Response Paper One
In the New York publication , Zernike (2012) reports of the bill on same-sex marriage passed with majority 42 to 33 by the New Jersey Assembly much to the chagrin of Governor Chris Christie on February 9. Christie, a frontline opposer, opined that people should vote for it in the referendum. Mr. Goldstein, a supporter said that the gay couples were close persons to the legislators. Legislators who had before opposed the bill, supported it. Benefits resulting from the legalization of same-sex marriages included economical and employment. There was also the opinion from the Democrats that if there was a referendum, national lobby groups against the bill would bring foreign money. Years before, gay couples had challenged the legislature over what they termed as fighting for equal rights as heterosexual couples.
The outcome of the referendum, if it’s to be held and a possible support of the bill will impact on people. There will be nomenclature implications. It is a large issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to adopt, get inheritance from their partners and whether their “marriages” should be referred to as so. Also there will be lawsuits from gays who feel that their civil rights were infringed such as those kicked out of the army because of their sexual orientation.
This is of importance for the sexuality educators and counselors to know because the last outcome of the bill will determine what best educational counseling techniques will be used such as to adopted children brought up in same-sex partnerships.
Recommendations for health professionals are ensure that their services are not discriminatory to the same-sex couples should such bills be under the constitution; if possible should the law be passed, let same-sex members be attended to by a similar member when seeking health care. Ideas on response to what happened are; one of them is, in such a would-be referendum, before voting against or for, first ponder on the social impact that the bill will bring; two is, since the same-sex members are fighting for recognition, revise the constitution so as to have a concrete definition of the term marriage.
References
Zernike, K. (2012). Gay Marriage, Passed, Awaits Veto by Christie. Retrieved on February 28, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/nyregion/veto-awaits-new-jersey-bill-allowing-gays-to-wed.html?pagewanted=1&sq=NY%20State%20legalizing%20same-sex%20marriage&st=cse&scp=2
Response Paper Two
In the New York Times article, Nagourney (2012) reported how Jeffrey White, a San Francisco federal judge omitted a crucial Defense of Marriage Act provision because in his opinion, Blue Cross denied Karen Golinski benefits from health. Golinski had got into a marriage with Amy Cunninghis when California had temporary allowed same-sex marriages. The case arose the federal government unrecognizing same-sex marriages conducted in states legalizing them. Judge White pointed out that the federal government didn’t have “a justification” pointing to the aim of the government directed to a certain group which in White’s opinion was a case of majority oppressing minority. Congress passed the act while it was signed by the then President Clinton. A.G Eric Holder was directed by president Obama not to defend citing its unconstitutional and thereby leading to a House of Representatives’ lawyer making the case.

The implications in the situation on people would be that gay members may direct their votes to the opponents of the candidate [Obama] who is opposing what they fight for; if Obama re-election fails due to an advantage by a Republican to drive him out of the race and considering his open stand may be used to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Of importance to the sexuality educators and counselors is that should Obama’s stand on same-sex marriages be used successfully against him in the election campaigns, the next new president may strive to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and so were such a thing to happen, it would determine the scope [and or] their new operations of which would require the aforementioned professionals reviewing their levels of understanding in such matters.
A recommendation for the event is that the voters, considering the 2012 campaigns, should contemplate on the president’s personal viewpoint and it should not be an issue of dividing the country. Ideas that I would propose are, one, the educators and the the counselors should offer their expertise and experiences to the society regarding such sensitive matters that divide the nation; and two, the presidential aspirants should debate on the same-sex issue and enlighten the citizens on its importance and implications and then endorse the opinion that outweigh the other rather than merely politicizing it.

Reference
Nagourney, A. (2012). Judge’s Ruling Adds to String in Favor of Same-Sex Couples. Retrieved on February 28, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/us/ruling-adds-to-string-in-favor-of-same-sex-couples.html?scp=2&sq=OBAMA%20ON%20MARRIAGE%20ACT%20&st=cse