TV & Radio
米副大統領の娘が妊娠 同性愛者でも大統領が祝福 (中日 2006/12/16)
George Bush Says He's 'Happy' for Mary Cheney
FRIDAY DECEMBER 15, 2006 05:20 PM EST
President Bush tells PEOPLE he is happy for Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, who is expecting a child with her partner, Heather Poe.
In an exclusive year-end interview, the President told PEOPLE, "The Vice President took me aside and gave me the good news. He and his wife, Lynne, are very happy for Mary."
In 2005, Bush said that ideally "a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Asked if he still felt that way knowing Mary and her partner, he said, "I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her."
Mary Cheney, 37, and Poe, 45, have been together for 15 years and are expecting their first child late in the spring.
Although Cheney was a key aide on her father's 2004 reelection campaign, she has said she disagrees with Bush's stance on gay marriage.
"I am in favor of legalized same sex marriage," she told PEOPLE in May. But during the campaign, she says, "I had no doubt, even with that disagreement, that President Bush was the absolute best person to be leading us at this time in our country's history."
The White House family had some happy news this week: Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter, is pregnant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice President took me aside and gave me the good news. He and his wife, Lynne, are very happy for Mary.
You said in 2005 that ideally "a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman." Knowing Mary and her partner, Heather, do you still think that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her.
On the Assembly floor yesterday, Wilfredo Caraballo watched as votes were tallied on a bill to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals.
The New York Times
December 15, 2006
Legislators Vote for Gay Unions in New Jersey
By LAURA MANSNERUS
TRENTON, Dec. 14 — The Legislature voted on Thursday to make New Jersey the third state in the nation to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples. In doing so, it moved quickly to fulfill a court mandate to provide equal rights to gay couples but frustrated people on both sides of the emotional issue.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign the measure into law, said, “I think we’re doing the right thing.”
In joining Vermont and Connecticut in establishing the parallel institution of civil unions, New Jersey shunned the option of opening marriage to same-sex couples. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, and it has a residency requirement; some same-sex couples have married in Canada.
New Jersey’s new unions, which would take effect 60 days after the governor gives the nod, would expand on the domestic partnership arrangements the state has had since 2004. Gay couples would gain benefits like adoption privileges, inheritance rights and the ability to take a partner’s surname without going to court.
But gay-rights advocates continued to contend Thursday that the separate institutions were inherently unequal and promised to keep pushing for nothing short of marriage itself.
“We’re planning a massive rally the day the civil union law takes effect, to pre-empt the idea that this is a day for celebration,” said Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay-rights group.
Still, about 20 supporters of gay rights who had gathered in the gallery for the hourlong floor debate cheered when the Assembly voted 56 to 19 in midafternoon to approve the measure. They also applauded when Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Princeton Democrat, said, “The distance between nothing and civil unions is greater than the distance between civil unions and marriage.”
But Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer, a Republican from Ocean County, said that the bill was an affront to the Bible, and that “this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”
The Senate passed the bill 23 to 12.
The civil union law was written under pressure, in response to a directive by the New Jersey Supreme Court seven weeks ago that the state grant gay and lesbian couples exactly the same financial benefits and legal rights as married heterosexual couples.
The Supreme Court gave the Legislature 180 days to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry or placed on a separate, parallel track. Both houses quickly settled on the civil union route, sending it through in just 10 days from introduction to final votes.
While the Legislature was instructed not to fall short of equality in the benefits it extended, conservatives lobbied to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexuals, and on Thursday Republicans tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“I believe the foundation of our state is families, marriage, one man, one woman,” said Senator Robert W. Singer, the Republican from Jackson who sponsored the amendment proposal. “Why do you want to crumble that? We’re not taking away anyone’s rights, just sanctifying what marriage is.”
Without the amendment, the legislation leaves open the possibility of allowing same-sex marriage.
“Give us two to five years,” said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, the Newark Democrat who introduced the civil unions measure. “In a year and a half or two years we’ll see that the world hasn’t collapsed, heterosexuals are still getting married and God hasn’t thrown fire and brimstone on us.”
Mr. Caraballo said proponents of gay marriage could not have pushed through a full marriage bill by the court’s deadline in April.
He noted that just three years ago, it was a struggle to enact the limited package of rights and benefits that characterize domestic partnerships. “We had to twist arms to get 41 votes,” he said.
But Mr. Goldstein pointed to the legislators, including some Republicans, who had said the civil union bill did not go far enough. “Today’s debate for civil unions could be summed up in two words: buyer’s remorse, for legislators who wish they were voting for full marriage equality,” he said.
David Buckel, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said after the Senate vote, “This law hit with a dull thud.”
Mr. Buckel represents the couples whose lawsuit led to the Oct. 25 Supreme Court decision, in which the justices held unanimously that to deny them the full rights accorded married heterosexual couples violated their equal protection rights. He said he would consult his clients about going to the court again to argue that the new law does not meet its mandate.
Few legislators have said explicitly that they oppose civil unions. In the floor debate Thursday, several Republicans raised other objections (no Democrat voted against the measure).
Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt of Morris County contended that the Supreme Court had overreached, saying, “I expect once again this Legislature will surrender its authority as it has many times in the last 40 years.”
Social conservatives had focused their efforts on retaining the traditional definition of marriage. Len Deo, the president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said at a news conference Thursday with Senator Singer that the civil union bill “moves us toward same-sex marriage.”
“People have a right to rights,” Mr. Deo said, “but they don’t have a right to redefine an institution that’s served us well for 2,000 years.”
New Jersey same-sex unions still inferior to marriage: gays
Fri Dec 15, 3:22 PM ET
Gay rights activists said that New Jersey's move to permit same-sex unions left them still "inferior" to married couples, but welcomed it as progress toward equality.
On Thursday the state legislature voted to allow same-sex unions but not full-on marriage, following a state supreme court ruling two months ago that preventing same-sex unions was unconstitutional.
Gay activists gave a qualified welcome Friday to the decision.
David Buckel from gay marriage law firm Lambda Legal said that although it marked a step in the right direction, stopping short of allowing marriage still deprived gay couples of full equality.
"Although same-sex couples in New Jersey are better off today than yesterday, they are still not equal to other couples," he said in a statement.
"By passing a law that marks same-sex couples as inferior, the government has paved the way for others to discriminate against them.... Their relationships will likely continue to be disrespected," he said.
The state's highest court in October ruled that gay couples have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts and that preventing same-sex unions violated the state constitution.
The court gave the state legislature six months to decide whether to amend the marriage laws or create a new framework for same-sex unions.
"Denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee" of the constitution, the court said in its ruling.
It said that while it did not find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage existed in the state, same-sex couples did not enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
"The unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," it added.
Groups opposed to gay marriage condemned October's decision, saying radical activists had convinced the court to hold a gun to the head of the legislature.
Although the US Congress recently voted down a proposal for an amendment to the US constitution that would ban gay marriage, 45 of 50 states have laws that limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples.
Massachusetts is the only US state that currently permits gay marriage while Vermont allows "civil unions" between same-sex couples.