The surprise (and yet not a surprise) in today’s news was President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage.” He once stated that his position was “evolving,” even though observers on both sides of the debate believed his true feelings were always in support of a radical redefinition of marriage. He could have taken the vote in North Carolina as a strong political hint to let the issue drop. But in a move that shows the President is deeply out of touch with most Americans, he disregarded a now strong majority of voters in a strong majority of states and declared moral independence from the sentiments of those who elected him to the nation’s highest office.

NJFPC Founder and President Len Deo said, “If there was ever any doubt that President Obama is NOT a man for all the people, all doubt is now removed. Come November, we hope to see the people weigh in on this and other out of main stream, disconnected ideas that this administration has been promoting.”

No Surprise Here: Senate Passes S1!

(TRENTON) The New Jersey Senate voted today to pass S1 by a margin of 24-16, a piece of legislation which will recognize same-sex “marriage,” in spite of opposing testimony given in committee hearings that civil unions are providing same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage through the civil union law enacted in 2007.

All is not lost, however. Len Deo, Founder and President of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, stated, “We will maintain the fight for marriage in the Assembly, we look forward to the Governor’s veto, and we will continue to push for an amendment to preserve and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Ever since the passage of civil unions, Garden State Equality has done everything in its power to undermine the legislation. “We believe it to be the highest form of hubris when those in authority tinker with natural law and challenge God in His creation of the natural order. He will not be mocked,” continued Deo. “The focus in the legislature should be what benefits the most New Jerseyans, which in this tough economy is jobs, reducing government spending, and relieving the onerous property tax burden that is on the shoulders of hard working New Jersey families,” added Deo.

“When people realize that all the benefits of marriage are already given to same-sex couples through the civil union law, they are much less inclined to support radically redefining marriage from its natural understanding. Somehow common sense may still prevail, although it seems to be lacking in the Democratic leadership of our state legislature,” said Deo.

“Those in favor of this bill have long argued that the people shouldn’t be allowed to vote on retaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but rather that the legislature should decide for them,” says Deo. “They have tried the courts and now the legislature; however, we believe this is such a huge public policy shift that the people should weigh in. This is a cultural issue; the legislature has no right to redefine marriage for the whole of New Jersey. You cannot redefine that which you did not create. Let the people have a say in this all-important question,” Deo concluded.

By now the story is over-rehearsed. Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers committed suicide after his roommate, Dharun Ravi, spied on him. On March 16, 2012, Dharun Ravi was declared guilty of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, and hate crime. Justice has been served. But has it really? The Indian American community doesn’t think so. And we are less and less convinced.

A prosecutor pursues charges based on the severity of the crime. But in this case, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s office appears to have been driven by political motivations. Invasion of privacy was a given—that’s what spying is. But bias intimidation and hate crimes typically have to do with violence. Instead of prosecuting Ravi for harassment or even discrimination, the prosecution decided his crime was being “anti-gay.” Bias intimidation and hate crimes carry heavier sentences than harassment and discrimination, and would conveniently serve to make Ravi an example—and saddle him with blame for Clementi’s death.

- Marriage Briefings: #7: The Right of Self-Governance

- Marriage Briefings #6: Why Children Need Natural Marriage

- Marriage Briefings #5: Marriage, Church, & State: Healthy & Unhealthy Tensions

- Marriage Briefings #4: Marriage: The Complementarity Principle

- Marriage Briefings #3: Culture and the Meaning of Marriage

- Marriage Briefings #2: Same-Sex “Marriage” A Civil Right?

- Marriage Briefings, #1: Are Civil Unions Working?

This Valentine’s season, marriage is under attack. Please join us at the statehouse on Thursday, February 16, from 11:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. to pray and rally for natural marriage in New Jersey. The Assembly is voting on this day, so this is the time to take off work for marriage (and plan a date with your spouse in the evening).

Please view attached flyer for further details.

A Statement by the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey

on

Marriage as a Union of One Man and One Woman 

January 20, 2012

Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has its roots in natural law.  Throughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage as a union of man and woman existed long before any nation, religion, or law was established.  Marriage which unites mothers and fathers in the work of childrearing is the foundation of the family and the family is the basic unit of society. 

Sadly, the institution of marriage is being challenged by a society so concerned with individual freedom that some view marriage as a temporary or disposable convenience.  Now, there is even an attempt in the New Jersey legislature to pass a law that would change the very definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Same sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution – but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage.

What can you do to help protect marriage?  Today, we ask all people of good will to do three simple things.  First, pray for all married couples and all families.  Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.”  Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the Governor with a simple message:  “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”

To help everyone understand why marriage can only be a union between one man and one woman, we offer the following facts.

Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?

Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes.  Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage.  Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.

Why should two individuals of the same sex be treated any differently than married couples who cannot conceive children?

Marriage benefits society by bringing men and women – the two complementary “halves” of the human race – together. Regardless of whether they can conceive children, a man and a woman united in marriage reinforce the importance of this ideal.  By contrast, if the government insists that same-sex unions are “equal” to unions of a man and a woman, the government will be teaching not only that mothers and fathers are no longer necessary for children, but also that uniting the sexes is no longer an important ideal.  Persons of same-sex orientation have the right to live as they choose but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone by altering the civil law.

Don’t single parents make a valuable contribution to family life?

If so, why should same-sex partners not be viewed the same way?

The stable lifelong loving relationship of a mother and father, found only in marriage, provides the ideal conditions for raising and socializing children.  Marriage represents the way we teach and reinforce this ideal.

Of course, some children are raised in situations other than the traditional two-parent family, and responsible loving single parents and other family members make important and valuable contributions to the welfare of these children.  But supporting single-parent families, as a just and compassionate society must do, is far different than deliberately creating motherless and fatherless families and holding them out to be the same as marriages.

But isn’t prohibiting same-sex “marriage” unjust discrimination?

No.  We must always remember that every person has an inherent dignity.  Like all other human beings, our homosexual brothers and sisters are beloved children of God.  As a result, the Catholic Church affirms that they “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided” [Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2358]. 

Clearly, the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended, and everyone must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against homosexual persons. 

But it is not “unjust discrimination” to treat different things differently.  Same-sex unions are not, in fact, the same thing as the union of one man and one woman in marriage.  One type of union may ever generate children, the other may never; one type of union respects and expresses the inherent complementarity of man and woman; the other does not.  Therefore, treating one type of union as “marriage,” and the other not, is not only permitted, but required.  Indeed, it is treating this differentiation as bigotry that constitutes an injustice.

Is same sex “marriage” a civil right?

Same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right. A strong desire does not make a civil right.  Every man and every woman has a right to enter into marriage, but marriage as an institution can only be between a man and a woman.  Governments do not have the power to define marriage otherwise, because it is a permanent human institution that does not owe its existence to governments. 

In addition, same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right because same-sex couples cannot fulfill the core public purpose of marriage: bringing men and women into the only kind of union that can make new life and give children mothers and fathers.

Would maintaining the definition of marriage as a union solely of one man and one woman deny hospital visitation privileges to civil union partners?  Would defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman take away any benefits currently provided to civil union partners by employers?

No.  In New Jersey, the Civil Union Act already provides practical rights, benefits, and protections for persons who choose to establish non-marital unions.  As clearly stated in the Act: 

Civil union couples shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. [N.J. Statutes 37:1-31(a)]

The Act also provides that civil union couples are entitled to the benefits and protections of “laws relating to insurance, health and pension benefits.” [N.J. Statutes 37:1-32(e)]  In addition, the Act prohibits an array of unlawful employment practices by employers who do not fully implement the Act.

The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Act, signed into law by Governor Christie in December 2011 guarantees by law that all adult patients have the right to designate a representative of their choice with the power to convey specifically how the patient would like to be treated including in the event the patient loses the capacity to express their preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments.  The POLST Act even allows for a patient to authorize the patient’s representative  to revoke or modify the patient’s decisions if the patient loses decision-making capacity.

Further, many organizations have approved Advanced Directives for Health Care that allow individuals to designate anyone they wish as a health care decision maker. 

In short, there is no evidence for the claims that in New Jersey same sex couples are not able to assist in making health care decisions together with or for each other.  That right is guaranteed by law.

Most Reverend John J. Myers
Archbishop, Diocese of Newark

Most Reverend David M. O’Connell, C.M.
Bishop, Diocese of Trenton

Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante
Bishop, Diocese of Camden

Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli
Bishop, Diocese of Paterson

Most Reverend Paul G. Bootkoski
Bishop, Diocese of Metuchen

Most Reverend William C. Skurla
Bishop, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic

Most Reverend Yousif B. Habash
Bishop, Our Lady of Deliverance
Syriac Catholic Diocese

Yes, the Governor has made his payment to the state for the use of the helicopter for what would be called “personal use!” But, really in an instance such as this could we all step back and say “I am glad to see a man in a prominent political position making time for his family.” Actually, when all is said and done, what does all the political buzz do? We know politics is really getting to be a blood sport, and that does not serve the citizenry of our state well.

“While the merits of the use of a state-owned helicopter can be debated and obviously have, can’t we recognize the bigger picture here.” No one would deny that our elected officials sacrifice a great deal of time with family to serve the public. Should an occasional use of public assets for a noble purpose, such as the Governor’s desire to be at his son’s play-off baseball game draw more ire and indignation, or respect and praise,” questioned Len Deo, Founder and President of the NJFPC. “That is why we wanted to say THANK YOU to the Governor for making his family a priority in a very time-limited, stress-filled and often hostile environment that we call politics,” Deo stated.

“The family is the foundation of a healthy society. As has been said, it is the best department of health, education and welfare. Knowing the Governor as we do, I am sure this incident will not deter him from not just being the best Governor he can, but also being the best at the two most important titles that he bears, that of husband and father. We just wanted him to know that we appreciate that,” Deo concluded.

Propositition 8, sponsored by the California group ProtectMarriage, was a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California. Voters adopted it in November 2008 by a 52% majority in a referendum vote, in a direct response to the California Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples had a right to same-sex “marriage.”

After further court challenges, a federal trial judge in San Francisco overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, saying the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. When the measure was appealed higher, the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over California asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the groups defending Proposition 8 had standing, or legal authorization, to do so. This morning the answer came: yes.

Ordinarily the task of defending state laws falls to state officials: the California governor and attorney general would be responsible to defend laws passed in their state from legal challenges. But California’s officials refused to do so, and the groups that sponsored the amendment in the first place stepped in to pick up the slack. This decision was about whether they were allowed to do so.

In an era when the people in the states, who are overwhelmingly pro-marriage, are repeatedly ignored by courts eager to coerce progressive visions into law, this development from California is immensely encouraging. And not only so for proponents of marriage—it ought to come as welcome news for all who love our republican tradition of law, decency, and order. The activism displayed by today’s courts is a disgrace to democracy, and is only aided and abetted by the abdication of state officials who claim a personal exemption from defending laws and principles their states have adopted through the legislative process.

As this case proceeds through the court system, possibly ending up before the United States Supreme Court, the California ruling will have implications for other states across the country. It provides a way of access for the people to defend their values in court even if their state officials refuse to do so. This, and not the judicial activism we have seen over the past decades, is a true defense of equality and the rule of law.

Union Twp. teacher Viki Knox used her Facebook page last week to note that school is the wrong place to promote homosexual interests and expressed her deeply held religious beliefs  that homosexual behavior is not in accord with the Bible. She is now being accused of hate, homophobia, and “ruthless gay-bashing.” Never mind that she said nothing to students or school personnel. Garden State Equality and other parties are demanding she be fired, saying she is surely unable to enforce the anti-bullying law.

The New Jersey Family Policy Council, Alliance Defense Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union believe this is an egregious violation of Mrs. Knox’s right to free speech. The ACLU stated, “The response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech.” The demand for her firing should be thrown out on those grounds alone. The ACLU also cautioned the Senate’s Education Committee because the law gives school districts jurisdiction over incidents that take place off school property, after school hours, during times and events that are not school-related. Federal legal precedent affirms this is blatantly unconstitutional.

The idea that conformity with this law is suddenly all-important in deciding who stays and who goes is monstrous—better befitting a police state than America’s 250-year-old republic and the even older tradition of academic freedom. .

The new law hastily passed is both greedily ambitious and ineffective to address bullying as a whole. ADF wrote to Governor Christie before he signed it, “Nobody disagrees…that children ought to be protected from bullying.  However, this sentiment means all children …In other words, bullying is not merely a homosexual issue, but a human issue.  It is clearly anti-social to mistreat or bully anyone for any reason.” Obese children, children with poor parents or unusual names, short and skinny boys, girls with braces—if they’re unlucky enough to be bullied for something besides “race, religion, gender expression,” and the like, they don’t matter to special-rights advocates whose darling cause is their own political advantage.

The financial burden of this unfunded mandate is well-documented in the press. Its constitutional abuses are surfacing a mere six weeks after taking effect. Its authors glibly ignore the plight of the “fat kid,” who statistically receives much more abuse than his homosexual classmates. Our legislators need to reevaluate this law and realize that for all the equality-talk, it is not egalitarian enough. School boards can and should request that the law be vacated in their district. To escape the charge of being three times unjust, it must address bullying as a whole. Otherwise we will spend a great deal of time and money defending more situations like Viki Knox. Freedom of speech is a precious right that needs to be protected!