Woo Hoo for New Jersey....

Dback Jon · January 6th, 2006, 08:20 AM

N.J. Senate Passes Sweeping Expansion Of Gay Partner Law

Trenton, New Jersey) The New Jersey Senate late Thursday passed sweeping amendments to the state's domestic partner law that would, upon a partner's death, give the surviving partner control of the estate and inheritance in the absence of a will.

The legislation also would give the surviving partner control of burial decisions absent a directive otherwise.

In a vote that stunned even LGBT civil rights advocates the Senate vote was unanimous - 35-to-0.

"This is the most lopsided pro-LGBTI-rights vote in New Jersey history and one of the most lopsided pro-gay votes in American history," Garden State Equality spokesperson Steven Goldstein told 365Gay.com

The bill must still be approved by the Assembly. A vote is scheduled for Monday.

The widespread support for the measure, said Goldstein, is the impact Lieutenant Laurel Hester has had in the state.

Hester, 49, a 23-year investigator for the Ocean County Prosecutor's office is fighting lung cancer and has less than six-months to live.

Her employer, Ocean County, has refused recognize her same-sex relationship so that her partner will get her death benefits.

Hester wants the county to pass a resolution, as provided for by New Jersey's existing Domestic Partners Act, to extend pension and health care benefits to the gay partners.

Hester fears that without her $13,000 death benefit, partner Stacie Andree, 30, will be forced to sell the house they now share after Hester dies.

Last month more than 100 gay rights advocates, led by Garden State Equality, demonstrated to protest Ocean County's refusal to pass the resolution. (story)

Hester's condition continues to decline and the Ocean County Freeholders refuses budge. But her plight has spurred several other communities in the state to amend their laws to allow municipal workers to have their benefits passed to same-sex partners.

New Jersey's domestic partner law will become two years old later this month. Former Governor James E. McGreevey signed the measure on January 12, 2004 and went into effect 180 days later. (story)

It guarantees hospital visitation during illnesses, gives same-sex partners of state employees health and pension benefits and gives municipalities the power to give their workers health and pension benefits.

But even with the revisions passed by the Senate Thursday night same-sex couples will not have any of the more than 1,000 rights straight couples get through marriage Goldstein said.

"The New Jersey partnership law will provide only about 10 of the 1,049 rights of marriage," he told 365Gay.com "That's less than one per cent - so we are not going to rest until we get 100 percent of marriage equality."

Goldstein said that even with the existing partnership some law hospitals and companies refuse to recognize same-sex couples.

Linderbee · January 6th, 2006, 09:43 AM

Let's hope the rest of the nation follows suit (although I won't hold my breath)

CardLogic · January 6th, 2006, 09:56 AM

I agree with what NJ is doing. But I do have a question. Pertaining to NJ law, what constitutes a "domestic partner"?

I see no problem in giving these basic rights to same-sex partners. But what measurement is used to determine whether a "partner" is entitled to the rights or not? I think there needs to be some level of commitment to the relationship demonstrated.

Dback Jon · January 10th, 2006, 09:04 AM

Trenton, New Jersey) Two bills granting expanding expanded rights to New Jersey same-sex couples received overwhelming approval Monday in the legislature and are now awaiting the signature of acting Gov. Richard J. Codey.

Codey has indicated he will sign both.

Passage comes a week before the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a case by gay couples seeking the right to marry.

One bill would give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples regarding inheritances and funeral arrangements. It passed the Assembly on a 67-6 vote, with five abstentions.

The legislation would amend the state's domestic partner law so that registered same-sex partners would have the same funeral rights as a spouse in case their partner dies with no will.

The measure passed the state Senate, 39-0, on Thursday night. (story)

The other bill would allow municipalities and other public entities at the local level to extend health benefits to domestic partners.

The measure seeks to close a loophole in the domestic partner law enacted in 2004. The law was limited to extending health benefits to domestic partners who worked for public agencies covered by the state health plan.

"It is our hope that every government entity in New Jersey will offer their gay and lesbian employees the same family benefits provided to all other employees," said Sen. John Adler (D-Camden).

"The state should be a model of equality in providing benefits for our workers," Adler said.

The measure passed the Assembly on Monday, 63-7, with eight abstentions. It was approved 34-0 the state Senate on May 12.

The widespread support for the measure is the result of the impact Lieutenant Laurel Hester has had in the state.

Hester, 49, a 23-year investigator for the Ocean County Prosecutor's office is fighting lung cancer and has less than six-months to live.

Her employer, Ocean County, has refused recognize her same-sex relationship so that her partner will get her death benefits.

Hester wants the county to pass a resolution, as provided for by New Jersey's existing Domestic Partners Act, to extend pension and health care benefits to the gay partners.

Hester fears that without her $13,000 death benefit, partner Stacie Andree, 30, will be forced to sell the house they now share after Hester dies.

But while the state is moving to expand rights for domestic partners it is fighting a suit that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The New Jersey Supreme Court announced last Friday that it will hear oral arguments February 15 in a case brought by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. (story)

In his written argument opposing the suit, Attorney General Peter Harvey told the court that changing the definition of marriage is the right of the Legislature not the courts. (story)

It is the same argument Harvey's office used in successfully fighting the case in lower courts.

The lawsuit was filed in 2002 by seven same-sex couples. (story)

In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. (story) The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.

Lambda Legal, which represents the couples, immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.

CardLogic · January 10th, 2006, 11:18 AM

Never got a response to my question...

But I see in the previous post (by Dback Jon) regarding NJ's statute that to qualify the couple have to register as "partners". My point being that there ought to be some indication of a certain level of commitment demonstrated before persons are granted "partner" status. I believe this to be applicable hetrosexual relationships as well as homosexual ones.

When a couple marries in addition to benefits gained, there are also obligations aquired. The same should apply here.

Dback Jon · January 10th, 2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

Never got a response to my question...

But I see in the previous post (by Dback Jon) regarding NJ's statute that to qualify the couple have to register as "partners". My point being that there ought to be some indication of a certain level of commitment demonstrated before persons are granted "partner" status. I believe this to be applicable hetrosexual relationships as well as homosexual ones.

When a couple marries in addition to benefits gained, there are also obligations aquired. The same should apply here.

Not sure what "obligations" registering entails, but giving someone inheritance rights shows a level of commitment.

Rivercard · January 10th, 2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

But what measurement is used to determine whether a "partner" is entitled to the rights or not? I think there needs to be some level of commitment to the relationship demonstrated.

I think we have to endorse the honor system - just fill out the paperwork and be done with it. Government shouldn't be determining "commitment level". Some marraiges have no commitment.

AzCards21 · January 10th, 2006, 11:34 AM

The good news Jon is rights for gays will be recognized. The bad news is a gay couple must consist of one homosexual male and a lesbian.

CardLogic · January 10th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

Not sure what "obligations" registering entails, but giving someone inheritance rights shows a level of commitment.

That's my point... After someone has died how does the state determine if a couple was in a committed relationship? If there is no prior official recognition of the relationship how does the state determine whether such a relationship existed?

In the case of hetro couples a marriage certification is the determining factor, in the case of homo couples I guess a registration certificate should be required.

I agree with Rivercard, this documentation alone does not indicate the nature of a relationship in the present, but it at least indicates the commitment was relevant at some point in the past and not offically rescinded.

Dback Jon · January 10th, 2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

That's my point... After someone has died how does the state determine if a couple was in a committed relationship? If there is no prior official recognition of the relationship how does the state determine whether such a relationship existed?

In the case of hetro couples a marriage certification is the determining factor, in the case of homo couples I guess a registration certificate should be required.

I agree with Rivercard, this documentation alone does not indicate the nature of a relationship in the present, but it at least indicates the commitment was relevant at some point in the past and not offically rescinded.

They have to register as a partnership for this to take effect.