'Fixing' civil union law would worsen problem

by: ACLUNJ

Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:13:55 PM EST

N.J. statute discriminates against couples, families.

In New Jersey's debate over marriage, legislators have suggested making businesses pay for discrimination that lawmakers themselves created with the 2006 civil union law. It seems that the legislature believes discrimination is only a problem when someone else practices it.

During last month's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on marriage equality, family after family testified about discrimination they experienced, ranging from bank tellers to hospital staff, who failed to recognize their civil unions.

But rather than enact the obvious remedy - legalizing gay marriage - five Republican state senators suggested flaws could be corrected by levying "strong penalties" against businesses that fail to recognize the rights of civil union couples and their families. But neither fines nor revisions will fix the discrimination written into this law.

Legislators fashioned a segregated system of rights for one group of citizens in 2006, hoping that somehow separate would be equal. But as history shows us, separate is never equal. Many New Jerseyans have no idea what civil unions are and therefore simply fail to recognize the rights they carry.

If the legislature were to massage the civil union law rather than reform it, businesses could face fines, as well as vast, untold costs to train employees and alter data systems (most business forms recognize people only as "married" or "single"). And taxpayers would foot the multimillion-dollar bill to educate businesses and the public about a law that still would be inherently discriminatory.

Laws don't exist in a vacuum, and the titles we give to our rights affect how those rights are treated in our state, in the country and around the globe. And children of civil union couples suffer most of all.

The most compelling testimony during the Senate hearing came from a student who had been mercilessly bullied at school and from other children who felt like outsiders when they couldn't make their classmates understand their parents' nonmarital status. How can kids on the playground be expected to understand civil unions when businesses and hospital personnel don't get it?

Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Our government is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

What is the legislature teaching by segregating one group from all others? That it's acceptable to have two classes of people with two sets of rights. When the state itself segregates people, it grants the rest of society permission to do the same. Through its example, the legislature excuses bigotry and emboldens bullies.

Senators, the time has come to right this wrong rather than heap the blame and cost of your own discriminatory decision upon others.

Ed Barocas (info@aclu-nj.org) is the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Marriage Maddening the Garden State

by: Allison_Peltzman

Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:18:58 AM EST

"Maybe it's not the time for civil rights."

It was shocking when Betty Draper said that to her black housekeeper Carla upon hearing the now-infamous news that a bomb in a Birmingham church had killed four little girls in 1963 Alabama.

Mad Men has become an American pop-culture sweetheart partly because the anachronistic, chauvinistic, homophobic, racist, politically incorrect sentiments sound absurd today. Characters toss back bigotry as easily as a glass of Jameson at the beginning of their workday. It seems just as wrong, and there's about as much slurring in both.

If only the prejudice on the show were actually anachronistic. Earlier this week, New Jersey's Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney told the press that civil rights for New Jersey couples should wait. And we say to him, if not now, then when?

If New Jersey doesn't pass marriage legislation now, any possibility in the near future is as good as gone. We have just a few weeks until Governor Corzine, who supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, officially hands over the reins to Governor-elect Chris Christie, who vocally does not.

We have a state whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples, we have a legislature whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples and we have a governor - for now - who also supports equal rights for gay couples.

But we don't have a leader in the state senate brave enough to say, "That's enough. New Jersey is going to do the right thing."

Instead of taking up the responsibility to do what they know is right, they're taking cover behind the economy. We have four years ahead of us to fix New Jersey's withering finances. We have less than two months to make sure that people aren't forced to live with the indignity of discrimination brought on by civil unions, affecting every corner of their lives, every day of their lives.

I wasn't shocked that Betty Draper wavered on civil rights in front of Carla. Coldness is Betty's signature characteristic; callousness isn't surprising. I was shocked because, from the vantage point of the 21st Century, after this country fought against the legacy of some of the darkest episodes of human history - the middle passage, hundreds of years of slavery, a brutal war that killed more Americans than any other, the failure of reconstruction, the nadir of American race relations, Jim Crow laws, unending injustices - I could not imagine what the world would look like if the leaders of the 60s had thrown their hands up and said, "You know, maybe it's not the time for civil rights."

Americans made it the time for civil rights. They didn't politely ask politicians to pencil them into their schedules - they left the politicians without a choice, and they changed the world. Segregation came to an end, miscegenation laws were repealed, American soldiers protected the rights of African Americans in America's schools and streets, and people across the country rode buses for days to march for miles in some of the most dangerous places in the world for a black person or a Jew. The equality they all hungered for eclipsed their fear of taking personal risks. And those sacrifices make politicians' political fears look like a farce.

Mr. Smith has never lived in Washington, and he certainly doesn't go to Trenton. It usually takes an extraordinary leader to take bold action, even to do the right thing - with one exception. Politicians take bold action when the chorus of Americans together becomes too loud to ignore.

Can you imagine what the world would look like if the people concerned about civil rights in 1963 decided that it wasn't the time for civil rights? Would Loving v. Virginia be a 2009 case instead of one from 1967? Even if we're constantly fighting against backslides in our voting rights, at least we have the Voting Rights Act to hold our government to. We don't have poll-tax free-for-alls.

"But gay rights. That's so new and radical."

It's not, though. We've been in the same place for decades. The Stonewall raids, the assassination of Harvey Milk, the panicked response to AIDS. It was never the time for civil rights back then. So why not now?

January Jones, the actress behind the Betty Draper mask, lampooned her character's cheerful bigotry in a Saturday Night Live sketch that told housewives how to host the perfect party. "Homosexuals should be addressed by Ms. or Mrs., depending on their age. If a black person arrives ... just kidding. A black person won't arrive. That's an example of party humor."

It's tongue in cheek, sure, but it's still the same mindset that declared, "Now isn't the time for civil rights." It's a mindset of exclusion, and it's rooted in the belief that only some people deserve to have their constitutional promises kept. That's not who we are as Americans, and that's not who we want to be in New Jersey.

We've come too far to retreat. The "economy" excuse is a red herring, a false dichotomy, an easy way out, and just plainly and simply wrong. Marriage would bring money into New Jersey, and it would solve the financial straits of gay couples who struggle because their civil unions deprive them of health benefits.

It is the time for civil rights, because our momentum as a country pulls us toward the expansion of rights, not their restriction. I want to be shocked in 40 years because a character on a retro TV show about the early 21st century suggests that now isn't the time for marriage equality. I don't want to live in a world in 40 years where I have to tell myself, "Well, maybe this time we'll succeed."

It's up to New Jersey legislators, who know that marriage equality is the right thing, to secure the civil rights of our state's gay and lesbian families. But it's up to us, the rest of New Jersey, to pressure our state's legislators into not having a choice.

If you live in New Jersey, there are ways you can take immediate action. We need you to e-mail your state senator, call the senate majority leader at 856-251-9801 -- urge him to take up marriage legislation -- and rally with the ACLU-NJ in Trenton Monday, November 23.

We're meeting at:
Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.

If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.

If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.

Join the ACLU-NJ to change our world, starting with Newark

by: ACLUNJ

Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:48:11 PM EDT

The ACLU's been busy, as you've seen in Blue Jersey, working on our new voting rights report, working against wiretapping in New Jersey, and bringing cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

We'll have good drinks, good conversation, and a chance for you to meet other interesting like-minded young professionals working to improve our community, both with the ACLU and independently.

Entrance also pays for a year membership in the ACLU-NJ if you're not a member. And everyone gets a goody bag full of swag.

I hope to see you there Tuesday.

WHAT:
Young Professionals Mixer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Food, drinks, and music.

WHERE:
The Coffee Cave
45 Halsey Street
Newark, NJ

COST:
$15 for ACLU-NJ Members

$20 for Non-members (an ACLU-NJ membership is included in your entrance fee!)

RSVP:
To Lauren Davila at 973-642-2086.

Can't wait to see you there.

BREAKING: Chris Christie authorized tracking citizens through their cell phones as U.S. Attorney

by: Rosi Efthim

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:28:36 PM EDT

ACLU Executive Director Deborah Jacobs:

This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel. Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie.

If this accusation is true, Chris Christie grossly overstepped the authority of his office while serving in New Jersey as the federal government's point-man for the U.S. Justice Department. And it makes it ever more clear that what he was really serving were the interests of a paranoid president of his party, George Bush, who thought little of using his authority to spy on the citizens of his country. And that would make Chris Christie New Jersey's spy on the ground for George Bush.

ACLU's accusations are based on Justice Department documents made public today following a July, 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF is a civil rights organization dealing with digital-age issues.The documents reveal show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand, according to ACLU-NJ.

"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."

The just-released documents show that federal prosecutors in both New Jersey and Florida are obtaining court orders merely by showing the tracking information gathered is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation. That is a much lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.

Star Ledger:

The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.

"This search also found that nineteen applications were granted after November 16, 2007, to permit the government to obtain GPS or similarly precise location data on target cell phones without a judicial determination of probable cause," the document by the Department of Justice states. "Seventeen of these cases resulted in a criminal prosecution."

ACLU posts the documents on line, here.

Christie was the U.S.Attorney for New Jersey Jan 17, 2002 - November 2008. The documents don't make clear how many of the applications were made during that time.

EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston:

Many people aren't aware that they can be tracked using the GPS chip in their cell phones, even when the phone is not in use. It's time for Congress to step in and make clear that federal law requires the government to get a warrant before tracking your cell phone.

This story is being filed, quickly, and ACLU is still hunting some of this information - specifically, the names of people who were under this warrantless surveillance, using their own cell phones to track them. Who was tracked? How many? We're going to stay on top of this story.  

Censored in the City

by: Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director

Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 04:59:34 PM EST

Last night, after having become a voice in the recent dialogue over Newark's crime statistics, I was slated to appear on WBGO-FM's weekly call-in show Newark Today with Mayor Booker and Newark Police Director McCarthy. Unfortunately, the Mayor and Director nixed my appearance, and WBGO allowed it happen.

Here's the background. The ACLU-NJ represents three young Newarkers who suffered abuse at the hands of the Newark Police and then had their complaints mishandled by Internal Affairs. When we met with city officials in September about the case, we discussed some of the problems and shortcomings with Internal Affairs (IA), and provided a list of reforms we believe will make the Internal Affairs system more accessible. The city's representatives expressed concern and promised to look into the possibility of implementing our reforms, and the dialogue is ongoing.

So when I received an email saying that the Mayor and Police Director would hold a press conference on Wednesday to tout both their very impressive reduction in murders and the reduction in citizen complaints to IA, I was surprised.  I couldn't quite believe that they felt it was appropriate to tout the reduced IA stats with some many flaws left in the system. A reduction in complaints filed with Internal Affairs does not necessarily mean a reduction in police misconduct.

Free Speech and Loathing in New Jersey, Part II

by: Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director

Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM EDT

Last night on WBGO, Mayor Cory Booker assured listeners that free speech rights are safe and sound in Newark and that the recently passed city ordinance affecting free speech rights in the city explicitly excepts First Amendment activities from the burdens of permits and fees.

I wish this were the case.

There's no place like home (no matter what your condo board says)

by: Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director

Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:05:53 PM EDT

I bought a condo in Montclair five years ago and in no time my eyes were opened to the kind of power-plays, in-fighting, and venom that can spew over homeowners' association politics.

My impassioned neighbors on various sides of the issues tried to engage me, knowing that I was the legal director of the ACLU-NJ, and pleading for help.

"I gave at the office" was my standard reply, and I meant it. The ACLU-NJ, along with the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic (run by the esteemed Professor Frank Askin), already represented homeowners in a legal battle being watched around the country.

The case, Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners Association, was before the New Jersey Supreme Court, and its decision would ultimately determine the rights of more than one million New Jerseyans who, like me, live under the rule of homeowners' associations. Twin Rivers involved a host of democratic rights -- everything from whether homeowners have appeal rights when fined for offenses such as choosing a different door paint color to whether homeowners are allowed to post political signs on their property. 

Twin Rivers closely relates to an issue we litigated with the Constitutional Litigation Clinic thirteen years ago, concerning free speech rights in shopping malls. In that case, the winning argument was that shopping malls had essentially replaced the town square as a place for community to gather, and therefore free speech activities must be protected. In Twin Rivers, we similarly argued that for an eighth of the state's population, homeowner's associations have replaced government in establishing community policies and standards (some of these developments are so large that they have their own schools).

On Thursday, July 26, 2007, the long-awaited Twin Rivers decision came down with a unanimous decision against our clients, holding that the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association's restrictions were reasonable and that, unlike shopping malls, homeowners associations do not invite in the public-at-large. Thus, the Court wrote that, while shopping malls act as public squares, homeowner associations do not act as municipalities. It viewed the situation ultimately as a private contractual agreement whereby certain rights can be waived.

Yet, upon reading the decision, our initial disappointment quickly morphed into encouragement. While the ruling was portrayed in the press as a win for the homeowners associations, in actuality, it is a victory for all homeowners who treasure free speech and expression.

We all thought that the questions "is this like the shopping malls" and "is the association a quasi-municipality" were the crux of the case, but we were wrong. Here's why?

First, keep in mind that the Court applied the NJ constitutional analysis as it did in the other "quasi-public" contexts like the historic shopping mall cases. The Court ultimately held in Twin Rivers that unreasonable restrictions by homeowners associations on free speech on one's private property would violate the state's heightened constitutional free speech protection.

Because the NJ Constitution (unlike the U.S. Constitution) has an affirmative free speech right, the homeowners associations cannot unreasonably restrict that right when conducted on a person's own private property. The Court held that the particular restriction at issue here (one sign permitted per every window within a residence) was not unreasonable, but the Court wrote that: "At a minimum, any restrictions on the exercise of those rights must be reasonable as to time, place, and manner. Our holding does not suggest...that residents of a homeowner association may never successfully seek constitutional redress against a governing association that unreasonably infringes they free speech rights."

So, while the Court sided with the homeowners association based on the rights it granted to homeowners to display signs, the Court established that association restrictions will be subject to the constitutional standard that our Twin Rivers clients sought?. that they not be denied a reasonable opportunity to express themselves. We now know that associations do not have carte blanch -- if they pass unreasonable restrictions, those restrictions will be shot down.

Yes, homeowners associations can limit certain free speech activities, especially when dealing with common areas (we lost on the issue of equal access to the association newsletter and other aspects related to communal areas), but the right of free speech in our homes can't simply be contracted away.

Of course, once a court sets down a standard, there will always be groups down the road (either homeowner board members or dissident residents) who will test the waters to find out just what is "reasonable" and what is an "unreasonable" restriction on our right to free speech?.Having seen the way things happen in a homeowners association once one side or another digs their heels in, I am sure there will be no shortage of residents - in my own condo and elsewhere - who will be begging for me and the ACLU-NJ to get involved in Round 2.

Op-Ed: ACLU-NJ Says It's Time to Shake Up the Bureaucracy

by: Deborah Jacobs

Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:30:50 PM EDT