Conservatives in NJ propose alternative to marriage

Conservatives in NJ offer alternative to gay marriage

By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer

November 27, 2006, 4:56 PM EST

TRENTON, N.J. -- Conservative groups in New Jersey announced plans Monday to push two measures that would keep gay unions from having the same legal status as marriage.

A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between only a man and a woman was widely expected. The second measure is a novel approach described by its backers as a "compromise" that would grant the rights of marriage _ but not the title _ not only to gays but also to couples in other domestic relationships.

The measures came in reaction to a landmark ruling last month in which the state Supreme Court said gay couples in New Jersey should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. But the court stopped short of finding that the couples have a right to marry.

Whether to call the unions marriages, civil unions or something else is up to the Legislature. The court gave lawmaker six months to act.

Key lawmakers in the Democratic majority in the Legislature say they favor letting gay couples register in civil unions that would offer all the benefits of marriage but not the title. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., D-Camden, has said action may be taken by the end of the year.

After Monday's announcements from conservative groups, it appears lawmakers will have a full range of options.

Some lawmakers, backed by gay civil rights leaders, are pushing for full marriage rights _ and the name _ for gays. Gay rights activists say that it's important for them to be able to call their unions "marriage" because everyone understands what that term means, unlike "civil unions."

The new measure outlined by conservatives Monday would offer the same benefits not just to gay couples but to people in various other housekeeping arrangements, regardless of their sexual orientation.

For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the employer-sponsored health insurance for the other, for instance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.

The status would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible.

State Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, one of the most socially conservative members of the Legislature, said he would support such a law because it does not discriminate against people who are not gay.

Making the law broad would avoid something distasteful to many conservatives _ elevating the relationships of same-sex couples alone to the same legal status enjoyed by married couples.

"We're going to vigorously oppose civil unions if it raises up to marriage without the m-word," said John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, a group of clergy, scholars and conservative groups.

Assemblyman Alfred Steele, D-Passaic, is planning to introduce the legislation, said his spokesman, Joe Donnelly.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a longshot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements in last month's decision.

"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.

The constitutional amendment, which Cardinale said he would introduce, was widely expected. Similar measures have been introduced the last several years and have never had so much as a committee hearing.

It would take the support of 60 percent of the Legislature, or a majority in consecutive years, to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election.


Copyright 2006 Newsday