Guest Viewpoint
By Walt Boraczek
Editors' note: Today marks the State Senate's hearing on the civil unions bill, which would give some benefits to same-sex couples in New Jersey, but falls short of calling these benefits "marriage." As we've stated before, we think that the state should have no involvement in marriage, and that all should be in civil unions. But since that's not the world we live in, we believe that everyone should be entitled to state-recognized "marriage." We asked Walt Boraczek of the Hudson Diversity Action Council for his two cents on the subject, and he kindly outlined the case for marriage.
The struggle for marriage equality has now come full-circle and we are engaged in a battle of semantics. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has guaranteed same-sex couples equal treatment under the law, but has stopped short of using the word “marriage” to describe those relationships. There are heated arguments on both sides of this issue, but the fight is no longer "Should same-sex couples get the rights?" but "Should we get the label?"
Simply stated, the name matters!
Universally Recognized Label
Marriage is a term that is understood in all areas of our culture. This
centuries-old designation is the only benchmark of commitment that
exists and it is viewed in our society as a binary state, not a sliding
scale. Married? Yes or No. If, under a civil union, I am forced to
check “No,” where is my measure of equality?
Let’s look at one of the more common situations that face same-sex couples – hospital visitation. In certain areas of a hospital, visitation is limited to immediate family only. This was one of the rights addressed by New Jersey’s Domestic Partnership law of 2004; however, we still see situations where fully documented domestic partners are denied access to their loved ones because the hospital administrator on duty doesn’t know what the term “domestic partner” means with respect to hospital policy. This is both a weakness in the educational follow-up and in the label itself.
Continue reading "MARRIAGE EQUALITY: WHAT'S THE FUSS ABOUT?" »


It's once again time for