Streams

Marriage Equality in New Jersey

Thursday, June 27, 2013

A gay marriage supporter in front of the Supreme Court during DOMA oral arguments. (Jennifer Vanasco/WNYC)

Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, discusses what Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality mean for civil unions in New Jersey.

Guests:

Troy Stevenson

Comments [19]

Mr. Bad from NYC

Also, just to be clear, this decision doesn't make it unlawful for states to specifically deprive gay married couples of the rights that STATES confer on heterosexual married couples, they can still do that, and many states actually have those laws in place.

It will probably mean, however, that they cannot deny gay married couples the right to be considered married in the eyes of the federal government with all those attendant rights, including tax status. It's going to be very hard for those (mostly red) states to cope with the burden of reconfiguring their respective tax codes to fit their new two tier system because almost all state and local tax codes are predicated on Federal tax treatment.

Jun. 27 2013 12:35 PM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ Larry from Brooklyn

Technically you're correct but that is according to internal IRS/SSI regulations (administrative law), not statute. If anyone can point to teh text of the USC where the IRS or SSA are required to determine benefits based on state or residence as opposed to legal status I'd be interested to see it.

Point is, the current IRS and SSI regs aren't wrong or right per se, but they are rendered instantly impractical by the DOMA decision, they will have to be reviewed and changed. It's not certain that it will be to the benefit of same sex marriage proponents but it i very likely, if only because it will reduce workload, simplify processing and be consistent with POTUS recent pronouncement and the declared intent of the SCOTUS decision.

Jun. 27 2013 12:25 PM

"At any historical moment, we are likely to find a conventional interpretation of the state of the world and our role within it, often gaining the force of unchallenged doctrine. Another near truism is that reality tends to depart from established Truth. The present period is no exception."

- Noam Chomsky, The Victors
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199011--.htm

Jun. 27 2013 11:25 AM

Andre wrote, (11:02 a.m.):

"Most abortions occur because of indiscriminate sexual behavior."

All contraceptives have considerable failure-rates. Thus, choosing to engage in any form of sexual contact that carries a risk of pregnancy, without being prepared to own-up to such should it occur, is irresponsible and selfish.

Jun. 27 2013 11:17 AM
Andre

jgarbuz - well no - I don't there should be subsidy to prevent abortion. I am actually against abortion... but most abortions do NOT occur because of poverty. Do you not see how many children women in poor neighborhoods have? Most abortions occur because of indiscriminate sexual behavior. It has very little to do with economics. Women of higher economic demographics have abortions as well... but they are also less likely to get pregnant because they have more ready access to birth control.

Jun. 27 2013 11:02 AM

(Cont'd from previous post)

Excerpt from article cited in my previous post: ( http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_09homosexuality.html )

"NAMBLA is by no means on the fringe of the "gay rights" movement. For years, it was a member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993. Years earlier, the ILGA itself had resolved that "Young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." "

And here are just two of a number of quotes from prominent "LGBT" activists that are found in the article:

"Shame on us if our lesbian/gay voices remain silent while our NAMBLA brothers are persecuted once again, and shame on those lesbians and gay men who will raise their voices to condemn NAMBLA, insisting that boy lovers (and presumably the boys they love and who love them) are not part of this thing called the lesbian/gay community."
- Steve Hanson, "Shame on Us.", Bay Area Reporter, January 23, 1992

A 1992 editorial in the pro-gay San Francisco Sentinel stated,
"The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous."
("No Place for Homo-Homophobia.", March 26, 1992)

Jun. 27 2013 11:00 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Precisely, Andre

The subsidies to protect stay-at-home moms a century ago are anachronistic and of no relevance today. Yes, we should have direct payments to keep poor people from aborting, to allow poor children have a chance to live, get educated and grow, but I don't think we have to subsidize marriage or singlehood. If we have to subsidize something, it should be to have healthy children being born, get educated, and grow up to work and pay their dues.

Jun. 27 2013 10:44 AM
Andre

jgarbuz - you are correct - marriage was always "religious" since the start of civilization. The reason why the government got involved in it was actually to "protect" women. Keeping families together was seen as the economic benefit of women and children. Now women are in many cases making more money than men. So in essence there should be an adjustment to those laws... likewise things like child support. I doubt those will happen anytime soon though.

It was also - rightfully - recognized that society is most healthy when there are healthy families. What happens next?

Jun. 27 2013 10:39 AM

As long as the right of "marriage" would in any way be tied to the rights of adoption, foster parenthood and/or surrogate parenthood, then there are a number of sensitive issues and questions concerning which a frank, open, serious, uncensored discussion and consideration is not only entirely /germane/ but absolutely /imperative/.

Perhaps chief among these is the question of connections and ties between homosexuality, pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia and child/adolescent sexual abuse and exploitation, and the "LGBT" "child-love" [sic]-- esp. "Man-Boy Love [sic]"--movements. While the prevailing politically- and socially- correct orthodoxy vehemently denies (with doctrinaire self-assuredness and usually more than a hint of self-righteousness and condescension) any such connections and ties, considerable evidence for them exists and is amply documented.

Did the court consider this at all?

(**If anyone disputes this assertion or its relevance to the issue at hand, let them present evidence for their case. Likewise, anyone wishing to defend the views and quotes presented should articulate a substantive argument. Removing posts such as this-- that by any remotely objective interpretation fall well within the stated rules and guidelines-- SAYS FAR MORE ABOUT THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH BLATANT, clearly ideologically and/or emotionally-driven CENSORSHIP than it does about any of the authors or views being presented in question.**)

A fair amount of such evidence is presented in an article by Brian Clowes entitled, 'Homosexuality and the Church Crisis': http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_09homosexuality.html (Whether or not one accepts the author's positions and claims regarding the Roman Catholic Church.)

(cont'd)

Jun. 27 2013 10:38 AM

Of course, WNYC, NPR and their compatriots at the NY Times, etc. are absolutely 'kvelling'...never missing an opportunity to declare and demonstrate how "enlightened" and "progressive" they are...

Meanwhile, have we heard so much as a peep from Brian Lehrer or even anyone else on this station concerning the incredible, shocking rare display of sanity and decency from the Russian parliament within the last few weeks?

My guess: WNYC realized that they couldn't quite get away with painting all-but-one member of the Russian parliament-- and the clear, overwhelming majority of the Russian people, whose views the all-but-unanimous vote represented--as nothing more than "evil", "bigoted", "hateful", "unsophisticated", "regressive", "homophobes" [sic]. And that, of course, is the only way WNYC could fit such a story into their incessantly pro- "LGBT" agenda (read: pro-/buggery/, more than anything else). So a decision was made to simply ignore what was, by any objective standard, a major international news story.

Jun. 27 2013 10:28 AM
Christine from Westchester

I don't often agree with jgarbuz but I agree here: let all unions be civil unions (straight or gay) and marriage belong to religions. And yes, this IS about property, death, taxes etc.

I think it's great to have all civil unions / marriages (gay or straight) recognized for all the rights and privledges and for all the tax requirements. Yes: get the benefit of marriage. Also pay the lovely tax bracket.

Jun. 27 2013 10:25 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

There should be no tax benefits for marriage or civil unions, but only payments to support children as many other countries have. If we want to curb abortion and to support having children, then instead of tax breaks, there should be direct payments for poor children, and not for rich parents.

Jun. 27 2013 10:25 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

All this confusion because the government intervened in the formerly religious institution called "marriage," which was once a sacrament, an oath, and a contract sealed before man and God. Then it was turned into a government function. Why? For what?

Jun. 27 2013 10:21 AM
Larry from Brooklyn

Everything published since yesterday suggests that if someone in a no-marriage state gets married in another, the federal benefits they get in the no-marriage state may not be the same as in the marriage state since some federal benefits depend on WHERE you LIVE, not WHERE you get MARRIED.

Jun. 27 2013 10:19 AM
John from NYC

I live in New York. My wife live in California. We got married in Maine because she likes Maine, an we now live in NYC. Neither of us live in Maine.

Could NJ resents get married in NY?

Jun. 27 2013 10:17 AM
The Truth from Beky

Sounds like this is about benefits and insurance.

Jun. 27 2013 10:17 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

We'd have NONE of these problems if "marriage" was kept a strictly religious matter, and civil unions were the only unions recognized by the government for legal reasons.

Jun. 27 2013 10:13 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

Also, wouldn't the current IRS/SSI policies have the effect (post DOMA decision) of allowing States to determine who gets federal benefits based on sexual orientation? Wouldn't that be a blatantly illegal civil rights violation given the fact the couple had been legally married (meets the federal standard) in another state?

Jun. 27 2013 09:44 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

I have a question for the guest. What if a gay couple married in NY but each maintained a separate residence and job, one in NY and one in NJ? How would the Federal law treat their NY Marriage? I am of the opinion that even if NJ does not have to recognize NY's Gay marriage (their sovereign right) they also could not "unmarry" them either as that would be a violation of NY's sovereignty.

I only ask because I think the controversy around DOMA 2 is largely academic. The Feds (IRS/SSI) will inevitably have to recognize a lawful gay marriage in any state for federal benefits, and even states that themselves ban gay marriage will then have to recognize a gay marriage exists on the federal level. The bureaucratic fallout from this dual arrangement will largely nullify DOMA completely.

If you read the syllabus from the DOMA decision you can see that the majority was especially concerned with the fact DOMA

"... forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. Pp. 20–26. 699 F. 3d 169, affirmed."

If the "stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect." is considered to be a legally defensible virtue it would seem to imply that forcing couples married legally under any state's to live under a reverse DOMA regime, where they were married under Federal Law but not State Law to be equally improper.

Jun. 27 2013 09:33 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.