Laugh at that, New York!
Yahoo! news story.
I guess this is pretty good, but it justs sounds like separate but equal.
I am not gay but this whole issue offends me so much. I can’t believe the bar is so low this is considered a good thing.
I understand what you are saying, but when you consider how many states have laws or amendment preventing gay marriage and in many cases even any of the rights of a married couple, this really is a pretty good thing.
Gay Couples have got everything but the word. It is an important word, but healthcare, inheritance; tax options and all the other little financial things when combined with love should outweigh the value of a word. They can have a ceremony, invite all their friends and have all the trappings. The only thing missing is the marriage certificate. That little piece of paper is nice, but it isn’t what really makes two people married.
Jim
Can anyone find a record of votes on this? I’ve been at the Legislature’s website for an hour and didn’t find one.
Man its just semantics. Why does the definition of a word matter so much. Gay couples are allowed to legally wed now. Who cares what people call it.
It’s a contractually committed partnership, including sexualove, cohabitation, shared economy/property and mutual childrearing no matter what word you call it, it’s a good thing.
Has anyone seen the actual text of the bill? Can opposite sex couples also get “Civil Unioned”?
If not, I’m gonna protest!
It’s just the words that are offensive (though that’s reason enough to be offended). Marriage is done by churches; civil unions are done by the state. It is “separate but equal” in the minds of many…but not to we heathens who are civilly united by choice. Bravo, New Jersey!
Bah, it doesn’t look like it. From the text of the law :
There goes my plan to get health insurance for my girlfriend without spending $40K on a wedding. Now I have to go back to trying to reason with her about “second weddings” and such.
Seriously though, I’m so proud of my state right now. Yay us! 
. I never thought this would happen so soon.
A wedding isn’t necessary for a marriage no matter what your sexes are.
Oh, I don’t know. Lots of people choose to be married by the state, and those weddings are just as valid as those in a church. Plus there are a number of religious groups that will perform same sex weddings. This kind of reminds me of French law, which requires that everyone have a civil wedding. If you want a religious ceremony, it has to be done seperately.
The wrangling around the semantics strikes me as more stupid than anything else. In…uh, some number of years we’ll look back and laugh at this.
See, you know that, and I know that, but someone else still needs to be convinced. I don’t know whether to blame big jewish family tradition, the desire of all little girls to be princesses, society in general, or just my girlfriend’s stubborn head full of rocks 
.
Me, too–I’m old enough to remember when police would bust up gay gatherings (not just gay bars!), you could be arrested for cross-dressing, and being suspected of being gay could get you tossed into a mental institute.
Your Honor, the defendant was arrested for suspected attempted gay gathering.
Must…not…make…jokes about Eve’s age…
Oh, g’awn.
Eve is so old that…Nah, I like you too much for that. 
More seriously though, your comment about remembering those events made me really think about how far we’ve come in so little time. Its so easy for us younger queers to forget that it really hasn’t been that long since those types of things happened. As much as we like to complain that we’re being persecuted now by not being able to be married in most places, it truly is nothing compared to what went on barely 35-40 years ago.
We really do owe a debt of gratitude to those that went through those times and worked to get us where we are today. Those of us that are 30ish and under would do well to remember that.
Not that it matters (yay Jersey!) but allow me to point out this is pretty crappy statute drafting. It says you must satisfy all the criteria (A+B+C) but then (B) says you must be excluded from the marriage laws of any state. This means that if and when any state allows same-sex marriage, people in NJ will not be allowed civil unions (because they will no longer be able to fulfill (B)). This is obviously a very close and narrow reading of the statute, and one that Jersey may not choose to give it in that happy event, but technically statutes are to be narrowly read and strictly constructed. I think the law would have been better to just estalish NJ provisions without regard to what other states may do.
Agreed, but “seperate but equal” is a damn sight better than “seperate and unequal,” which is the case in most other states in the Union. Victories in this fight have been few and far between lately. It’s nice to hear some good news on the subject for a change.