Separate is Never Equal
This morning the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission published its final report, in which they recommend that New Jersey move expeditiously towards creating law that grants the right to marry to same-sex couples. The report (available here) makes compelling reading; it's also refreshingly concise for a government report!
Nevertheless, I marked out some quotations as I was reading, and I thought I'd share with those of you who might not have the time (although the body of the report is only 45 pages with wide margins).
Here is the motivation for the commission and for the report:
On December 12, 2006, the Legislature enacted Public Law 2006, Chapter 103, establishing civil unions for same-sex couples effective February 19, 2007 (hereinafter the “Civil Union Act”). The intent of the Civil Union Act is to provide all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples in civil unions.4 It also established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (“the Commission” or “CURC”), to evaluate the effectiveness of the law and report to the Legislature and Governor. [p. 3]
Note the remark about the intent of the law to provide "all the benefits" of marriage to partners in civil unions. The commission's report evaluates how well that has worked. This is the case the report will be making:
We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written submission from more than 150 witnesses, 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. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples. [p. 1]
To begin they summarize the testimony of a few witnesses to start the discussion off in the right direction.
The experience of this couple amply demonstrates that the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separate status of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed same-sex couples. Even if, given enough time, civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they are “not good enough” to warrant true equality. [p. 2]
It doesn't work and, they find, it never will work. The bulk of the report highlights the public testimony of eight public hearings they've held since issuing their interim report in February 2008. All of the transcripts are available at the CURC webpage.
The first section is called "Consistent Themes of the Testimony before the Commission". Let's make a quick summary (all excerpted verbatim from the report):
- A. A separate legal structure is never equal. The most common theme in the testimony was that true equality cannot be achieved when there are two separate legal structures for conferring benefits on couples based upon sexual orientation.
- B. The word “marriage” conveys a universally understood and powerful meaning. Many witnesses testified that the difference in terminology, between “marriage” and “civil union,” stigmatizes gays and lesbians and their families because they are singled out as different. Witnesses stressed that words are incredibly important and powerful and that marriage is a term of “persuasive weight” that everyone understands and respects.
- C. Children would benefit by society’s recognition that their parents are married. Numerous witnesses testified that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) couples raise happy, healthy children in a loving family environment.
- D. There is uncertainty about the recognition of civil unions in other states. A number of witnesses testified that civil unions put same-sex couples at a disadvantage while traveling, for they bear a categorization that is misunderstood or not understood at all either at home or abroad.
The chapter "II. The Effect of the Civil Union Act on Same-Sex Families" describes how how the provisions of the Civil Union Act, designed to confer the same benefits as marriage without using the word "marriage" do not accomplish that goal. Retirement benefits and access to health care are just two of the topics under which the commission heard poignant personal testimony about ongoing inequality and lack of recognition of the law and of "civil-union" status.
They also point out that providing marriage equality would "make a positive impact". Here is an excerpt from the testimony of college-student Caitlin:
When…my father came out of the closet…that changed a lot of things. Shortly thereafter he found his life partner…who is a second father to me and who I love very much and who my entire family loves….I was very proud of my father for finally finding his voice and being able to be true to himself.
* * *
If the law says that someone is equal, people are going to recognize it. And if the law is not willing to say that, why should the common person out on the street, in the schools, the teacher, students, recognize that family as being the same? [p. 18]
Or this, from high-school student Ashley:
Today (a classmate) asked me, “Do you have a boyfriend?”
I said, “No, actually, I have a girlfriend. You might know her.”
And he said, “You have a girlfriend? That’s wrong, that’s a disease. You need to go get help for that.”
And I was like, “Why is it a disease?”
And he was like, “You can’t get married. Well, that’s why, you can’t get married. Obviously something is wrong with it.” [p. 19]
The remaining chapters of the final report cover these issues:
- "III. Fiscal Impact of Civil Unions vs. Marriage", lays out the economic argument: significantly enhanced revenues to the state's government and economy at little to no extra cost;
- "IV. Recognition and Treatment of Civil Unions by Other States and Jurisdictions": "civil unions" don't get no respect;
- "V. Testimony and Letters in Opposition": 150 witnesses appeared before the commission or wrote letters, 10 of those had "concerns" or were "opposed", with predictably weak, usually religious arguments. The commission, fortunately, is quite clear on the difference between civic marriage and whatever sacramental mysticism various religions want to confer. ([My bold:] "While the Commission also heard considerable testimony to the contrary, it is not the role of this Commission to comment on the merits of religious tenets or faiths of any of the witnesses who testified. This Commission recommends that the civil institution of marriage be extended to same-sex couples." [p. 40]); and
- "IV: Domestic Partnerships Should be Maintained": the commission found that the civil-union law does provide some benefits to same-sex or mixed-sex partners over 62 who choose not to marry.
Endnotes follow, and then a complete copy of the interim report of the commission, mentioned above.
The conclusions of the CURC (bold in the original, p. 45):
In conclusion, as a result of the overwhelming evidence presented, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission unanimously recommends that:
(1) The Legislature and Governor [of New Jersey] amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;
(2) The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey; and
(3) The Domestic Partnership Act should not be repealed, because it provides important protections to committed partners age 62 and older.