 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||||||||||||
| about us |
Domestic-partners bill clears 2
committees Dec. 12, 2003 TRENTON - A proposal to provide financial benefits and legal rights to same-sex couples in New Jersey cleared two legislative committees yesterday on its way to a full Assembly vote on Monday. The bill, which stirred debate on whether it moved the state closer to approving gay marriage, could clear the Legislature and be on Gov. McGreevey's desk next month. The Domestic Partnership Act would provide for hospital-visitation and decision-making rights, an inheritance-tax exemption, and a spousal state income-tax deduction. And the bill would provide partners of state employees with health-insurance and pension coverage. "The time has come to grant these individuals the equality and the decency that they deserve," McGreevey said in a written statement. "I look forward to signing a bill that ensures these basic rights." McGreevey has previously stated that he supports domestic-partner benefits but opposes gay marriage. Under the bill, those rights and benefits also would be available to opposite-sex couples who are ages 62 or older and do not want to marry due to potential penalties on pensions and other financial interests. A competing bill, sponsored by Senate Copresident Richard J. Codey (D., Essex), has a similar provision and will be considered by a Senate committee on Monday. Democrats are expected to agree on a single version. There are 16,604 same-sex couples living together in New Jersey, according to Brad Sears, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, who cited census data in testimony before two Assembly committees. There was no immediate data available on older, unmarried couples who are living together. At least 10 states now offer their government employees domestic-partner health benefits for same-sex couples and some for opposite-sex couples. Several state governments offer bereavement leave. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Rendell extended family and sick-leave benefits to same-sex partners of some state employees this year. In the private sector, more than a third of Fortune 500 companies nationwide offer domestic-partner benefits. "We are not inventing domestic partnerships," said Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen), sponsor of the bill and chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. "We are merely acknowledging what goes on in society." John M. Traier, a former acting state banking commissioner who has been in a same-sex relationship for 16 years, said the bill "goes a long way in supporting committed relationships." However, William F. Bolan Jr., executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, argued that the recognition of same-sex couples would undermine traditional marriage. Bolan said it was not in the interest of the state or society to legitimize same-sex or opposite-sex couples living together out of wedlock. John T. Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, said that lawmakers were rushing the legislation through without adequate debate. Tomicki said it was a "huge change in public policy" that "deserves more than a one-day hearing." Weinberg said the bill was crafted after months of discussions with numerous interest groups. "A lot of the discussions were not in public," said Assemblyman Guy R. Gregg (R., Morris). The legislation has transformed significantly since it was introduced in June. It originally covered both same-sex and opposite-sex couples with no age limit. It also covered adult family members sharing a residence. Also, the initial bill would have made New Jersey one of the first states to require private employers to extend health-insurance coverage to domestic partners. Now that provision would be voluntary. With that compromise, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, which has 20,000 member companies, was willing to support the bill. To receive any of these benefits, a couple would have to file an affidavit of domestic partnership with a local registrar. To end a domestic partnership, the couple would have to pursue a divorce-like proceeding in Superior Court. Although Weinberg favored expanding the benefits to opposite-sex couples, she conceded that they have the option to marry and receive even more benefits than offered in the legislation. Same-sex couples do not, and domestic-partner benefits are a reasonable alternative, she said. Last month, a Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by seven gay couples who sought to have relationships legally recognized in New Jersey. The case is being appealed. | ||||||