Civil Marriages - What Are Your Thoughts?

I would like to get the pros and cons of how the people in my district feel about this bill (see bill below). Unfortunately this is an issue that shouldn't be political, but in the past the vote has been along the party line. Do you feel that a Legislator should vote for what is right or what their party stands for? In the past, Republicans have voted for their party instead of the rights of the people. How do you feel about this?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT

This bill, titled the “Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act,” would authorize same-sex marriage in the State. The bill defines “marriage” as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship.
In Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated marriage equality to all consenting couples in the State. The court held that denying rights and benefits to same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The court held that to comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure which would provide, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. The Legislature first responded to Lewis v. Harris by enacting P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-28 et al.), which established same-sex civil unions.
The bill’s findings and declarations provide that civil marriage is a legal institution recognized by the State in order to promote stable relationships and to protect individuals who are in those relationships. The institution of marriage also provides important protections for the families of those who are married, including not only children or other dependents, but also members of their extended families.
In addition, the bill’s findings and declarations provide that the Legislature has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, and that it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the bill to end the pernicious practice of marriage discrimination in New Jersey.
Under the bill, “marriage” would be defined as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship. The bill provides that whenever the term “marriage” occurs or the term “man,” “woman,” “husband” or “wife” occurs in the context of marriage or any reference is made thereto in any law, statute, rule, regulation or order, the same shall be deemed to mean or refer to the union of two persons pursuant to the bill.
The bill provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the bill be interpreted consistently with the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.
The bill specifically provides that no member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this State would be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.
In addition, the bill updates language in current law concerning the authority to solemnize marriages, set out in R.S.37:1-13. Currently, this section of law authorizes “every minister of every religion” to solemnize marriages. The bill would change this phrase to “every member of the clergy of every religion.”
The bill also provides that on and after its effective date, no civil unions could be established. The bill takes effect on the 60th day following enactment.
In addition, the bill repeals section 94 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-36), which had established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. The function of the commission is to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the enactment establishing civil unions, including the effect on same-sex couples, their children and other family members of being provided civil unions rather than marriage. With the enactment of this bill, the commission’s function would be obviated.
Under the bill, partners who have previously established a civil union may apply for a marriage license and would receive the license immediately, without the usual 72-hour waiting period between application for, and issuance of, the license. Civil union partners would also not be charged any fees for the issuance of a marriage license.
The bill provides that civil union partners would have 60 days following enactment to move to dissolve their civil union pursuant to applicable law (set out in section 64 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.2A:34-2.1)). If they do not do so within the 60-day period, the bill provides that these civil union partners would be deemed married, and that all civil union licenses and certificates of civil union issued on their behalf would be deemed to be marriage licenses and certificates of marriage.
The bill also provides that civil union partners may apply for a marriage license and solemnize their marriage at any time, without a waiting period for the license and without the payment of any fees. However, civil union partners who choose not to solemnize their marriages would nonetheless be deemed married as of the effective date of the act.