New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Unions
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples wishing to legalize their unions. However, it appears that the court will leave it to the "democratic process" to determine what that union is called.
In a 4-3 decision in which the three dissenters were only partial dissenters (Justices Poritz, Zazzali, and Long filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion in which they agreed that "the finding of the majority that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution") the Court ruled that same-sex couples "must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes."
The legislature has 180 days to amend the marriage statues or enact an appropriate statutory structure.
From the opinion:
"Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental. Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same- sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."
It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on the upcoming elections. Much of the division over gay couples gaining equal rights in this area comes over the word "marriage". I think that by pushing the decision of what to call the same-sex union to the legislature, the Court has effectively blocked many of the arguments of those who would object to the decision purely on semantic terms.
YES!!!! I don't care about the consequences to the midterms right now.
Posted by: scott | Oct 25, 2006 3:29:33 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: JT | Oct 25, 2006 3:34:40 PM
I believe this is exactly what should have happened.
Posted by: Wayne | Oct 25, 2006 3:35:45 PM
Finally, a ruling that doesn't rely on some obtuse amendment process, i.e. Mass. This is a great day. A moderate state's courts has made a clear ruling and then left it to the legislature to hash it out. Screw the short term consequences. This is a great victory for us all.
Posted by: Mitch | Oct 25, 2006 3:35:59 PM
This is horrible timing. The mid-term elections are vital, and if the democrats don't take the House & Senate, then all hell is going to break loose in the world. Worse than it already is, and this mess only gives the republicans the diversion they have been looking for to take the attention away from the real messes Bush has made of everything he touches.
Posted by: toyness | Oct 25, 2006 3:36:09 PM
Jurisprudence takes the long view - unlike politics, which concerns itself only with two and four year cycles. In the end, this is by far a net benefit for supporters of same sex marriage.
Posted by: GM | Oct 25, 2006 3:37:59 PM
God Damn, every time the gay agenda moves one step forward, it then takes two steps back. This could not have happened at a worse moment in history!
Posted by: wtf | Oct 25, 2006 3:38:58 PM
Toyness, I think the Supreme Court of New Jersey handled this in a way that Republicans can't reallyl use as campaign fodder.
Congratulations to all of you 'mos in New Jersey. Now let's get the rest of the blue states to follow suit. New York? Illinois? California? We're listening.
Posted by: Tread | Oct 25, 2006 3:40:46 PM
Scott; If you don't care about the elections in two weeks, then you are missing the meaning of how bad this is right now. The asshole republicans will now use gay marriage to reinforce that we must re-elect the same republicans to stop the homosexual agenda.
Posted by: wrong ideas | Oct 25, 2006 3:40:58 PM
We've been reading the ruling on an earlier post, Andy. A few things we've pointed out:
- The decision was 4-3; the dissent, written by the outgoing chief, wanted to legalize full marriage for gays under the banner of due process (equal protection of gays doesn't come up)
- The court leaves the legislature free to bar couples from other states from getting married in NJ
- And the legislature's got to get its shit in order in 180 days. If they pick civil unions over marriage, the court has left the door open to another challenge that such a division is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 3:41:18 PM
YAY!
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:41:59 PM
It is great
We get rights in NJ and the rovians do NOT!!!! or as little as possible get hot air for the anger balloon.
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
The rights themselves, not the name is important
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:42:14 PM
Tread: I don't believe that. The republican will definitely use this, there is no doubt about it!
Posted by: Toyness | Oct 25, 2006 3:42:47 PM
Please. Bush promised them a "Stop" to Gay Marriage. Yet again he fails. You think the Jesus freaks are going to rush to the ballot box this time? No. Another reason for them to stay home.
Posted by: Tony | Oct 25, 2006 3:43:08 PM
Tony good point
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:44:33 PM
I don't get why people expect life to happen in some sort of linear, elegant and painless manner. It is what it is and if the republicans and crazy radical christians have to dig deeper into their bag of tricks to distort and lie ....let them.
Remember, it was only when dogs and fire hoses were turned on black children in Mississippi on national tv, did moderate (i.e. white) americans taken notice and create an environment in which politicians felt they could act on behalf of civil rights. It's not as if segreation was not painful or evil before that, it's just that most americans needed to be jolted out of their it's not happening in my back yard so it's not that big of a deal complacency.
Perhaps there ares some paralells here. Celebrate the good news whenever, wherever and however it comes!
Posted by: hoya86 | Oct 25, 2006 3:44:53 PM
See the postings on the previous post. This decision is almost perfectly written by granting (or more specifically, not permitting denial of) all the rights and privileges of marriage without endangering those rights and privileges by calling them "marriage". This decision insulates our rights and privileges as same-sex couples from denial as an atttack on "marriage".
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:45:26 PM
To call this decision 4/3 (as many of the news sites such as CNN are) makes it sound like a split decision. But in fact the dissent by the chief justice and two other justices was only IN PART. The dissenters would have gone even farther than the majority to grant full rights to marriage without parsing the term. So essentially 7 out ot 7 justices on the court recognized at least the right to full realization of all legal benefits. That is no small event. This is progress.
Posted by: Jay | Oct 25, 2006 3:46:53 PM
The NJ Supreme Court did not rule in favor of gay marriage. They specifically ruled that gay people do not have a fundamental right under the Constitution to marry. The Court ruled that we should be afforded the same rights as opposite sex couples, but that can be accomplished by a separate but equal statutory scheme.
This is great news, but it is still less than what Mass. has.
Posted by: sam | Oct 25, 2006 3:49:28 PM
The Court identified two issues: (1)
"[W]hether committed same-sex couples have a consitutional right to the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples and, if so, (2) [W]hether they have a constitutional right to have their relationship recognized by the name marriage."
WE WON on the fundamental consitutional issue of ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. We lost on the issue that calling it a "marriage" is a constitutional right. This intelligently writted decision is tantamount to eating our cake and having it too (to use a legal term of art). The Court said to the legislature that it could call it anything it chose but it MUST provide ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. This seeming hair-splitting avoids the pitfall inherent in DOMA. The NJ legislators can still defend "marriage" but they cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:49:56 PM
Jay, that is awesome! I hadn't read that.
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:50:49 PM
What are all of you thinking? Of course the republicans are going to use this in the elections any way they can. Has everyone forgotten how nasty they fight?
Posted by: what? | Oct 25, 2006 3:52:08 PM
First this... and then Madonna on "Oprah"! What a truly blessed day.
Posted by: jeff | Oct 25, 2006 3:53:19 PM
What
Then they will have to re-tool all their propaganda to protect us from civil-unions....protect us from domestic partnerships...protect us from....."
The lack of the word "marriage" hampers them a bit.
When people are knee jerk reactionaries and or brainwashed....the inability to use the catch phrase "marriage" hampers it all
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:54:59 PM
How can the Republicans use this? It adheres to Bush's position on gay marriage - in support of civil unions but not the term "marriage." Most people are fine with the idea of affording gays equal rights but are a little uneasy with the idea of calling it marriage. The Republicans are going to have to work really hard to get some reaction out of this ruling, IMO.
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:56:02 PM