Woo! NJ Rules! I'm proud!

[holly_evolving]

Thank you thegreyeminence for enlightening my ignorant ass.

Today the New Jersey state legislature created same-sex civil unions with the same privileges as hetero marriages (Assembly bill #3787). Summed up in two sentences:

“Civil union” means the legally recognized union of two eligible individuals of the same sex established pursuant to this act. Parties to a civil union shall receive the same benefits and protections and be subject to the same responsibilities as spouses in a marriage.

For an encore, they went on to fund stem cell research centers in New Brunswick, Camden, and Newark.

I love my blue state.

Also, fuck all you haters.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, imaplatypus sent to me...

Twelve pirates drumming

Eleven gypsies piping

Ten cats a-leaping

Nine rats dancing

Eight vikings a-milking

Seven fairies a-slacking

Six socks a-larping

Five dra-a-a-agons

Four renn faires

Three dunkin donuts

Two my nieces

...and a heinlein in a mythology.

Get your own Twelve Days:

Comments

[fatherdog.livejournal.com]

On the twelfth day of Christmas, fatherdog sent to me...

Twelve rpgs roleplaying

Eleven solaris wrestling

Ten computers a-cooking

Nine cephalopods boxing

Eight vampires a-grappling

Seven chaos a-shootwrestling

Six muppets a-gaming

Five bi-i-i-ill hicks

Four web comics

Three martial arts

Two tom waits

...and a kmfdm in an anarchy.

Get your own Twelve Days:

Nine cephalopods boxing would be awesome.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

I'm totally envisioning Scooter, Bunsen, Beaker, Robin, Rolf, and Fozzie trying to play D&D--and being broken up by Sam the Eagle.

[fatherdog.livejournal.com]

Scooter is trying to DM, and failing miserably, Robin is playing a bard and getting a hard time from everyone because he has no useful combat abilities, Bunsen is playing a sorceror with some ridiculous combination of kits and feats that results in a character that shouldn't be in any way possible, Fozzie is playing a thief and making horrible "backstab" jokes, Rolf got roped into this because they needed a sixth and has no idea what's going on, and no one knows what the hell Beaker is doing.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

"and no one knows what the hell Beaker is doing."--But whatever it is, somehow it's simultaneously felling orcs and doing bashing damage to him (have I got my games crossed?)

[fatherdog.livejournal.com]

If you have, it's okay, I'm pretty sure I threw random stuff from several different editions of D&D in there.

[thegreyeminence.livejournal.com]

Three guesses what Sam would have to say about a muppet D&D game.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

I miss hearing you say it!

[zootsuit.livejournal.com]

Very kickass about the same legal rights as hetero marriage. Or at least "relationship" - most religious folks I discuss with are not averse to legal ramifications of gay marriage but the term "marriage" which they feel is restricted to only male and female unions. To have a lifelong monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner isn't actually against most religious folk - but they can be a bit funny about definining it as a marriage per se.

It strikes me as a point of hair-splitting and being silly with names - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... why do I have to call it a waterfowl? Ultimately - I feel that any relationship that's based on love and respect is worthy of recognition. I think a same-sex loving union is much more "sacred" (depending on how you view sacred, of course) than a tawdry opposite-sex union which may be "correct" in the eyes of state and God. (or Allah. Or Ganesh - although I'm a little fuzzy on the Hindu take on same-sex practices)

Ahem. I get distracted by shiny objects. Could you tell? But this is a great precedent - the sort of thing I've been railing for for a while - since at 12 I was extra lippy about the rights of same-sex couples and alternate sexualities to my church minister. (that and equal rights for women in the church - early advocate of female ministers) See who's the heretic, NOW, eh? :)

And as to names, a poem I didn't write - since my poetry is odd and oblique for the most part:

A rose by any other name
Would get the blame
For being what it is
The colour of a kiss
The shadow of a flame

A rose may earn another name
So call it love
So call it love I will
And love is like the sea
Which changes constantly
And yet is still
The same

(From The Silver Metal Lover by Tanith Lee - probably my formative influence to romance in general. Which explains a LOT if you've studied Freud, I'm sure.)

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

Freud would have paid a lot of money for the ability to go fuck himself, I think.

As far as U.S. laws are concerned, I don't see why any marriage is recognized by the state...it's a RELIGIOUS contract, after all. I do believe in civil unions for any mentally capable adult human beings who want them, and now New Jersey has that option. Woo!

[zootsuit.livejournal.com]

Certes - there is somewhat of a confusion between the legal and cultural aspects of marriage - it's somewhere where church and state blur - and they shouldn't - the Bush administration springs to mind - an unholy mix of dogma and jingoism. I've heard far too many stories of dedicated life partners being screwed out of shared assets due to legal technicalities due to lack of a "proper" (generally being Christian, for example, in the White Western World) marriage. At least the idea of defacto relationships are legally recognized instead of being merely labelled of "that person I'm sleeping with." Of course, many such issues relating to those relationships are hardly cut and dried, but some marriage tangles are just as murky in the courts of law. Ultimately the more any relationship differs from the "norm" the more an opposing lawyer can pick it to pieces.

However, with legislation - that's a nice start and stops a lot of legal quandaries in their tracks - since, at least in Australia and I assume America also, the legal system is not the "justice system" - it's closer more to a debate - it truly is a matter of choosing who has a better lawyer that presents legal concepts better than their opposition - justice has no place - it's all a matter of rules-lawyering, so to speak. :P

Unfortunately, not even the judge has GM fiat to overrule some whiny kid chanting mantra from a player's guide. A pity, that's what I do :P

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

I disagree, and still think they should all be marriages, and happen to be pretty pissed off that people caved. I don't think I have the strength to sue for the right to get married, because people will find awful religious ways to fight that.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

I can see your perspective, and I think it's a matter of my use (or misuse) of the semantics. But the right to get married is something that only a church can bestow. Hence I'm ordained through ULC...for situations like the one you may be in someday. I really would rather see straights in civil unions, and leave whether or not they're married up to them and their gods. But then, most religion makes me jumpy, so I'm coming at it from a different angle.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the fact that a marriage is something only a church should perform, believe me--we have the same point of view on that. What I am upset about is the fact that the State confers "marriages" to breeders and "civil unions" to gays, so this is still crappy. I believe it ties into the fact that certain groups as a whole (and not all individuals, of course) only reluctantly allow for freedom of religion--if their religion says it's not ok for gays to get married, it's not ok for another religion to allow it.

I'm not sure if I want to get a civil union. I want these legal benefits, of course, because it makes sharing a life with someone much easier in paperwork, and I'd like to be able to have a wedding that's more than just a "commitment ceremony". On the other hand, I don't want to cave and get a civil union, because that is like saying, "at least I get to drink out of a water fountain; I don't care if it's just the runoff from the White one". ("Separate but Equal" may be getting as tired as "slippery slope", but it's got a ring of truth to it that twinges the hearts of everyone in this country, and I know there are plenty of imbeciles out there who wouldn't have a problem with it coming back.) On my third hand, I don't know if I have the strength of will to go to the office of vital statistics and apply for a marriage license and fight with whoever's in there until I have a case that Lambda Legal and the HRC and ACLU lawyers can take on for me (not that "Stiles-Manna v. Jimbo" wouldn't be totally awesome to be described to everyone in the world)... so I'm really just not sure where I stand on the reality. I have a few years before I can afford a real wedding anyway.

I wonder if they're recognizing MA marriages here...?

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

I think it's one of those things that I'm just going to see differently from everyone else. I don't think the state should recognize ANY marriage, straight or gay. I think everyone who wants the benefits should be required to apply for a civil union, and leave the religious stuff where it belongs--nowhere near the United States government. I know this is not the only arena wherein my views are not the norm, but I believe in the complete separation of church and state. Never going to happen, I know, but that's how I feel.

I do think that "separate but equal" is just another way of legally enforcing perceived superiorities, and it's completely wrong. I hope whatever happens, it puts us all on a level playing field. A girl can dream.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

No, your views aren't all that different--I know that I hold the same view. The fact of the matter is that they DO recognize religious straight marriages, and DON'T recognize religious gay marriages. What I'd like is for them to let anyone get whatever they want, and I think that if the word "marriage" is a sticking point for people, they should remove it from the statute.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

Does this mean we agree or no? I can't always tell. But you rule, so it's ok.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

yes, we agree. Except that I just wish that we had marriage (or whatever "they" have--so I'd want them to eliminate marriage for everyone), not civil unions, so I don't think it's totally awesome. But I am getting over it.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

I definitely think that everyone should be allowed to have the sort of union that he/she wants. If you want to get married, I'll perform the service (ULC ordained). And since you'd still have to go through the state to get a civil union anyway, so should straights have to. I don't think ANY marriage should have an impact on someone's legal status; I do feel that a separate legal procedure should be required for everyone.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

You could perform a marriage, but it would still be a civil union, not a legal marriage, until the legislature gets their heads out of their asses. What bugs me is the legal separation, because I could call it anything I want, but no one would have to believe me...

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

But even if people WERE legally required to CALL it marriage, it still wouldn't change what people thought. If they don't want to believe you, they're just not going to. Marriage is only a matter of belief to begin with.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

Not true. If it were legally called marriage, then I could flip off a night nurse who said I couldn't stay with my husband because "it's not a marriage", and I could call him my husband without anyone being able to argue with it ("well, TECHNICALLY, he's just your partner in a civil union"). They could think it, but they'd have to shut up.

As it is, I can think whatever I want, but I have to shut up about it. And since I'm right on this one, it needs to be the other way around :P.

[holly-evolving.livejournal.com]

Point taken. You can legislate behavior and reasonably expect to be followed. The same can't be said of belief.

[zootsuit.livejournal.com]

Certes - I think making a distinction over "marriage" and "civil union" when they're effectively the same is irritating hair-splitting - I'm of a mind to call it all marriage but that's what the religious folks told me their beef was. It may be semantics to us - but to them it's an issue. And I guess they have that freedom. It's annoying that it may be seen as a "lesser" institution but it's not in any way lesser per se (that's fully up to the individuals concerned.)

I think, go for it for now - maybe not in our generation will such a union (a marriage) be recognized as such - but folks as yourself will blaze a trail for later change. It's very much a half loaf and it sucks - but maybe, unfortunately, that's all that's what the world is ready for. The very backward world :P

Good luck saving up for the marriage! Think about it this way - at least you have someone in your life that you feel is eminently worth marrying. That's a good start :)

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

Semantics is always important to me (being a linguist, specializing in semantics), and it should be important to everyone. Words carry more power than their simple definitions--if the issue were just "semantics" to us, I wouldn't care either way, as long as I get my benefits. What's important is that the state defines "the same thing" with the same term, because it'smore important to me that the state recognize the equality of the two types of couples. I heard someone from Massachussetts once say, "We don't have 'gay marriage' in MA; we have 'marriage' that is extended to all of our citizens"; that's a necessary attitude for being sure that the state will back me up when I need them to without groaning. A "civil union" is equal according to a statute, but not necessarily so to a hospital night nurse, or to co-workers, or to national organizations. I want to be able tocall him my "husband" and not have any way for someone to say, "well, TECHNICALLY, he's your 'partner'..." The semantics of those words hurt, and that is what is most important to me.

Hopefully, we'll get true equality within the next few years, and I can have a nice wedding.

[thegreyeminence.livejournal.com]

I also wish they had gone all the way on the first try. That said, this is solid ground gained, I don't see it ever being lost, short of a (US) Constitutional ammendment.

Just as importantly, I think we're only a few years and a “separate-but-equal” case away from full equality. My original estimate was ten years; Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo's betting two to five. He makes me optimistic.

D-Day might not be VE Day, but it gets you there better than any of the days that came before.

[ariestar.livejournal.com]

That's a good way of thinking about it. My main fear is that someone will try the separate-but-equal argument, and the judges will shoot it down, which will set up the legal precedent to stick us in separate-land forever.

[thegreyeminence.livejournal.com]

That… is a perfectly reasonable fear.

For now though, momentum is not on their side. They have to both stop the current trend and roll back changes that were ordered by the highest court in the state just to regain the position they used to hold.

[cyanidetablet.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting that - it totally made my day!