Posted on 10/20/2002 5:28:01 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
McGreevey expected to support same-sex benefits bill
Sunday October 20, 2002
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) A bill expected to be introduced this month that would grant legal benefits to same-sex couples is likely to have the backing of Gov. James E. McGreevey.
``Governor McGreevey supports legislation that would provide domestic partner benefits and protections,'' McGreevey spokeswoman Jo Glading told The Sunday Star-Ledger of Newark.
The bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, would not recognize gay marriages, but would ensure that people living together, including same-sex couples, receive the same legal benefits as married couples.
The measure would require unmarried couples to sign a certificate that states they are committed, intimate partners.
``I think this is another case where the law has to catch up with reality,'' Weinberg said. ``Folks are living together in committed relationships with the opposite or same sex. They should not be left bereft when something happens to one of the couple.''
The bill would guarantee benefits including those involving making medical decisions, inheritance and pensions, and life and health insurance.
Republican state Sen. Gerald Cardinale, who introduced legislation in February to ban same-sex marriages, opposes the new bill.
``What people do privately without sticking it in the public is of much less interest, but once you begin to ask government to sanction it, I think, you are in a different ballpark.''
If the new measure becomes law, New Jersey would be the third state in the country to allow the benefits of marriage to partners living together. California and Vermont are the others.
Introducing the same-sex benefit legislation could make New Jersey a battleground for gay rights. The state is also where a gay rights group filed a lawsuit in June seeking recognition of gay marriages.
The lawsuit was filed in state Superior Court in Hudson County on behalf of seven same-sex couples. The plaintiffs said they expect the case to end up before the state Supreme Court.
McGreevey said at the time the lawsuit was filed that a court decision granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages would not be a good thing for New Jersey.
Laquetta Nelson, the president of the gay organization the Stonewall Democrats, said the group has met with the McGreevey administration since then and expects support from the governor.
Am waiting for the scandal over McGreedy's creepy personal life to break -- Curtis Sliwa of WABC radio says it's going to come out after the election.
No purely platonic same-sex relationships allowed? They must certify that they actually engage in intimate homosexual acts with each other? Is there a frequency of intimate contact requirement? If they lie, if they don't have intimate contact, may they be sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment?
If they don't engage in homosexual sex for a month do they lose their benefits? Or are they just placed on probation? Must they submit photos or videos on demand to prove they are abiding by the "committed and intimate" requirements?
The next logical step would be for pet "guardians" (owners) to ask for medical benefits for pets that are in committed, intimate relationships.
Why not? Some pets outlast "partners"
We can just admit to having seen each other without makeup, and with unshaven legs and qualify for the intimacy requirement!The savings we would be afforded on insurance, both health and auto, would be justification enough.When we factor in childcare expenses,IRS deductions, legally living in a zoned single family home... man this is a good deal!
Before embarking on this cool new arrangement, I would like to have some clarity on the legal ramifications if her "Allie" gets a better offer than my "Kate".ie a real marriage with a real husband .Do we get to keep the kids we came in with? What about community property?
I think I prefer things the way they are currently set up for "normal" people.Who knows, someday I may be normal again.I am certainly raising my child to strive for a normal adult life which includes a husband and children, if she and her husband want them.I support financial advantages for "normal married couples" if any advantages at all are to be extended.
Otherwise, what would be the governments compelling interest or authority in encouraging sound family lifestyles by certain preferential financial and societal benefits?
The money we would save from losing these "qualified individuals" would buy us Johnnie Cochran's legal services.Considering where these lawsuits would be heard...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.