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.
Hey, nervous nellies...the decision was clearly carefully thought out in order to benefit gay rights and limit any effect on the elections. It's pure good news. It is not as easy for any right-wingers to yell, "Do you want, uh, the right to civil unions, like, uh, Jersey?" It's good news. Andy, you're 100% right that this decision is all good and its negative impact on races is next to nil. If anyone loses a race, it is not going to be due to this decision. (Let alone in NJ, where the vast majority of the state is cool with civil unions and against constitutional anti-marriage amendments...and where, just for good measure, Menendez is on record against gay marriage.)
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 25, 2006 3:58:37 PM
dred scott and plessy v ferguson must have seemed like such solid decisions in their time. but along came brown et al and the world changed.
history and justice have a way of catching up to one another. i've been married to my partner for 21 yrs (as i've said many times, call it whatever you want, it's a marriage) and i'm willing to walk in the shadows of opinion and elections and rovian darkness a while longer because i know, as dr. king knew, that the light will come.
maybe it's what i have to believe, but i do believe it. for my two sons, their spouses and my granddaughter, i celebrate that little light shed today in new jersey. and in time, they will be able to embrace it.
Posted by: MALCOLM | Oct 25, 2006 3:59:22 PM
No! Not "should be" afforded the rights of "marriage" but MUST BE AFFORDED ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, call it what you will. As Jay pointed out, this is actually a unanimous opinion in favor of constitutional protection under the equal protection clause of all the rights and privileges of "marriage" without the consitutional right (as yet) to call it that (three judges would have required that term). Congrats Zeke, Jimbo, et al. This is a huge step forward. Will it remain a political wedge issue. Undoubedly, but the opinion carefully requires (consitutionally mandates) all the rights and privileges while permitting the NJ legislature to continue to defend "marriage". A brilliant opinion.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:59:44 PM
Hoyass is right. Nothing is neat, clean or linear. Right-wing Christianist Republicans may now get out and vote, but there were really no assurances that they were going to stay home.
Independents and fired-up Democrats will make the difference in the Midterm Elections, and the NJ Supreme Court ruling in favour of full rights for gays and lesbians won't change the fact that moderate Republicans and Independents are really pissed off at the state of the nation. Just make sure you get out and vote, and do what you can to get those you know and love to vote, too.
This old cow is going home to NJ tonight and telling his farmer that we're getting engaged. No more free milk--I want a blender!
Posted by: LiamOg | Oct 25, 2006 4:00:12 PM
As a resident of NJ and currently with my partner for almost 7 years, I'm pleased with this decision. If they can remove the label of "marriage" from equal rights for same-sex couples, the idea may be more palatable to some. I mean new jersey already has domestic partnerships, maybe they can just extend those benefits and rights to be equal to "marriage"
Posted by: Scott | Oct 25, 2006 4:00:56 PM
P.S. I do agree the right will use this decision. However, wise up: The right has always used gay marriage and this decision does NOT up the ante in any real way. So yes, the right will hammer it hard as they can to drown out all their scandals and the country's general dissatisfaction with George W. Bush's face...use it, yes. But it will not be effective.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 25, 2006 4:03:20 PM
wrong ideas--what an apt handle. if you think we can secure equal protection under the law by HIDING, you're quite wrong.
the idea that gay-bashing re-elected Bush has been thoroughly debunked. maybe this will swing a few close races, but it's not going to chance the outcome: we'll retake the House, but not the Senate. That's how it was gonna be at 2PM this afternoon, and it's how it's gonna be at 4PM this evening.
Posted by: scott | Oct 25, 2006 4:04:53 PM
Liamog
LOL
roflmao
LOL
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 4:06:42 PM
Bravo NJ.
Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 25, 2006 4:09:31 PM
scott, I think we will take the senate as well
We are now up to 9 contested senate seats with 4 of them already in our favor.
The field a few months ago was no real plan to take the senate this year....then it moved up to a possibility....then it moved to 7 seats in contecntion...and now Arizona and NV have moved into dark horse would be total upsets but neck and neck within the margin of error....9 in play can turn into 6 gained
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 4:09:46 PM
scott; why all of a sudden is everyone giving the republicans the benifit of the doubt on this matter, and acting like they will take the high road? When they never do, they fight as mean and nasty as they can, ALWAYS! I hope you are right about the elections, but I do not think you are.
Posted by: don't believe it | Oct 25, 2006 4:10:25 PM
I question the timing®.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 25, 2006 4:15:35 PM
Have those of you who are screaming bloody murder about the affect that this is going to have on the mid-term election even read the decision?
There is nothing in it that the Republicans can gain traction on. They would have to grossly misrepresent its findings in order to stir up the base. Does ANYONE here believe that they wouldn't have done that anyway, regardless of the ruling?
This was the absolute BEST possible ruling we could have hoped for. It is exactly what I was hoping for and more.
The nomenclature issue will be remedied sometime down the road when people begin to realize that gay marriages will not lead to the destruction of civilization and all things holy.
I can tolerate waiting for the name; I can’t tolerate waiting for the rights.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:19:51 PM
Meanwhile, in VA they are going to wipe out DP laws and company non-discrimination benefits policies with a state constitutional amendment.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:22:55 PM
As a lifelong, proud, Southerner it KILLS me to say this but:
GOD BLESS NEW JERSEY!!
Geesh, I'm gonna need mint to get the taste of that outa my mouth! :)
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:23:50 PM
"I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so. … I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." George W. Bush 2004
I don't see how the right wing Republicans can spin this as a negative when their hero has specifically endorsed it.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:27:55 PM
Oh, and with all the language in the ruling regarding "changing attitudes" since the DP law was passed in 2003, I wonder to what extent BBM influenced this decision. Could something so stark influence the court? Could anything else have made as much a difference in three years? (I agree that they also include a timeline from 1947 and another from 1970, however they are overruling the state DP law as unconstitutional based on changing attitutes.)
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:28:15 PM
Rejoice my people! We have a unanimous opinion that ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" MUST be made available to our community. Three of the seven judges would have gone even further but that might have endangered our new constitutionally protected rights and privileges by being construed as an attack on marriage. We are reaching the point where most European countries have been for many years. There is a mandatory civil component to marriage that conveys all the state-protected rights and privileges and a "spiritual" component that is granted by an optional religious ceremony. I can live without the grace conveyed by the sacrament of marriage just as I can live without the grace conveyed by the sacrament of "last rights" (formerly known as "extremeunction"). That is a matter of faith. What is not permissible under the Court's opinion is for the state to deny me any of the rights and privileges of "marraige" because I have a same-sex relationship. Rejoice! The political sting of "same-sex marriage" has been reduced by a mere (a I believe temporary) inability to call it a "marriage". this has actually clarified the issue by making it one of basic human rights and not confusing it with matters of religious faith.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 4:29:18 PM
Hmmm...perhaps the NJ legislature will get the seperation of church and state correct this time and get out of the "marriage business". They should declare that "Marriage is best left to religous institutions and that the state, in it's concern for it's citizen's wellbeing can only issue civil unions-the same thing for all people." We could only hope. I know that the conservative right would scream bloody murder, but our founding fathers in their infinite wisdom recognized that the inherent dangers in mixing religious institutions and their inherent bigotry and government used such phrases such as "all men(people)are created equal" What a radical idea! Let the churches of the world have their ceremonies and let the state treat their citizens equally and let's not mix the two. Way to go, Supreme court! You basically nailed it. Now it's up to the legislature to get it right.
Posted by: Bob | Oct 25, 2006 4:30:46 PM
And Zeke buddy, (to quote a wise woman) "You've had worse things in your mouth." But now you have rights and privileges. Believe me, we will all look back upon this day as a major victory for our families.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 4:33:55 PM
Bob: well, you actually have it backwards, religions got into the marriage business after governments did, particularly in Europe.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:36:03 PM
When I got the CNN Breaking News Alert, I was in pure disbelief. I agree with two steps forward, one step back but am grateful we have been able to take the two steps forward.
Posted by: Blair | Oct 25, 2006 4:37:11 PM
Rudy, Who is this wise woman and what does she know about what I've had in my mouth?
In the famous words of our 42nd President, "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" ;)
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:40:06 PM
I agree with Anon: it is the churches that need to remove their influence on civil discourse and licensing. This is why there is a separation of Church and State.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 25, 2006 4:42:03 PM
Tom,
NJ Supreme Court justices must resign at age 70. The chief justice turns 70 this week, I believe, so the decision had to be made before she left the bench. Her replacement is set for swearing in on Thursday.
Posted by: LiamOg | Oct 25, 2006 4:43:50 PM