Predictable Bias in State's Ruling
Posted December 31, 2008

Three weeks ago, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, part of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) delivered its final report on the state’s civil union law. In a no-shocker decision, the Commission claimed “that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children” and “unanimously recommend[ed] that: The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry….”

These ‘findings’ were utterly predictable given the fact that at least eight of the Commission’s 13 members are vocal pro-gay advocates, including Commission Chairman J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, Esq., who is also himself openly gay.

Well, this week the DCR, still under the direction of Vespa-Papaleo, handed down another predictable decision, ruling against the right of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association – a religious organization – to  prohibit the use of its facilities for a lesbian civil union. The case dates back to early 2007, when, as the Star Ledger reports, the Camp Meeting Association “rejected the … application of Ocean Grove residents Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster [to use the association’s oceanfront pavilion for a civil union ceremony], on the grounds their civil union would conflict with the association’s religious beliefs.”

Bernstein and Paster filed a complaint with the DCR, and in response, the association filed a federal lawsuit to stop the DCR’s investigation. Last month, U.S. District Judge Joel A. Pisano said nix to the lawsuit, allowing the DCR to continue its review and, consequently, issue its pro-gay ruling.

While the Commission’s decision is being hailed as a victory by same-sex advocates, it raises at least two issues of major concern.

First, in a case such as this, the objectivity of a Commission headed by a known gay activist – who, according to his official bio, “was honored with the ‘Visionary Award’ from Garden State Equality [and] the ‘D. Bennett Mazur Award’ from the New Jersey Lesbian & Gay Coalition” and is a member of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association – is questionable to say the least.

Second and even more disconcerting, however, is the DCR’s blatant disregard for the association’s right to practice its religious beliefs. According to Brian Raum, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, the legal group representing the association, “A Christian organization has a Constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs.”

If this pattern of disregard for constitutional rights continues, then churches and religious organizations across the state could face requirements that they allow their facilities to be used for activities that contradict the core teachings of their faith. The precedent is, indeed, a dangerous one.

The Ocean Grove case is currently on appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court, and the Court’s decision will have ramifications for religious organizations not only in New Jersey but also throughout the country. We will be watching the Court’s actions regarding this critical case, and we will continue to stand with the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in defense of the association’s constitutionally-protected right to practice its religion.

Archive