Mercer extends benefits to same-sex couples

The Mercer County freeholders voted unanimously last week to extend benefits to same-sex partners of county employees. The move came amid continued debate on campus in the run-up to the referendum on the Princeton Justice Project's amicus brief on gay marriage.

The Mercer freeholders voted 6 to 0 to pass a resolution to provide health care and pension benefits to the same-sex partners of county employees registered under the state's Domestic Partnership Act.

"I think we're sending a clear message that we believe in the civil rights of individuals to determine if they meet the criteria of being in a long-lasting relationship," said county executive Brian Hughes, who strongly recommended the freeholder board approve the resolution.

The legislation mimics New Jersey's partnership act passed in January 2004 and will allow any of the county's close to 2,600 county employees to apply partner benefits, Hughes said. Other state counties, including Hudson, Bergen, Essex and Union, have passed similar legislation.

Private state employers will not be required to extend similar benefits.

Meanwhile, debate continues on whether the USG should support the PJP brief supporting gay unions in New Jersey. The brief will be filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will rule on the Lewis v. Harris case involving seven gay couples seeking the right to marry.

USG members disagree over both the substance of the brief and whether the student government should weigh in on political issues on behalf of the student body. A student referendum will be held Sunday through Tuesday to decide whether the USG should sign the brief.

Some argue that gay marriage is an issue to be addressed through local and state government, such as the recent Mercer County vote.

"We were elected on the basis of improving the quality of life of students at Princeton, and no one included these huge, national, social issues in their platforms," Class of 2008 Senator Sunshine Yin '08 said.

Others say the USG is not prepared to make such decisions for the student body.

"The basic problem is that there is significant ambiguity in our constitution about what types of [national and state] issues we should speak out on," U-Council member Brandon Parry '06 said in an email. "It's my belief that the USG is not institutionally prepared to speak on behalf of the students on contentious political issues."

Senators have expressed concern that if the USG signed PJP's brief, other University groups might bombard the student government with similar requests.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"In our constant efforts to be responsive and inclusive, the USG may end up sending every contentious issue to a referendum, which suggests to me that we shouldn't really be signing onto these documents in the first place," said Parry, who said he personally supports same-sex marriage.

But the brief's supporters say that while they applaud the county's steps to equalize benefits for gay and lesbian people, there is more work to be done.

"It's not just all about the rights that you can list on a piece of paper," said Chris Lloyd '06, leader of PJP's Gay Rights Family Project and senior class president. "There is an inherent value in marriage."

"It's not 1896. Any third grader could tell you that separate but equal is not equal," Lloyd said.

PJP president Tom Bohnett '07 added that it is important that the USG serve as an advocate for the hundreds of lesbian and gay students who could be directly influenced by the case.

"It's about the fundamental discrimination of the New Jersey state law not being acceptable," Bohnett said. "It doesn't matter if Princeton's LGBT students will choose to marry [or not]."

He said that once students understand that the rights of their LGBT peers may be affected by this case, "they will respond strongly in favor of the USG taking stand."

Bohnett is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.