Marriage equality legislation clears Senate Judiciary committee

By Matt Friedman | December 7th, 2009 - 10:20pm

| More

TRENTON -- Advocates of marriage equality savored a victory tonight after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass same sex marriage legislation on to the full senate.

The vote was seven in favor and six opposed.

The bill's ultimate passage, however, is far from certain. The Senate will take it up on Thursday in a vote that is expected to be close and not strictly along partisan lines.

Two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against forwarding the bill for a vote of the full Senate - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo (D-Wood-ridge) and Vice Chair John Girgenti (D-Hawthorne), while one Republican - state Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Hamilton) voted in favor of moving it.

The committee also unanimously voted to accept Baroni's amendment expanding the scope of protection from legal culpability for refusing to perform, give space or solemnize gay marriages from just clergy to religious societies, institutions and organizations. Baroni called it the "most profound, far reaching religious protection amendment anywhere in the country."

State Sen. Christopher "Kip" Bateman - who was said to be a possible vote in favor of the legislation until he faced conservative pushback - tried to find a middle ground, saying that although he would voted against the legislation, he would work to rectify shortcomings in the current civil union law.

"I think this legislation has an obligation, if this legislation should fail on Thursday, I would recommend to work in a bipartisan manner to come up wit a new bill that will give equal rights to everyone," he said.

But state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Elizabeth) - one of the bill's chief sponsors - argued that Bateman's idea was impossible.

"I don't know how you can change a law to accept couples as equal by making them different," he said.

Girgenti was considered a possible yes vote by marriage equality supporters, but he dashed those hopes with his no vote and the comments that accompanied them. He said that passing the bill would "fundamentally" change the definition of marriage, and that such a change should be put before the voters.

"By supporting this measure, I would not only be violating my conscience, but the public conscience as well," he said.

Baroni drew the most enthusiastic response in the packed chambers when he voted for the bill, saying that same-sex couples want equal treatment, which is "not too much to ask."

"I will be the first ever New Jersey legislator in this state on the question of marriage equality to say the following: I vote yes," he said, drawing a standing ovation from the crowd that lasted for the better part of a minute.

Sarlo, visibly enjoying praise from legislators who said he ran a fair and comprehensive hearing, said he honored his commitment to post the legislation even though he personally opposed it.

Of the civil union law, Sarlo said "If there are loopholes and it's not working, well then we should fix it."

Throughout the hearing, the most vocal opponent of the bill was state Sen. Gerald Cardinale, who said that passing it in lame duck was contrary to the mood voters expressed when they elected a Republican as governor last month. He also opposed it on moral grounds, however.

"I believe that the use of the term marriage will, in fact, promote a lifestyle," he said. "I do not believe that all gay folks have chosen to be gay. I think that is a pretty well disproved theory. But I think some have chosen a path. I believe this bill... will encourage more to choose that path, and I don't think that's particularly good for our society."

Testimony for and against the legislation from the public lasted about seven hours, with witnesses arguing on theoretical, personal and even monetary themes. Dozens testified, and many more had to be turned away for lack of time, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo (D-Wood-ridge).

The first witness was NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, who equated gay marriage with the racial civil rights struggle.

Bond said the debate calls to mind the decision that overturned states' bans on interracial marriage, the 42-year-old Loving v. Virginia.

"Then as now, proponents of marriage as-is wanted to amend the United States constitution....Does any of this sound familiar? Then as now, proponents of marriage as-is invoke God's plan," said Bond. "They should never be subject to popular votes. When others gain these rights, my rights are not diminished in any way."

In advocating marriage equality, Bond brought up the phrase that has come to define the failed justification for racial segregation.

"At best, civil unions are separate but equal, and we all know separate is never equal," he said.

The first witness opposed to the legislation was Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference

Despite the Catholic Church's past opposition to civil union laws across the country, Brannigan argued that "the record shows that overwhelmingly the civil union act is working effectively."

The Civil Union Review Commission's report that called the civil union law inadequate, Brannigan said, was "flawed" but "accepted as fact."

"To disrespect a person because of their sexual orientation is to disrespect God," said Brannigan. "However the church does not recognize same sex marriage and views the use of the word marriage to describe a same sex relationship as a contradiction of terms."
By the end of the meeting, over a dozen clergy from various faiths had spoken in behalf of both sides.

Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage President John Tomicki tried to turn the civil rights talk on its head, holding up a book of speeches by Martin Luther King, Jr.

"He talks about what a just law is," said "Any law that does not square with, shall we say, biblical conditions, he would call an unjust law," he said.

Supporters tried to convince legislators to support it based on hundreds of millions into the state's economy, citing a study by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law.

Some supporters of the legislation gave heart-wrenching personal accounts of being denied access to loved ones in the hospital, or, in the case of partners Marsha Shapiro and Louise Walpin, of struggling to secure health benefits for their adopted children. Two of their children have special needs, one of whom died last year at age 20.

Walpin and Shapiro, through their appearances in Garden State Equality's internet ad campaign, have become the de facto faces of the gay marriage movement in New Jersey. They noted that many couples with just one special needs child split up, but their relationship continued.

"If this isn't marriage, what is?" said Shapiro.

As the meeting went past its sixth hour, patience started to wear thin. When one witness who opposed the legislation went over his allotted two minutes of speaking time and argued that his side was not getting as much respect from the committee as proponents, Lesniak loudly said "next witness." Sarlo, who said that they had been respectful to both sides of the issue, admonished Lesniak to not interrupt.

Tags:

I dont like (D-Sanzari) usually....

Submitted by GoldCoastGOP on December 8, 2009 - 12:03am.

but bravo on this. And Girgenti is a new hero for those of us who are tired of this assault on our values!

As for Baroni, its OVER! DeAngelo should vote no and immediately announce a challenge.

sarlo, girgenti

Submitted by FrankJBartello on December 8, 2009 - 12:13am.

problem for them is that they come across as dumb dumb dumb

Baroni

Submitted by FlorioFanClub on December 8, 2009 - 3:55am.

So who will be the sacrificial goat Rick Shaftan chooses to primary Bill Baroni in 2011?

christiegonewild.blogspot.com

I am ashamed that you

Submitted by AndynHoboken on December 8, 2009 - 9:52am.

I am ashamed that you republican animals live in the same state as me. You sit behind a keyboard and spew hateful bigotted comments. The moderators of this site are MIA. I am all for allowing you to hold your own personal opinions on gays and SSM but when you come across as absolute animals you show your true colors. Hope you can sleep well at night hating someone who is not like you because you are so uneducated and blind to the rest of the world.

But I do not completely dispair. The same things happened in the 1960's to our African American brothers and sisters. And eventually the racism and hatred became reviled. Your own children do not hold the same values as you old codgers and you and your hatred will fade into oblivion.

Baroni

Submitted by DemocratDiaz on December 8, 2009 - 11:08am.

I liked Bill Baroni, well maybe because I support Gay Marriage :-P

Your 'conservative values' are to take a certain grp of breathing living human beings, limit them, and outcast them because they chose to love someone of the same sex. It's disgusting...

Baroni isn't a RINO

Submitted by bitaryo on December 8, 2009 - 11:29am.

He is out for himself and has played prima donna above his station in the party. We know it wasn't about conscience or any other social principle - he has none. Only another narcissist could explain his actions.

He should have looked to NY. GOPers saw that the Dems weren't united on SSM and then voted accordingly. A very good tactic and the Dems got the blame.

As far as the SSM crowd, make Civil Union work by putting on your adult clothing and work to make it feasible. Cry babies on both sides are non-acceptable.

Principles

Submitted by Captain Republican on December 8, 2009 - 11:36am.

First, I commend Senator Girgenti for expressing his perspective, that it is a matter of the public conscience. He is a Democrat voting against a heavily leaning Democrat issue. That takes courage, even if you disagree with the vote.

Second, I'm at a loss to understand how this issue and the civil rights issues involving race can be squarely compared. In the pre 1960s America, race was a matter of exclusion and suppression on a societal level. Basic civil liberties were denied. Separate but equal was never the case because there was an intention to divide society into distinct impossible worlds.

In the case of marriage, we must be mindful that it is an historic creation and in modern day American society, it is a statutory creation founded upon societal norms, customs and traditions. The rights of association between gay and lesbian couples should not be infringed, but in the same breath, so too should the associational rights and psychology of heterosexual couples be respected. By way of example, keep in mind that New Jersey does not recognize common law marriage. Would the GSE argue that the laws regarding marriage discriminate against couples who would be married by common law in States which recognize same?

Marriage involves a husband and wife under the general classification of heterosexual eros. It is the heart of the nuclear family model. Homosexuality is a union between like sexes, often in an alternate setting for a family model. The distinction makes it clear that while the rights associated with a civil union should be corrected to provide a seamless web of equal rights, there is a bright line difference.

While the designation of African American or Caucasian is a distinction, the issues involved pertain to the individual and the rights afforded thereto. We must be careful not to dilute the civil rights movement and what it was all about by invoking the principles which were at stake.

The decision to be involved in a State recognized committed relationship, whether gay or straight is a choice. Being African American is not. So long as there is intelligent treatment of rights afforded to individuals involved in a State recognized committed relationship, the traditions and societal norms of our popular society should be respected.

And I resent the implication that simply because I am Republican or have a different perspective on this issue, that I must be harboring some deep seeded hatred, resentment or evil intent. In case anyone cares to recognize, our society was founded upon principles of disagreement and the freedom of independent thought.

I respect you taking the

Submitted by AndynHoboken on December 8, 2009 - 11:48am.

I respect you taking the time to write a respectful reply. Many of your colleagues on here are republican teabaggers who are blatantly racist and extremely homophobic. Its disgusting that no one on here takes them to task. Being complicit is just as guilty of those who say the vile hateful things on here.

Now, my family is no different than my sisters family or anyone elses with the exception that I get denied a number of basic services, pay more in taxes, and have to set up numerous costly legal structures that she does not. That is grossly unfair. Why should I have to be subject to these restrictions on my life as an honest taxpaying citizen? My family is not going away and millions of other honest taxpaying gay families are not going away either. The nuclear family has morphed into something new that includes many types of relationships. To hold fast to tradition is not observing reality. So in closing, to continue to deny me the basic rights that you get to entertain is to say that my family is less equal to yours. Take a walk in my shoes sometime and you'll change your tune.

I'd love for you to tell some African Americans that our struggle is in no way similar to Loving v Virginia. Separate is NOT equal. Any diviations from this logic is a smokescreen by religious fundamentalists. I will not be less equal to my fellow man.

Great opportunity for a deal here

Submitted by Networker on December 8, 2009 - 11:59am.

Lets trade Same Sex Marrage for full restoration of our Second Amendment rights,

Including the Right to Carry, The right to apply for a Federal Class 3 licence etc. Maybe we can also get our wish to marry all 3 of those model sisters that live down the block. ? if you can afford the price tag.

This is only the First STEP.

Submitted by Bill Patrick on December 8, 2009 - 12:26pm.

Eventually our Public Schools will indoctrinate our kids to believe that homosexuality is not morally wrong and that religions that teach that are wrong and should not be followed.As for Bill Baroni, I have lost all respect for him. There is a middle ground here and that is to make civil unions equal to marriage under the law. But, do not call it marriage. This whole affair is nothing but an in your face attitude in which gays are seeking vindication for their behaviour.They don't like anyone believing that homosexuality is wrong and they seek to punish anyone who holds that belief.

Bill, Teach your children at

Submitted by AndynHoboken on December 8, 2009 - 1:30pm.

Bill,
Teach your children at home if the boogie man homosexual is so evil. No one is going to force anything on anyone except you by trying to force us back into the closet. OPen your mind that homosexuals are people too and deserve respect not loathing and shame. You sound like the Catholic pulpit which is full of child molesters. What role models.

Tyranny of the left

Submitted by assisi on December 8, 2009 - 2:05pm.

AndyNHoboken does not get to say that the Moral majority cant protest against Homosexual acts and agendas

John Adams has said that in

Submitted by AndynHoboken on December 8, 2009 - 2:13pm.

John Adams has said that in every case across the world the tyranny of the majority has trampled the rights of the minority. Hence the reason these things cannot be put to a public vote ever. Our society has forgotten our founding fathers and its a sad day for America. As for the Moral Majority, you can protest all you want just like I'll protest against people like you most likely for the rest of your life. not mine since I will most likely outlive you and people who think like you. I have history and demographics on my side.

andynhoboken

Submitted by SDem on December 8, 2009 - 2:32pm.

Andy you are a typical liberal hypocrit who only has an open mind to your way of thinking. In one breath you despise the people for saying that homosexuals are vial disgusting creatures but yet you can freely call people teabaggers. If you do not agree with someones moral views dont try to condem all conservatives who believe that our government is overspeanding as homophobes.

Andyn Hoboken

Submitted by Bill Patrick on December 8, 2009 - 2:48pm.

Your attack on the Catholic Church calling them child molesters is interesting. Perhaps you should take note that bascically of those child molesters in the ranks of the priesthood were homosexual having a sexual inclination for pre-teen and teenage boys. This is one of the best arguments that proves that homosexuality is a perversion and certainly it is not a desirable practice. Those that have this incliniation should turn away from those feelings for the same sex and try to re-orient themselves to the normal and natural purposes that nature has prescribed.Homosexaulity develops both from nature and nurturing practices.They have the power to change and be normal. It takes the power of the will.No,I will not allow my kids to be indoctrinated into the view that being gay is fine.I do not support or believe in discrimanation aganist gay perople. I believe in tolerance. But I suspect they are not as tolerant towards those of us who believe that it is wrong.

PolitickerNJ.com

Search