respect, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You state that "where an individual finds his or her happiness ... should not be the concern of anyone but the individuals involved." Taken literally, you have just stated that ALL marriages (both gay and straight) should be banned. After all, a heterosexual marriage is very much a public event (although some marriages may be solemnized in private, the record is made public, as are the benefits that now accrue to the married couple).
The Constitution is the highest law
Philip Chandler
11:16 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is clear when it declares that "[No] State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This has been interpreted as a command to the states that persons who are similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law should be treated similarly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a three-judge panel opinion, has just upheld the judgment of the Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision striking down the California ban of gay marriage (codified at the state constitutional level by Proposition 8).
This trend will continue. Barely two weeks ago, the state of Washington legalized gay marriage. Soon, New Jersey and Maryland will follow. The federal DOMA is already under constitutional attack,and the Justice Department has been ordered by President Obama not to defend it in court...
The tide has turned.
PHILIP
OldDaveNJ
11:26 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Even more recently (as in last week), a Bush-appointed Federal judge ruled DOMA constitutional in a case where the federal government's refusal to offer spousal health benefits to same-gender couples was challenged.
SpeakUPNJ
11:29 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Olddave...I do not agree that gays cannot achieve all the legal rights goals they seek via civil unions and legislation. As for "sociological equal treatment"...you cannot force one segment of society to "sociologically embrace" something they find morally unacceptable even with bad laws. Frankly however it appears THAT REALLY is the gay issue anyway. It's really NOT the totally 100% equal legal treatment of gay unions that is desired. Gays want some kind of sociological acceptance forced on society by legal means. Why not just say it clearly, gays want social, societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle whether society wants to give it freely or not. That is it, isn't it? Sorry...Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay "marriage" is not a "civil" rights issue.
OldDaveNJ
11:51 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
We are primarily talking about NJ state law here. The NJ state legislature is 100% composed of people representing NJ citizens. The US Congress has less than 3% of it's members representing NJ citizens. And it is just a fact that same-gender couples in NJ are fundamentally unable to gain equal treatment under the guise of NJ civil unions laws. You may say you disagree with that, but that doesn't change the facts. The coupling of so many rights within NJ with federal laws like ERISA place fundamental limits on what can be done. In the case of health benefits, what can be done is to recognize civil marriage as including same-gender couples, and wait for DOMA to be overturned. Nothing can be done at the state level to fix civil unions that will have the same impact. If you deny that, then you are either ignorant or being disingenuous. As for being "sociologically embraced" ... that is not the point. The point is that having a separate-but-equal system makes it too complicated/confusing and too easy to disregard the requirements of the law. The lesbian couple that was turned away from the bridal shop didn't want to be "sociologically embraced." They wanted the service they were entitled to under the law, without having to get lawyers and the NJ Civil Rights Commission involved.
libsrsic
11:39 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
@Philip + Old Dave,
Yes DOMA should be defended. You should take this up with the Congressional Democrats and President Obama who sold you a bill of goods by not supporting your equal protection rights in civil unions. Don't blame us for being upset that marriage is being distorted and changed. Do you want equal protection or do you want to take away the name of a dignity of a special union that is owed to generations of people on whose very existence your life depends? Yes the tide has indeed turned, Philip.
Philip Chandler
12:38 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
How would granting married status to gay couples in any way "take away the name of a dignity of a special union [(marriage)] that is owed [...] depends"?
What it comes down to is that you dislike gay persons and fail to recognize that being gay is a state of being and more than the sum of a number of sex acts.
Do you even know how much you sound like an opponent of "miscegenation"?
Marriage was not "distorted" when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (striking down "anti-miscegenation" statutes. Its reach was expanded, with no impact to same-race marriages.
You should hang your head in shame...
PHILIP
libsrsic
1:00 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Philip, I have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm voicing my opinion which many people share--just like the 14 year old girl who defended marriage if front of the Maryland legislature and asked them not to vote for Gay marriage. Do you know that she received vile death threats? I guess I should be thankful that I'm just told "I don't like Gay people".
libsrsic
1:17 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
I was at my gay best friend's side when he was on his death bed and agonized with him and his mother in the 80's, so saying I dislike Gays is a mischaracterization of who I am.
OldDaveNJ
1:45 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
And yet, if this gay friend of yours lying on his death bed was denied access to health insurance coverage, strictly because he was in a civil union rather than a state-recognized civil marriage, you'd have been fine with that.
Philip Chandler
1:37 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
It is a simple matter of observing the record - for example, how we wish to "take away" a designation from straights and in some unspoken manner defile that designation...
We certainly don't all have HIV and I regret what happened to your friend. I also regret the fact that some opponents of gay marriage have received death threats. Don't judge me by false association. Please judge me by my intense desire to see our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection fully extended to gay oersons (see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S 620 (1996) for more on this)...
PHILIP
Philip Chandler
2:04 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
The issues raised by OldDaveNJ are compelling. Civil Unions lack equality to gay marriages BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MARRIAGES! Tbe result is a twilight zone where the hammer can drop in an instant, leaving us without recourse....
PHILIP
Rich Wilson
6:41 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Funny how we cling to this word "marriage" and insist that it is never changing. The old testament is filled with stories of men who took on wives and concubines (and of course there is the story of David and Jonathan, but that's another story). Until very recent human history, when a woman was wed she was considered the property of her husband, and interracial marriage in this country was outlawed in many states up until the last few decades. Fact is, marriage is an ever evolving institution, no matter how much some people want to deny it and it will continue to evolve in the future.
libsrsic
9:22 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
The David and Jonathan story mentions no physical bond in the usual words that the Bible uses to describe such. Your other examples of marriage still involve conjugality and procreativity which, no matter how horrible, is still marriage. Interracial marriage was outlawed, but not because the conjugal and procreative essence was not there.
Will McGowan
8:52 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Adam and Eve is a story about creation; also the first straight marriage and it didn't work out. People that incorporate their religious ideology are no different than the Islamic clerics that we all fear. It is a CIVIL right to have the same benefits that all individuals possess. Shielding children from gay people in the schools does not make the gay go away. I often wonder wht types of parents you would be if you had a gay child. Is it a secret you would "best keep in private"? So many people invoke Christian beliefs and immoral acts on gays. I don't know any less kind and wonderful people than some of the long term committed gay couples in my life. MANY who have outlasted their heterosexual counterparts.
Will McGowan
8:56 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
I'm sorry Lib but I have heard all of your arguements on here and I'm afraid I'm going to have to break it to you: You do not accept gay people as equals no matter how many friends you have who are gay, etc. Your religious convictions reduces us to sex acts and those acts are contrary to your beliefs as a Christian. Period.
I used to get a group house in Avalon with about 20-25 heterosexual freinds who I am still a part of when they "group share"; the kinds of sex that goes on down the shore between good Christian folk would amaze all of you. Multiple partners, sodomy, infidelity, casual and unprotected sex...all of these "wicked acts" that WE are so famous for. I hope you all pray deeply for their forgiveness as my life has always been far more "vanilla" than almost anyone I know at the Jersey shore.
libsrsic
9:39 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Will, how many times do I have to say that marriage is not about equality and fairness? It is about conjugality and procreativity no matter how horrible the two human beings are. Promiscuity of heterosexuals has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. Stop trying to twist things around and confuse the issue. If I had a Gay child I would give that child my unconditional love. NO need for secrecy, fortunately we live in a society that accepts and even celebrates Gays. The Natural Law dictates the definition of marriage. Calling me "non accepting to Gays as equal" is not going to change my common sense and intimidate me. This is getting old, I said all I have to say.
OldDaveNJ
10:50 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
@libsrsic -- You say marriage is about conjugality and procreativity. Since conjugality is defined to mean "Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses," it's hard to disagree, though it really says nothing about traditional versus same-gender marriage. And as for the "procreativity" part, procreation is not a prerequisite for civil marriage. Your view is strictly a religious view of marriage ... one that is largely restricted to Roman Catholicism. (And even many Catholics don't buy it.) We are talking here, not about religious marriage, but civil marriage, which is the granting of certain benefits and protections to couples for the purpose of fostering stronger families ... be they families composed of the couples only, the couples plus any biological children they have, or the couples plus any children in their custody through things like adoption, IVF/surrogacy, previous relationships, etc. And the purposes of civil marriage applies equally well to same-gender couples as they do to straight couples. If you want to argue for marriage laws that will stand up in court, you have to be able to justify them using non-religious arguments.
SpeakUPNJ
10:09 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
libsrsic....you have said it all, more than once. You are talking to minds that cannot absorb what you are saying. They read it only as anti gay. They are not satisfied with your acceptance even "celebration" of their chosen life style. Nor are they satisfied with obtaining all the legal civil rights of joined heterosexual couples. Instead they want you to alter, give up your intrinsic beliefs and embrace their beliefs. This endless discussion is not about being anti-gay nor is it about not obtaining legal civil rights for gay unions at all. And yes it is boring after a while...but thanks for your very thoughtful input.
OldDaveNJ
10:54 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
@SpeakUPNJ -- you continue to suggest that same-gender couples in NJ can obtain all the legal civil rights of joined heterosexual couples using the separate-but-equal structure called civil unions ... in spite of substantive, factual information to the contrary provided by several others here. And you haven't made one attempt to refute that information. You simply keep repeating your false assertions. And if you want to continue dodging the issue, that's fine with me ... but I just wanted to highlight the fact that you are doing just that.
Will McGowan
12:15 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
As I said before...the fear you have is that we have the same name as you get to have "marriage". Yet, somewhow you think that we "will get the same treatment" by envoking civil unions. We absolutely will not. You fear that we tread on your religious beliefs even though our "gay lifestyle" was no more our choics than the color of our eyes or our height. You twist the arguement with "anti-gay" but if you sat yourself down, if you really examined your conscience, you would admit to yourself that your rejection of gay marrigae goes...brass tax...to your disgust of what we do in our bedrooms. Plain and simple; forget natural law; these are non religious civil rights that good people deserve. You are not doing us any favors by pledgeing your undying support for civil unions; that is like saying you are the better group because you favor Rosa Parks sitting "somewhere more to the middle of the bus"...just not in the front with us.
libsrsic
8:37 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Conjugate: having features in common but opposite or inverse in some particular way.
@old dave: where did I even once mention or imply a religious reason? Unless your an anti Catholic bigot, you have to admit I could be Moslem or even an Atheist. The Prime Minister of Australia is (or was) an atheist and is against gay marriage.
For the sake of ending this, ok, have it your way, you're all right and I'm wrong. I'm a horrible person for using common sense. I sincerely wish you all the best.
OldDaveNJ
9:15 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
@libsrsic -- First, you said "conjugality" ... not "conjugate." And while they have common etymological origins (both having to do with a joining together), they do not mean the same thing; "conjugality" does not have a strong connection to "opposite" or "inverse." Second, I didn't say you were a Catholic, nor did I imply that all Catholics (or only Catholics) are against same-gender marriage. I said that your stated view that marriage is about procreation is a view grounded in religious beliefs. Virtually every person I've ever had exchanges with on this topic who used the marriage=procreation argument fundamentally adhered to that argument because of religious beliefs. The vast majority happen to be Catholics - and in fact, Roman Catholicism is one of the very few churches that hold strongly to that belief. But for sure, it has nothing to do with the civil definition of marriage, since the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage, nor is marriage a prerequisite for procreation. If you want to talk about raising children, that is another matter. But as far as procreation itself goes, viewing that as an essential element of marriage can almost always be traced back to religious beliefs. And that's fine if one is talking about religious marriage. But it just isn't relevant to this discussion, which is about civil marriage.