Marsha Shapiro and Louise Walpin of Middlesex County have been loving partners for over twenty years and have a civil union in the state of New Jersey. Together, they have raised four children, two of which have significant special needs—Scott, with Asperger’s, and Aaron, with severe mental and physical developmental disabilities. Healthcare costs, as one might expect, were tremendous. As Louise was searching for jobs, employer after employer told her: We do not provide health benefits to civil union couples. As health complications arose for Aaron, healthcare costs mounted. Marsha and Louise went hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt paying for his healthcare out of pocket while Aaron fought for his life.

Aaron passed away in July 2008. He would have turned 21 this year.

Marsha and Louise’s story plainly highlights the fundamental inequalities of civil unions. New Jersey law states that civil unions have all the same benefits of marriage, such as access to healthcare benefits and hospital visitation rights, without the title of marriage. In practice, however, civil unions have failed to provide that equality. Mostly on the basis of semantics, employers, health insurers, and hospitals have ignored the law and deemed civil unions unequal to marriage. Providing marriage for same-sex couples is the only way to offer full equality. As with all matters: separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard nine hours of testimony from families just like Marsha and Louise. Even after all that time, there were still over 150 individuals waiting to testify to the failures of the civil union law. In New Jersey, these examples of pained families are the norm, not the exception.

Paul Beckwith of Plainfield was denied access when his partner was rushed to the emergency room from a business meeting because Paul was not next of kin. After Paul pressed the fact that they had a civil union, he was told, “Business partners are not next of kin.” In a separate incident at a different hospital, Paul was taken to the hospital because his appendix ruptured, and again, Paul’s partner was denied access because he was “not next of kin.”

Gina Pastino of Montclair was rushed to the hospital in a near fatal condition. She informed the hospital about her civil union partner Naomi Cohen. Upon Naomi’s arrival, the hospital denied her information about Gina’s status and visitation. Naomi pleaded, “If I was her husband, would you be able to give me that information?” The doctor replied, “Yes.”

No one should have to endure such blatant discrimination, yet countless other families have come forward telling their own stories of inequality and injustice. As employers, health insurers, and hospitals have confessed, amending this problem is purely a matter of semantics; they do not view civil unions to be the equivalent of marriage, despite the language of the law.

The dissenting opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris foresaw this problem when deciding what same-sex unions should be named:

“What we name things matters, language matters… Labels set people apart surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities… By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.”

Plain and simple, the civil union law is legislated inequality. The state-recognized distinction between civil union and marriage is significant: civil unions promote a second-class status for same-sex couples. This distinction promotes unequal treatment of individuals, and it encourages businesses and private citizens to do the same. The government should not be promoting this culture of discrimination. In a society where LGBTQ people face ignorance, hatred, and abuse, the civil union law fundamentally asserts that there is something different about homosexuals that makes them unequal and deserving of such discrimination.

Moral opponents of marriage equality frequently cite religion and tradition. The marriage equality legislation, aptly titled the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act, makes far-reaching attempts to protect religious freedom. Churches are protected from marrying same-sex couples, and people of faith are not required to attend same-sex ceremonies. And bordering unconstitutionality, churches are even protected from giving same-sex couples rental space in a banquet hall, gazebo, or any other room or facility—even if the church receives state or federal taxpayer money. The legislation before the Senate and Assembly makes it clear that New Jersey is specifically addressing the concept of civil marriage. Make no mistake, religion is safe.

Still, it is worth acknowledging that marriage equality in New Jersey has broad support in the religious community. During marriage equality lobbying days in Trenton, at least seventeen faith communities were represented, and during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on marriage equality, a number of religious leaders testified in support of marriage equality. More substantially, a Rutgers-Eagleton poll finds significant support among mainstream faith voters.^[1] The Catholic church, by far the largest religious group in New Jersey, has officially opposed marriage equality, but Catholic voters support marriage equality 49% to 37%. Non-evangelical Protestants support equality 46% to 35%, and Jewish voters support equality 56% to 38%. Of all faiths, evangelical Protestants are the only religious group opposed to marriage equality.

However, all of this conjecture prompts the question, why are the religious views of faith communities that support marriage equality being undermined and ignored? Of course,  religion should have no place in this debate. The perspectives of both sides are irrelevant. The religious freedoms of all viewpoints are entirely protected, and the state should solely be concerned with the institution of civil marriage.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee, the NAACP Chairman Julian Bond testified in favor of marriage equality during a historic moment and challenged tradition. Bond reminded New Jerseyans of a darker page in American history: anti-miscegenation laws, which banned the mixing of blacks with whites up until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Quoting Congressman Seaborn Roddenberry from Bond’s former home state of Georgia, “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive to moral supremacy.” Bond prodded the Senators of the committee, “Does any of this sound familiar?”

Similar arguments and rhetoric are used against same-sex marriage today. Culture and traditions are fluid—especially traditions of marriage. Sexual orientation is not. Same-sex marriage has no impact or effect on the livelihood or wellbeing of other families or marriages, and New Jersey has allowed same-sex couples to adopt children for nearly twenty years. Marriage equality does not change the existing family dynamic in New Jersey. Marriage equality strengthens it by supporting families and children with equal protection under the law.

Political observers will also point towards the failed re-election bid of Governor Jon S. Corzine, who campaigned in support of marriage equality, as a sign that the people of New Jersey are opposed to the idea, and that the issue should be dealt with as a state referendum before the voters.

Firstly, it is a stretch of the mind and imagination to associate Corzine’s loss with a mandate against marriage equality. Nearly sixty percent of voters in the recent gubernatorial election said that economy and property taxes were the most important issues.^[2] And according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll, only 2% of the New Jersey electorate consider marriage equality to be an important issue.^[3] The same poll says that a plurality of voters support the legislation, and a majority of voters would accept the decision if the legislature passed the bill. There is simply no relation.

Secondly, the civil rights of minorities should never be subject to a vote of the majority. The founding fathers warned of the tyranny of the majority on many occasions. The last time a civil right was placed before the voters of New Jersey by referendum was women’s suffrage on October 19, 1915, and sure enough, the proposed amendment failed by a vote of 133,282 to 184,390—nearly 60% opposed.^[4] Of note, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts also rejected women’s suffrage via referendum two weeks later.

After all of the arguments against marriage equality have been rebuked, opponents finally demand that civil unions be “fixed” before New Jersey considers giving same-sex couples the title of marriage and, additionally, that companies or hospitals practicing discrimination and ignoring the civil union law be prosecuted. The heart-wrenching testimony and legal analyses heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee are proof enough that fixing the civil union law entirely is impossible and impractical.

During testimony, it was reiterated time and time again that employers, health insurers, and hospitals did not acknowledge the term “civil union” to be synonymous with “marriage,” but those companies conceded that they would have acknowledged a same-sex couple who was married for purposes of health benefits, hospital visitation rights, and other benefits.

Half of New Jersey employers are actually legally exempt from providing benefits to civil union couples due to a federal loophole, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law allows for self-insured businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples since the law uses language such as “spouse,” “marriage,” and “husband and wife.” ERISA legally exempts those employers from covering civil unions. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, far fewer employers use the federal loophole, because the significance of the term marriage is respected and understood. More importantly, employers in Massachusetts are dissuaded from denying benefits to married couples because no explanation can be given for denial of benefits aside from blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Language is key. This debate would not be taking place if that were not the case. Marriage is a term that is widely understood and accepted. Civil union is a term that is confusing, unclear, and inviting of controversy.

Moreover, it is impractical and heartless to suggest that civil union partners should embrace a convoluted legal system and try to sort out inequalities and discrimination in a time of crisis, when such problems could be avoided entirely by changing the words “civil union” to “marriage.” It is terrible to suggest that Paul get an attorney to defend his right to visit his partner in the hospital. It is heinous to suggest that while Gina was in near fatal condition, her partner Naomi walk out of the hospital and do the same. And while healthcare costs piled on for Marsha and Louise, it is absolutely reprehensible and horrifying to suggest that they mount a costly and time-consuming court case against prospective employers demanding health benefits while their son Aaron was fighting simply to live.

Marriage equality should pass for a lot of simple reasons—love and fairness, to name a few—but the inequalities of the civil union law have highlighted serious, grave issues of discrimination that are undeniable. At a time when New Jersey families are struggling tremendously, access to healthcare is of paramount importance. The New Jersey Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, and the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled in support of that notion. Civil unions will always remain a stigmatizing label for a second-class status which fails to provide equality. Providing equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples will only happen by enacting full marriage equality now.

—

Marriage Equality legislation has currently passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The full Senate vote was postponed from its original date on December 10, so that the Assembly could vote first, where it is more likely to pass. The Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on its version of the bill by January 4, 2010, and if it passes, the legislation will go before the full Assembly and then the full Senate. Finally, if the legislation passes both houses,Governor Jon S. Corzine will sign the bill into law.

To find out more information about contacting your state legislators, please visit: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp.

^[2] http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/election-2009-virginia-jersey-exit-polls-obama-economy/story?id=8984551&page=3

^[3] http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_11-18-09.pdf

^[4] http://books.google.com/books?id=lPgOUea6FK0C&dq=women’s%20suffrage%20in%20NJ%201915&client=safari&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=&f=false