Letters to the Editor:
Same-Sex “Marriage” is NOT the Answer
for Same-Sex Couples
Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst, NJ Family Policy Council

In response to comments by same-sex activist Steven Goldstein (Intriguing People 11/21, and One in 100 NJ Couples are Same-Sex, 11-4-07), redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would not do anything more – than the current civil union law already does –  to legally mandate New Jersey employers to provide benefits to same-sex partners.  If some corporations based in NJ are not complying with the civil union law which says: “Civil union couples shall have all the same benefits …as are granted to spouses as in marriage,”¹ courts must now enforce the law. 

While Goldstein continues to repeat there have been hundreds of complaints about companies not providing benefits, to date there have only been 6 official complaints filed with the Civil Rights Commission out of about 1,514 same-sex couples who have entered civil unions.  Likely, other alleged complaints have to do with companies whose headquarters are based out-of-state are not bound by NJ law.  These corporations are only bound by federal law which does not recognize same-sex unions, and unless that corporation volunteers coverage, or is based in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire, where same-sex unions are recognized, they would not be bound by their home state to provide benefits either. Thus, redefining marriage in New Jersey to include same-sex couples would do nothing to require these particular companies to provide benefits.  Granting the title of same-sex “marriage” is not the answer same-sex couples in NJ and Goldstein must stop telling New Jerseyans otherwise.

back to articles