 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||||||||||||
| about us |
2 Assembly panels pass domestic partnership bill
December 12, 2003 New Jersey is closer to becoming one of the few states that give gay couples some of the rights enjoyed by married couples after a domestic partnership bill survived a long debate Thursday in the Legislature. After several hours of testimony and deliberation, two Assembly committees approved a bill that would allow same-sex partners to enter into legally recognized "domestic partnerships" with potential tax advantages, family insurance coverage, and other benefits. Although the bill would put New Jersey in a small club - only Vermont, California, and Hawaii have similar laws - one of its sponsors argued that it would simply bring the statutes into line with reality. The 2000 census counted about 16,000 New Jersey households headed by same-sex couples. "We are not inventing domestic partnerships with this legislation," said Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, the bill's chief backer. "We are recognizing what goes on in society and attempting to give a wider audience equal coverage under the law." The bill was amended to allow heterosexual senior citizens to enter into such partnerships. Older couples often avoid marriage because it can diminish their pension benefits. The affirmative votes in the Health and Human Services and Appropriations committees cleared the way for the full Assembly to vote on the bill Monday. To become law, it needs approval by the state Senate and then Governor McGreevey, who is likely to sign the bill. "This legislation is about fairness and basic human dignity," McGreevey said. "The Domestic Partnership Act would guarantee individuals who have entered into an enduring, emotionally and financially committed relationship the fundamental rights they ought to have." The twin hearings provoked an outpouring of support for the bill from the liberal side of the state's clergy and a host of gay men and women who argued that it would introduce basic fairness into the laws. Many told stories of longtime partners being denied the right to see a loved one in the hospital or facing an inheritance tax that would force them to give up a jointly owned home. The bill faced opposition from social conservatives and a Catholic group on the grounds that lawmakers were charging headlong into a momentous policy change with unclear social and economic implications. Four Assembly members withheld their support after arguing that the bill's effects remain uncertain. "It is an important issue, and there are a lot of things in the bill that I think I like, and there are other things I'm still questioning," said Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Morris, one of three Appropriations Committee members who did not back the bill. "We should have a far longer debate." The legal partnerships created by the bill would fall well short of marriage, particularly with regard to joint property ownership and responsibilities for children. But they would give gay couples a number of legal rights provided they execute "affidavits of domestic partnership" and meet a series of standards, including cohabitation and joint finances. Under the bill, domestic partners would be exempt from the state inheritance tax, like married couples, and could be claimed as dependents for state income tax purposes. They would be accorded visitation rights in hospitals, which often allow only family members to see patients. Domestic partners of state employees would become eligible for health benefits as if they were family members. The bill also requires insurers to make domestic partnership benefits available but leaves companies to decide whether to offer them. By making that benefit optional in the private sector, the bill's sponsors earned support from the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. The measure includes a series of standards by which the courts may rule a domestic partnership void. Among the parade of supporters in Trenton on Thursday was Tom Ryan of Bradley Beach, a recently retired New York City firefighter who is gay. After Sept. 11, 2001, Ryan said he was disturbed to watch gay men and women try to convince bureaucratic authorities that they indeed had long-term relationships with fallen emergency workers. "If there's one thing I can project to you today," Ryan told the Health and Human Services Committee, "it's that I have a family. My family counts." Joseph M. Murray of the New Jersey Family Policy Council urged the committees not to rush into a "new wave of social experimentation." "We believe a thorough and efficient analysis of the costs of this legislation to our society has not been presented," Murray said. Uncertainties about the costs of the bill prompted most of the opposition among legislators. Brad Sears, director of the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA, argued that it would probably result in a net savings to the state. Based on similar legislation in California, Sears said the cost of state health benefits and lost inheritance-tax revenue would be outweighed by savings in welfare costs. He said some domestic partners would become ineligible for social programs because of their increased joint income. The non-partisan Office of Legislative Services has not estimated the cost of the bill, and several Appropriations Committee members challenged Sears' analysis.
| ||||||