This is interesting. Considering that Massachusetts (a) permits resident same-sex couples to marry, but (b) by the “Romney Protocol” (I just christened it that, in “honor” of the governor who promulgated it; any objections), will not perform marriages for out-of-state couples, construe clause (B) in light of Massachusetts’s law and policy.
And this thing was drafted, purportedly by people who know how to write laws, after the Massachusetts decision went into effect.
I read it differently than you do. As I read it, one qualifies under the statute if one is excluded from the marriage laws of New Jersey OR any other state. A couple from another state that does not allow gay marriage would qualify, I think. Not sure if there’s a residency requirement in another code section or not…
I wonder why it is that this argument always seems to come from people who are OK with restricting the word “marriage” to mixed-sex couples. If it truly doesn’t matter what it’s called then why not call it “marriage”?
I object on the grounds that the law well pre-dates Romney (1913 I seem to recall). But only slightly, because Romney’s an asshole.
FTR, I read the statute the same way [b[Jodi** did, that it has the potential to prevent couples from civilly uniting (ugh) because of Massachusetts.
Well you know I’ve always denied the rumor that you were the usher who showed Lincoln to his seat at Ford’s Theatre…
Eve is so old she can remember when Judy Garland was alive, and Stonewall was just another bar.
Congrats to New Jersey (boy, I never thought I would ever say that!) for taking a realistic approach to the whole concept of equality.
I have always said I didn’t care what they called it, just give me the same legal rights - and sure enough, New Jersey got the message. Kudos!
I wish I could be as optimistic as the rest of you. New Jersey only passed the law because the court said they had to, and, like Jodi said, it’s crafted so that they can still stop gay civil unions if another state allows gay marriage. So, while this is a step forward, I’m not really convinced that this is a great victory.
That doesn’t exactly make sense, since Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since before the NJ civil union law.
I could be wrong, but I can’t see a Court reading it that way. Especially not a Court that has already ruled that it must be done. As I see it, reading the statute that way would be an absurd result, and a Court is likely to decide that the legislature could not have intended an absurd result.
This is probably the classic example of what constitutes a legal fiction!! 
Oakminster’s reading makes more sense than mine and is how the statute probably will (and should be) construed. Mine is the more tortured interpretation. I must have been tired when I read it before . . . . :dubious:
Ummm . . . actually . . . I can . . .
[Marie Dressler] “We must have a long talk about the Civil War sometime . . . Just you and I . . .” [/Marie Dressler]
I fear those who try to take advantage of this will find that in New Jersey, the unions are neither gay nor civil. 
That’s ok; everyone already has a pre-conceived notion about NJ Unions anyway. I mean Fugetaboutit!!!
Otto: I understand that is not perfect. It is not everything. But when you consider how many states are actively “protecting” themselves from Gay marriage and even civil unions, can’t you enjoy this small if not complete victory?
Jim
Yea. Why not? I dont give a shit what the fuck you want to call it. Call it pair-bonding for all I care.
When a person says he doesn’t give a shit how a word or label is used, he just might mean it.
Are you assuming that because I am okay with restricting the definition of marriage to mixed-sex couples I am automatically against the idea of officially including them in that definition? Or do you just mean people in general?
I am not obsessed by fucking words, definitions or semantics.
A marriage by any other name is still a marriage. In this case, it does have another name. But it’s still–legally and otherwise–a marriage. So. Who. Fucking. Cares?
I truly dont care what word is used. Whether you believe it or not, I don’t. If they made an amendment to the US Constitution tomorrow that defined marriage to officially include same-sex couples, I would be just as happy about the New Jersey law. No, I’d be 50 times happier, I suppose.
Hell, if they passed a law that legally defined ONLY same-sex partnerships as marriage and defined hetero partnerships as some other thing…
I still wouldn’t give a shit.
Well, no it’s not either. It’s a civil union. If it were a marriage it’d be called a marriage.
For starters, Mark Lewis, Dennis Winslow, Saundra Heath, Clarita Toby, Craig Hutchinson, Chris Lodewyks, Maureen Kilian, Cindy Menghin, Sarah Lael, Suyin Lael, Marilyn Maneely, Diane Marini and Karen Marcye Nicholson-McFadden fucking care a great deal.
But this is just not true!
Gay couples are still discriminated against in many of these issues. Some examples:
And, of course, any rights the civil-unioned gay couple might have in their own state may not be recognized when they happen to be traveling in a ‘red state’. If a medical emergency takes one of them to a hospital, the other may not be recognized as a spouse, and allowed to visit or make medical decisions, regardless of any civil-union paperwork they may have with them. (In a recent case, one half of a gay couple died alone in a hospital room, while the hospital kept his partner locked out, unable to see him or even be informed of his condition. Despite having copies of all the legal documents with, and even phoned permission from the blood relatives, who were enroute to the hospital.)
All these things are provided automatically by that one little word - “marriage”.
So you’re being intentionally obtuse, then? Got it.
Like I even know or give a shit who those people are. They sound like a bunch of fucking crybabies if they’re bitching about a word.
I think same-sex AND mix-sex ‘marriages’ should both only legally be called a Civil Union. Let the churches and the public at large decide what they want to call a “Marriage”. The government should only recognize and pass laws governing Civil Unions between all couples. That way every individual can define ‘marriage’ any way they see fit but it wont effect benefits or legal rights or obligations one fucking bit.
So what the fuck do they get? What’s the point of the Civil Union then?
The arguments I am making with Otto assume that the only difference is the label. If there are still technical differences, then I’m on board with the crybabies.
No, they are not. Any couple in the state of VT and now NJ who has a civil union or marriage in MA has every right, benefit and responsibility as an opposite sex couple who is married in and living in those states. Even if they had chosen to simply change the marriage laws that still wouldn’t protect civilly unioned couples that traveled. Many states have changed their constitution to say that they will not recognize same sex married or civilly unioned couples. The same discrimination would apply in those states regardless of what NJ did.
Until every state changes their laws or constitutions and the federal government reverses DOMA these issues will still affect same sex couples.
Well, they get some of those rights, from the government when in the state of New Jersey.
For example, they can file a joint tax return for New Jersey state taxes. But they have to file individual returns for the Federal IRS. So they get the ‘benefit’ of paying their accountant to do 3 tax returns!
They are recognized as spouses if one is in a New Jersey hospital*, and will get the visitation privileges and medical decision powers of that. But if the patient has to be transferred to a specialized hospital across the state line, it’s anybodys guess if these rights will be recognized there. *(Though there is a question about Catholic-operated hospitals in the state. Some are claiming the religious exemption in the law allows these hospitals to ignore this.)
And it gives them an in when dealing with non-government private companies in New Jersey. Showing their civil union license might be enough to make the golf club give them a family membership. If not, it will help when you sue them in Civil Court. (Assuming you have the time & money to sue over things like this.)
The main thing is that it is a partial step along the way to equal treatment.
For blacks in the South, a first step was changing the laws so that it was actually legal to teach a black person to read. Allowing them to attend separate-but-equal (allegedly) public schools was the next step. Fully integrated schools was yet another step after that.
Women started out being able to vote in only one state, then in several other states (but only for School Board and other local elections), then finally a Constitutional Amendment recognized their right to vote in all states in all elections.
Most Civil Rights victories have come in a similar step-by-step manner. Gay people see Civil Unions as a step along the path to full equal rights.
So it seems that the lack of benefits is a result of other states’ legislation and that of the Federal Government. And that while in the state of New Jersey, their Civil Union is equal to that of a marriage and just called something else.
So that if every state passed an identical law and the feds passed an identical law as NJ then the only difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage would be the name itself, right?
If that is indeed the case, then the attention of the critics should fall on the states that dont allow anything instead of on the states that do and only call it something else.
I dont care what they call it and I think the government should not define marriage either way and should deal only with Civil Unions across the board.