Pushing for marriage

Across the Delaware River, same-sex couples are finding they aren’t getting what they bargained for.

Since the state’s civil-union law went into effect in February — which was supposed to grant same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples without the word “marriage” — nearly 1,100 couples have applied for civil-union licenses.

Of those, the gay-rights group Garden State Equality said it has received complaints from nearly 150 couples who have been denied marriage-equivalent benefits, about 13 percent.

Additionally, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights said it has received about 90 calls each month with questions about the law and, last week, received its first formal complaint.

Well, that didn’t take long.

It’s true that many forward-thinking and progressive companies already provide their employees with domestic-partner benefits. One reason is market pressure: To attract the best talent, companies have to provide the best benefits.

Many others have adopted a “wait and see” approach. To be sure, some companies are acting out of homophobia. They don’t agree with the law and don’t intend to follow it.

Perhaps some are acting out of ignorance; they don’t know the law applies to them.

And in the middle, there are those that don’t think the law will last for whatever reason and don’t see the need to change their policies to accommodate it.

All of these are flawed.

While market pressure is a great force for improvement, it by no means ensures equal treatment under the law, and only impacts employment. Other areas — tax benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation — must be handled through legislation.

Which brings the discussion back to “marriage” and language.

If the legislature had passed a law allowing for same-sex marriage, there would be no questions, no ifs, no gray area. Couples would be married, they would have rights, there would be no disputes over what it meant.

Instead, when the state Supreme Court ruled that they had to provide for marriage or a similar institution, legislators opted for the easy way out and chose civil unions.

Gays and lesbians held their collective breath and hoped their fears — that it wouldn’t be enough — wouldn’t come to pass.

Now that it’s apparent that civil unions are not “separate but equal,” the legislature needs to revisit the law and institute marriage.

And other states should heed New Jersey’s plight: No matter how well-intentioned, a law that codifies lesser rights is always less.