LifeSiteNews.com

New Jersey Legislature Votes In Favor Of Same-Sex ‘Civil Unions’

LifeSiteNews.com
LifeSiteNews.com

By Meg Jalsevac

  TRENTON, New Jersey, December 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New Jersey’s legislature voted yesterday to label the same-sex partnerships allowed by the State’s Supreme Court earlier this year as ‘civil unions’, joining Vermont and Connecticut as the third state to legally recognize same-sex relationships as “civil unions”.  All three states officially recognize same-sex ‘civil unions’, creating a relationship status that enjoys all the civil privileges of marriage but stops short of actually being called ‘same-sex marriage’.

  As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, on October 25 of this year, New Jersey’s Supreme Court voted that same-sex unions were to be officially recognized by the state.  The Court ruled that “committed same sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.”   The Court left it up to the legislature to determine if the unions would be referred to as ‘civil unions’ or ‘same-sex marriage’. 

  In an effort spearheaded by Senator Loretta Weinberg (D), the proposal passed the Assembly 56 to 19 and the Senate 23 to 12.  The legislation will include ‘civil union’ status in all areas of state law that pertain to civil marriage including inheritance, divorce, custody and power of attorney.

  The bill also mandates the creation of a commission to explore whether New Jersey should legalize same-sex marriage in the future.  Steven Goldstein, director of the gay rights organization Garden State Equality, said that he thought that within two years homosexuals in New Jersey would be able to get married.

  Although happy at what they see as a step to full marriage rights, some members of the homosexual community in New Jersey find the terminology ‘civil unions’ offensive.   Goldstein said, “There are huge mixed emotions.  The law didn’t go far enough and was not marriage equality.” They say that not referring to a same-sex union as a ‘marriage’ makes the union seem inferior to a legal marriage. 

  Weinberg said that she would have lobbied for calling the unions “spousal unions” instead of “civil unions” but she did not think that her fellow Senators would have voted for it.  She also said that the terminology should be changed to “marriage” once the civil unions bill is in effect for long enough to study how successful its application is. 

  On the other hand, those who defend traditional marriage believe that allowing for ‘civil unions’, even if not officially labeled as a marriage, is whittling away at the establishment of traditional marriage.  Speaking of the similar situation when Connecticut approved same-sex ‘civil unions’ in 2005, Glen Lavy, senior vice president of the Alliance Defense Funds’s Marriage Litigation Center, said that lawmakers believe that they “can protect marriage by including a statement that says marriage is only between one man and one woman in legislation that creates civil unions for same-sex couples. This is clearly naive, as proven by media reports of homosexual activist groups that are already stating that they intend to continue to push for full-fledged marriage rights.”

  Lavy continued, “No one can legitimately conclude that these civil unions are anything but marriage with a different name.  No matter what anyone calls it, marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman.”

  During Massachusetts’s legal battle over “same-sex marriage”, the Massachusetts Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a forceful statement against the institution of ‘civil unions’ saying, “Protecting marriage is more than preserving a name.”

  In 2004, the Vatican’s Cardinal Trujillo said that gay civil unions are “grave signs of dehumanization.”

  New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine is expected to sign the new bill into law.  Corzine has said that he personally believes that marriage is between one man and one woman but that he would not oppose legislation that allowed for gay marriage should it come before him. 

  Read Related LifeSite Coverage:

  Pastor Speaks Out Against Gay-Marriage in Opening Invocation For NJ Senate Session
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121403.html
  New Jersey Supreme Court Orders State to Give Homosexuals All Benefits of “Marriage” Except the Name “Marriage”
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102507.html
  Lawyers’ Group Warns Civil Unions is Capitulation, not Compromise on Gay “Marriage”
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05042604.html
  First Homosexual Civil Union in U.S. Ends after Five Years
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121605.html
“Civil Unions Do Not Belong in Constitution” Emphasizes US Pro-Family Group
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082503.html
  Connecticut Homosexual Activists Use Civil Union Law to Push for Homosexual ‘Marriage’
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112305.html
  Gay Civil Unions “Grave Signs of Dehumanization” Says Vatican Cardinal Trujillo
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04113007.html

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook