Civil Rights in NJ

I have just got around to reading the December 10th issue of our local newspaper, The Cape May Star and Wave. I am so proud of the editors! When I read the editorial in this issue I must say I was surprised, and very proud of them.

The State Senate vote on same-sex marriage was to be held last week, but was postponed in order to have it go to the General Assembly and to let more voices be heard. So many people had signed up to speak, that there was not time for them all to be heard.

I really would like to post the entire editorial here:

"FOCUS ON MONOGAMY

Why isn't the issue making sure heterosexuals stay married?

The New Jersey State Senate is expected to vote today on same-sex marriage legislation.
The Judiciary Committee approved it on Monday and it is going to the full Senate today. We hope the Senate approves it, and outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine signs the bill into law, even though we expect the long term fate will be a voter referendum that will overturn it.
We support the legislation becoming law in New Jersey, for whatever period it may exist, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to point out the inherent contradiction in this civil rights battle over gays and lesbians who want to get married.
The institution of marriage has been crumbling since the 1960s. So many factors in society have caused the breakdown of marriage, including easy divorces and the immediate gratification mindset that overrides long term commitment. Easier divorce does have its benefits, not the least of which is making it easier for spouses to get out of abusive relationships, but much of the failure in marriage comes down to the attitude in this country that marriage is not sacred, no matter all the pious claims to the contrary.
Half of the marriages, even among professing Christians, end in divorce. All of the hype about the defense of marriage - and the Defense of Marriage Act - goes in absolutely the wrong direction. Instead of reinforcing life-time commitment, the "defense" is nothing more than a vehement attack against gays and lesbians who want to marry. How is showing disregard for monogamy consistent with defending marriage?
Heterosexuals, in these man-woman relationships, have been failing at marriage at a rate of one out of every two couples, yet legislation to defend marriage has but one purpose - to stop non-traditional couples from entering a legal union.'
There is something screwy with the law when a same-sex couple that has been together for decades can't marry, but two drunken dopes who met in a casino can tie the knot and then untie it just as fast with the blessings of the state.
Some institution.
We don't get it. Actually, we do.
Many people find it easy to pretend that marriage is sacred. That way all the energy can be spent wearing blinders, focusing on denying marriage to same-sex partners. The other option is too difficult. No institution, including government and the church, can figure out how to keep partners of the opposite sex committed to each other.
Hatred and exclusion are easier than love and acceptance. It is easier to claim marriage is sacred than explain why half of all couples don't take their vows seriously.
Codifying an inclusive definition of marriage would allow a significant portion of our population to legally commit to monogamous relationships. That would reinforce the concept of marriage for everyone."

Those opposed to this bill are protesting loudly, even harassing the lone Republican Senator, Mr. Baroni. He remains determined to vote in favor of it, making what I consider to be the best argument yet: "I have never voted for discrimination, and I'm not about to start now." Congratulations, Mr. Baroni! And congratulations to the Star and Wave editors!