Two Influential New Jersey Newspapers do an About Face on Gay Marriage

Two influential New Jersey newspapers - the Asbury Park Press and the Courier Post - have done a huge about face on same sex marriage and are now supporting full marriage equality. The major switch hopefully reflects the changing attitudes in New Jersey and hopefully also bodes well fro the effort to bring full marriage equality back before the New Jersey legislature. Should the measure pass the legislature, then GOP Governor Chris Christie will be forced to decide whether or not he wants his name etched on the wrong side of history should he veto a full same sex marriage bill passed by the legislature. Personally, I would not want my name forever equated with the ranks of the modern day equivalent of the pro-segregationists yesteryear. First these highlights from the Asbury Park Press:

Some battles need to be fought, even if victory is far from certain. Maybe even especially then. In the case of marriage equality in New Jersey, that time is now.

Last week, the “Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act” was introduced in the state Senate and given the designation S-1 to showcase its importance. Senate President Stephen Sweeney, Sen. Raymond Lesniak and Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg will serve as prime sponsors.

[T]he bill would die unless the Legislature had the votes to override an all-but-certain veto by Gov. Chris Christie, who historically has opposed gay marriage but refused to comment last week when asked what he would do if lawmakers approved the measure.

This should not be seen as some quixotic quest on the part of the Senate, or, as some have suggested, a political move by Democrats to hurt Christie’s chances for re-election or higher office down the road. It should, rather, be regarded simply as a renewed effort to get on the right side of history on this issue.

“Civil union” as the only option open to gay and lesbian couples simply invites and perpetuates the same “separate but equal” fiction that plagued this nation during the long years of segregated schools. We must never forget that a bedrock American principle is that laws must treat all people the same.

Anything less than full marriage rights for gays and lesbians implies that the abiding love that two men or two women feel is somehow inferior to that of heterosexual couples. No state should be making such judgments.

In addition, poll after poll has confirmed that the people of this state are now in favor of gay and lesbian marriage legislation. And it should be remembered that marriage licenses come out of city halls, not cathedrals.

The arguments against marriage equality seem vague at best, relying on a misunderstanding of history and, for some Christians, hanging their argument on a handful of Bible verses. They conveniently ignore the fact that “the” Christian position on gay marriage is not monolithic. Clergy in some denominations bless such unions; in states where gay marriage is legal, they actually perform such ceremonies.

[A]s recently as the 1960s, marriage was defined in various places in the South as the union of only same-race heterosexual couples. Marriage has indeed changed terms and definitions over the years. One thing has not changed, however. The institution of marriage has been widely considered beneficial for society. That remains true regardless of the anatomy of those who enter into this relationship.

If marriage is a bedrock principle of civilization, then love is the central tenet of every faith tradition, and each has its equivalent of the familiar words the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth some 2,000 years ago: “Love is patient, love is kind. ... It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” New Jersey should no longer pretend that such love does not exist for same-sex couples.

In a similar vein, the Courier Post has moved into the 21st century and accepted modern medical and mental health knowledge that confirms that for gays, only a same sex relationship is both possible and long term fulfilling. Here are highlights from that newspaper's about face:

Marriage is a sacrament, a sacred, holy bond between a man and woman for the purpose of forming families and raising children.

Marriage is also a contract, established by a stamped document filed with local public officials, that binds two adults together and grants them certain legal privileges and status in the eyes of the law. It’s almost as if it’s two different things that share the same word . . .

We raise this issue because, once again, legislators in Trenton appear poised to take up the issue of whether to grant same-sex couples in New Jersey the right to marry, or, more precisely, to marry in the eyes of the law and obtain a marriage license.

In this country, there has always been a principle, enshrined in our Bill of Rights, that government can never prevent anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. Nor can it promote religion. This has led to a level of “separation” between church and state.

There is also a principle in our Constitution that all men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and all are afforded the same rights and civil liberties. So, as to the question of same-sex marriage between consenting adults, we think the question really is about those bedrock guarantees that American citizens are afforded.

The government function of issuing marriage licenses, marrying people, is a set of legal privileges . . . How can our state government allow those rights for some but not others, or be party to a system (civil unions, established here in 2006) that has attempted to maintain those rights for all but, unfortunately, has not been fully successful in ensuring that outcome?

[B]ill, S1, that stands before the New Jersey Legislature, is the right answer to the question of how can same-sex couples be truly afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples while churches are protected from having to sanction or condone something that is against their principles.

The bill would also have language making it clear that clergy members, churches and religious bodies in New Jersey have the right to say “no” to same-sex marriage and are under no obligation whatsoever to perform gay marriage ceremonies or to allow such ceremonies on their property and that they cannot face civil claims in New Jersey for refusing to perform, allow in their space or provide services for gay marriage.

“This is absolutely not about religion. In fact, the bill has exemptions in it for religious groups and institutions. It is about recognizing that gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else under the law,” Sweeney says. We wholeheartedly agree.

For far too long the civil laws have been co-opted by religion and used to enforce a particular set of religious belief/bigotry on all citizens. This travesty needs to end and religion needs to be cease interfering with CIVIL legal rights. I hope that the members of the New Jersey legislature say "No" to those who will urge it to continue to write religious based bigotry and discrimination into that state's laws.