SENATOR NIA H. GILL
JANUARY 7, 2010
SENATE CHAMBERS
I would just like to
reference the fact that you don’t have to go back one hundred years to talk
about marriage being defined as a man and a woman and that has always been the
definition. Because it hasn’t. You could go back to 1967, Loving vs. Virginia.
And they said that a black woman or black man or white woman or white man could
not marry because the concept of marriage, handed down through generations,
never contemplated that white and black people would marry or that there would
be an interracial marriage. So that the definition of marriage has been
delineated by color and by race. And the court found that to be a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause. And that is exactly what is happening now.
And why does it matter? It is
because we have already taken state action. We are debating this issue as if we
have not committed to a course of action. The civil union law says, and I
quote, “The legislature has chosen to establish civil unions by amending the
current marriage statute to include couples. In doing so, the Legislature is
continuing a long standing history of inequity by providing same sex couples
with the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals. So we inched into amending.
And when I questioned the
representative of the Catholic Church, they said that they support civil
unions. So we’re not here talking about an issue of morality. They said that
they support it, and I questioned the gentleman, they said they supported civil
unions because it gave same sex couples all the rights and benefits of
heterosexual married couples. And that is the basis upon which, so he represented,
that the Catholic Church supports civil unions. And when I questioned, “If
civil unions does not provide the same rights and benefits, what should we do?”.
And in that questioning, he simply kept returning to the fact that civil unions
in fact provide the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual.
So the issue of a cultural
change, recognized by this legislature, that cultural changes was already
recognized and sanctioned in domestic partnerships. That is where the “C”
change happened. And so we have taken state action And that state action, much
like they did in Virginia in defining who could marry. That state action , once
it creates an unequal situation, it violates the Constitution. So I don’t
think, humbly, that we’re here debating in a vacuum. We have to look at what
state action have we taken as a legislative body. That state action says, “the
intent of civil unions is to give all benefits and privileges that heterosexual
married couples have.” And then they go on to enumerate.
And one important one for me,
among others, was the issue of insurance. And we know, as was testified at the
judiciary, there’s an Oxford Insurance plan, national corporation. And you know
how they define dependant or spouse? And I quote, “a spouse-,” this is a
benefit update writer, “a person’s partner, husband or wife, in a legal
marriage. For purposes of dependant
eligibility under this certification, spouse includes same sex partners
who are married in jurisdictions that recognize same sex marriage.” There is
nothing you can do to tweak this civil union law to address the issue that same
sex couples are denied the benefits of insurance under national insurance
companies because we have a separate and unequal system. Now you could have,
respectfully, as many task forces as you want, but you cannot change the fact
that national companies are defining dependency for insurance, health insurance
benefits, as same sex couples who are married.
And so when you look to see
what state action have we taken, and does that state action provide all the
benefits and rights of a heterosexual married couple and the answer is a
resounding no. And so we have, I think, an obligation under the Constitution
legislatively. Because we have taken this state action. And Martin Luther King
talks about, and I quote, “Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in
its application. For instance,” he goes on, “I have been arrested on the charge
of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance
which requires a person to have a permit for a parade, but such an ordinance
becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens
their constitutional rights.” So on its face,
out civil union law may appear just, but it is in its application, based
on what we said as a legislature, what we wanted to happen in civil unions,
that it becomes unjust and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Is this a civil rights issue?
Well? Is the right for disabled people to have reasonable accommodations and
the ability to fully participate in this society? That’s a civil rights issue.
Is the right for our children, if they have a disability, to be a part of the
full educational process in this country? That’s a civil right. Is it a civil
right when they say that if you are charged, even in a civil case, you have a
right to know what you are being charged with? That’s a civil right. And so the
civil right issue is so fundamental because of the 13th and 14th
Amendments, but particularly, the right of equal protection. And each of us, in
some way in this chamber, has a family member, if not our selves, who has
benefited from others taking an issue and standing up for civil rights in some
way when it was not popular. And it wasn’t popular when we wanted to do certain
things with our children. When we wanted to take issues and make people full
fledged citizens of this country. And it wasn’t until 1965 that African
Americans in parts of this country even had the right to vote.
So once you take this state
action, as a legislative body, you can’t just, I would submit, back away. And
talk about what would have been done because it has already been done. And so,
if we look to the original intent of the Constitution, before Reconstruction,
women did not have the right to vote. And there’s not a woman in here, I
submit, as a legislator or as a member of our staff in any capacity who would
have been here today, unless legislators around the country took a position
that we will fight for a what? A civil right. And so, just because this is not
a racial injustice, it does not mean that it is not a civil right injustice.
And Martin Luther King also
said that he was “cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and
states.” We all know he said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. We are caught,” he says, “in an inescapable network of mutuality,
tried in a single garment of destiny. Whatever directly affects one, affects
all of us.” We may not even like our gay partner neighbors. And you know what,
we have the right to. They may even argue with each other. And you know what,
they have the right to. But this body cannot abdicate its responsibility. Once
we have taken state action, that state action must be constitutional in its
equal protection.
And before I close, how do we
fix the issue of denying people health insurance benefits? So that if you have
the Oxford plan, but you are a same sex civil union in New Jersey, one of you
could be covered and the other could be on charity care. Living under the same
roof, raising children, living in a loving relationship, but you cannot be
covered under the insurance. So one partner stands in line for charity care and
the other has insurance. This strikes so fundamentally at what is important to
us. And I would like to say that I understand that this would be a difficult
vote. But there has never been a civil right vote that has been easy. Because in granting another person their
civil right, we must reach past our personal level of comfort.
And I must commend not only
the sponsors, but Senator Baroni, because they have carved out and said that if
you don’t believe in civil marriage in your religion, don’t do it. And you know
what, the state’s not going to force you. And not only do you not have to do it
in your church, you don’t have to do it in any affiliate or any hall or any
club that is affiliated with you. The
strongest 1st Amendment protection in this nation. And so, 1) it
gives that protection, 2) the only reason the Catholic Church supported civil
unions is because it did what, it gave all the benefits of heterosexual couples
and we see that is not true. And lastly of all, this chamber, this legislature
would not be this diverse and this encompassing of the citizens of the United
States if someone had not said to my forefathers and mothers that we will fight
for the right for our children to be equal participates in this society.
And I know that the same sex
couples here, they’re not just fighting for themselves. They’re fighting for
their children. They’re fighting for their future. They’re fighting to be able
to say to their children what my grandfather and grandmother was able to say to
their children. “We won the fight. You can vote. You can go to school. You can
make out of your life that what you think is important. But we have fought so
that you could be a full participant in America.” Let these same sex couples be
a full participant in our state. Thank you.
|