Domestic Partnership Legislation passes NJ assembly

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 9:36am

Yesterday the NJ Assembly passed Domestic Partnership Legislation by a margin of 41-28-9. This is great news. The legislation is scheduled to be voted on by the State Senate on January 12th. If you're from NJ and you're for this legislation call your State Senator.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 3:11pm

it's a good bill and it ought to pass, but it'll be close with the senate deadlocked at 21-21 between republican and democrat. the only real sticking point is the inclusion of hetero seniors. if that gets declares unconstitutional the the bill will be dead in the water.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 4:49pm

Yes it will definately be close. That's why I urge everyone in NJ to contact their State Senator (not federal) if they are in favor of the bill.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 5:08pm

I'm waiting for immigration laws to include domestic partnerships.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 5:20pm

Hopefully someday...Canada is ahead of us on that one.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 2:02am

only on that one, huh?? I'd say they are ahead on a lot more

Please remember that this country was forst settle by a group of people who were so puritanical (DUH), and extreme, and screwed up when it came to religion that they were not wanted anywhere else.....
and also do not forget their habit of killing people who they think are different......
hmm..... hasn't changed THAT much at all.....


Domestic Partnership is okay.. full marriage is needed and deserved.. not that it has to or should be earned.. nothing less is equal...

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 9:03am

You know I don't care what they call it as long as I'm entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Let Bush keep marriage "sacred" and give us domestic partnership, civil unions, whatever. I don't need the label of "marriage", something so sacred it ends up in divorce 50% of the time.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 10:05am

that's an interesting point you make, erik. i sometimes find myself quite under attack since i support the idea of equality under the law for domestic partnerships, or civil unions while maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage as a hetero institution. i would have gone further and taken the word marriage out of all civil institutions. have all people apply for the same license under the law and once they get them, they can have whatever ceremony their religion or custom permits. but the license should recognize that these two people have decided to share their lives together and should have equal protection and benefits under the law regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. the word marriage really has no place in civil law in a society that claims separation of church and state anyway.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 12:29pm

broadwayguy2 - Canada and South Africa are the only countries in the world that allow immigration for domestic partners, so it's not that the US is behind, it is that they are the pioneers.

The original settlers weren exiled because they they had an unpopular view of Christianity at the time. It wasn't that they weren't wanted anywhere else, they didn't have a choice. They weren't the only ones who killed because someone was different. It's an historical event that has gone on for centuries in practically every part of the world. The Protestants and the Catholics have a loooooong history of this in Britain and continue to do so in Ireland. Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition, Apartheid in South Africa, Hitler's Third Reich, Russia, everywhere in the Middle East, etc. So, this isn't something unique to the US.

It's absurd to link modern decisions based on the original settlers. 90% of Americans aren't even related to them any more and come from various international backgrounds. I think we have progressed quite a bit, but still have a long way to go. Many countries still carry a death sentence for homosexual acts.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 12:44pm

Well said Papalovesmambo..

Mister Matt...while I agree with some of what you have said, I would hardly call the United States a pioneer on gay rights. We should be, but we're not. Don't you think it's a bit sad that South Africa of all places is ahead of the game?

Oh...and one more thing, Bush can take his "tolerance" of gays and stick it where the sun don't shine
Bush would back constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 1:07pm

Yes, America is behind the times in relation when you consider how America has pioneered everything else.. it is all relative thank you...