Only in the world of politics can something simple become so complex. Either you believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman or you reject the definition. Marriage is not a word; it’s an immutable institution which is the bedrock of our society. The construct of the debate is conditioned on false premises with the use of deceit and dishonesty, fueled by politics. This is nothing more than a crass political ploy to allow the legislature to be used by those with an agenda.

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans including Nassau County residents support marriage as the union between one man and one women. Efforts to provide all of the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples but mask the name are obvious and show arrogance for the people. Whether it is called marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships, it is still marriage. It’s just a question of semantics.

Currently seven states provide marital benefits to homosexuals. Massachusetts allows homosexual marriage; Vermont and Connecticut provide civil unions, New Jersey, Maine, California, the District of Columbia provide Domestic Partnerships and Hawaii provides Reciprocal Beneficiaries. Based on wording of their statutes, both New Jersey and California (amended in 2003) are more consistent with civil unions.  

The claim that the other forms of recognition do not constitute marriage is dubious in terms of their reciprocity state to state consistent with the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. This was the impetus for Congress to pass the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Furthermore, more than 19 states have amended their state constitutions over reciprocity.  In terms of any substantive difference between traditional marriage and these types of arrangements within the same jurisdiction, there is no definable difference.

In Baker v. Vermont, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court (which based its ruling on Vermont’s Common Benefit Clause) mandated that Vermont amend the state’s marriage law to allow homosexual marriage or create another arrangement such as domestic partnerships which confer the same benefits and privileges as married heterosexual couples. The Vermont legislature ultimately passed legislation that authorized domestic partnerships. This legal arrangement has come to be known as a civil union.

While the Vermont legislature was able to reconcile the issue of marriage for both homosexual and heterosexuals with the use of semantics, the Massachusetts legislature could not. After the initial ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 2003, the Massachusetts legislature asked the Supreme Judicial Court to clarify their ruling pertaining to civil unions. In 2004, the court ruled, "the dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status", “separate is seldom, if ever, equal."  Based on that clarification, the Massachusetts legislature authorized homosexual marriage.  

While attention has been focused on North Hempstead’s domestic partner registry, it is important to look at the progression of New York City’s domestic partnership law. In 1989, Mayor Edward Koch issued an executive order which extended bereavement benefits to homosexual city employees. In 1993, Mayor David Dinkins issued two broad executive orders, one creating a domestic partner registry (similar to the one currently under consideration) and the latter which added many additional marital rights. By settling a lawsuit in the same year brought by the Lesbian, Gay Teachers Association against the Board of Education, the city agreed to provide health care benefits to all city employees. In 1997, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani signed the most sweeping piece of legislation that provides full marital benefits for all homosexual couples in the jurisdiction of New York City. In 2002, Mayor Bloomberg signed legislation that grants recognition to all gay marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions. As such, all such arrangements are no different by definition.  

The issue of intent is important. On March 21^st, Jay Jacobs who is County Executive Suozzi’s campaign manager in his race for governor addressed a Brooklyn homosexual political club, the Lambda Independent Democrats. Jay Jacobs speaking on behalf of Tom Suozzi was quoted as saying, “He believes in civil unions, He believes all the rights afforded in marriage should be afforded to Gay couples as well….No matter what you call it, no matter what you term the contract, you should get all the rights of marriage.”[1]

 On September 22, 2003, the New York Democratic State Committee passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the “New York Right to Marry” bill (Assembly bill A7392 and Senate bill S3816). State Party Chairman Herman Farrell, Jr. stated, “This legislation helps right a long time wrong, and simply provides same-sex couples with the same legal protections, rights, and responsibilities that heterosexual couples acquire when they marry.”[2] 

The two agenda groups that are pushing the legislature to pass the domestic partnership bill, Empire State Pride Agenda and the Nassau County Lesbian & Gay Democrats have made it clear that they want to send a political message.  Empire State Pride Agenda pushed for passage of a local homosexual rights bill in Nassau back in 2000. At that time, their slogan was, “as goes Nassau, so goes the state”. In 2002, a state wide homosexual rights bill became law. This agenda group also drafted New York City’s 1997 domestic partnership law. A member of the second group was reported saying, “It sends a message to lawmakers [in Albany] that it’s not a big deal, it will certainly help normalize the perception [of same sex relationships]”. [3]

Currently, all of the cases challenging New York’s Domestic Relations Law have been denied at the appellate court level and are now proceeding to New York’s Court of Appeals. The only recent related case the high court ruled on was a challenge to New York City’s “Equal Benefits Law”, NYC Council v. Mayor Bloomberg. The law required companies with city contracts worth a least $100,000 to provide spousal benefits to homosexual couples. The court struck down the law and held that the law was pre-empted by state and federal law.

The Nassau County Civic Association Inc. opposes this bill. We would ask that you consider all of the facts provided and understand the implications of your vote. The facts are clear and the issue is simple; if you support homosexual marriage, vote yes, if not, vote no. The people of Nassau County are watching.