The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that same sex couples are entitled to all the same rights as different-sex couples. However, the Court left open the question of whether it ought to be called a “marriage.”
Decision text here at the NYTimes site.
Here’s an excerpt from the Syllabus to the opinion. It’s dry, but good:
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed 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 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.
Still doesn’t call it marriage, though, which is a shame.
This paragraph leaves the door open to a later interpretation that it could be called “marriage” though:
Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck
down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage “deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State.” Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental
right under our constitution.
Same sex couples wanting equal protection under the laws of a state now have an attractive option in New Jersey.
<
p>
But we have it better.
<
p>
Within the first 100 Days of a Patrick Administration (God willing), we should
<
p>
a) propose legislation to repeal the 1913 Racist law;
b) propose a tourism and economic development stimulus bill that expressly targets the same sex couple community, hailing our tolerance, our freedom and the beauty of our state.
<
p>
If gay and lesbian couples move here with their families, establish residence, get married, and eventually spend their wages here, we all win, even the bigots (who also are entitled to state services, right?).
<
p>
Romney fears being the “Las Vegas” of gay marriage? Heh. Give me people spending, earning, building community any day over job loss, population loss, loss of creativity.
<
p>
And look at it this way: New Jersey is a hub of pharmaceutical, life science and biotech industry. So are we. If we can lure the 10% of workers from those fields who are gay to Massachusetts for jobs, good for us. But it really is that important — big companies know that being gay-friendly means big bucks, and it’s a perfect opportunity for them to do well by doing good.
<
p>
Watch out, NJ, we ain’t conceding anything yet – we got the Big M on our side!
In other words, will the 1913 law (as long as it lasts) be an impediment to New Jersey couples marrying here, or will the NJ court’s ruling allow NJ couples — like those from Rhode Island — to marry here?
Something else from the Times article:
You think we’re energized to get out the vote? I’d love to see the level of activity in NJ the next two weeks.
<
p>
One point to be made would be the cost in tax dollars of having a completely separate system for handling what is other than the name no different than a system already in place.
<
p> – Dan
Though frankly, I still like the idea of renaming heterosexual partnerships “civil unions”….
My sister is in law school and her very conservative professor said gay marriage ought to be legal because it is making a mess of family law, it’s expensive and clogging up courts. I’ve heard pundits say that Kerry Healey is more in line with voters on gay marriage because she is for civil unions but not marriage for gays. Is that true? I thought we were so over that here. I mean, true I know alot of liberals but even so, I never hear anyone talk about it here, at least not in a negative way.
Healey is more in line with the nationwide view, but here a majority support equal marriage. This is why she couldn’t give a meaningful answer on this issue at the second debate. One other thing worth noting is that nobody seems to be losing their seats in the state legislature for supporting same-sex marriage, whereas a couple have been turned out at least partly for supporting the ban.
<
p>
A correction to my previous post — NJ state elections are in the odd years, so the what-to-call-it issue will be decided by people already elected. With maybe the occasional email from the citizenry.
<
p> – Dan
<
p>
Nah, just in Joisey – home of democracy!
We have a stronger Constitution.
<
p> – Dan
…coming less than two weeks before the congressional election. Just when we hoped the right would sit on the side-lines while we win a big majority in the House and Senate majority, the right gets a bolt of fear from NJ.
As per this.
We’ve gotta stop fearing reprisals for progess. So much gets mired, and contorted and delayed when you are afraid to step forward. That is how we ended up with “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and why so many Dems voted to go to war in Iraq, and why Kerry has only now grown the spine he needed during the 2004 campaign. Let the lash back. We’re right and they’re wrong, we will win.
I agree with Schulteraffe. There is never a time when challenging the status quo won’t create a backlash, and there will always be an impulse to wait. Though I don’t mean to conflate the two struggles, there’s a reason why MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail was really titled “Why We Can’t Wait.” it’s a relevant lesson for today.
The catchphrase of the religious right is that activist judges are going to redefine marriage. This is precisely what did not happen here. The definition of marriage is left to the legislators. The right wing will try to spin it — some already have — but ultimately the court imposed “civil unions” and not “marriage” and it doesn’t have the same impact.
<
p> – Dan
…that’s all. Don’t paint my post as advocating slow incremental change so gays can be afforded equal rights. But the timing of a few days COULD result in slower legistative votes for two years.
<
p>
I rather delay 14 days to afford a strong two years of progress in Congress. That’s all.
I did not intend to paint your post any color. I disagree with your position is all. I don’t think timing is ever a concern when civil rights are at issue, no matter how close we think we are to a different political vitory. I am advocating my position, not defining yours.
I agree with Frank. From a practical standpoint, it would have been much better if this decision came out on November 8th! LOL
<
p>
However, I don’t think this is going to be a big killer. Even if Evangelicals come out in slightly reduced numbers (instead of greatly reduced), progressives are wicked excited and the Republicans are in bad enough trouble that this shouldn’t cost us too many seats. We’re going to almost assuredly win back the house IF everyone does what they need to do and GOTV!
This is not going to last more than 24 hours in the 24 hour news cycle…it just isn’t new this time. It’s not going to change the election. Remember, the gay story for this election is about a lecherous Republican congressman chasing teenaged boys….
Although we have already seen the high-water mark in the gay marriage debate, several states still have anti gay marriage constitutional amendements on the ballot. You can be sure that the GOP has had plans for months to contact church pastors just before the election. This gives them more ammunition, and will be a factor in close congressional races.
Late this afternoon I rejected Gov. Romney’s call for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. See my press release.
Your web site says that you oppose federal intervention such as a constitutional amendment, and implies that you would oppose gay marriages being recognized by your church. But does “keeping the government out of our badrooms” mean that gay people should have the right to marry? Or should have it only if the people of the state vote that they should?
<
p>
I’m glad you oppose a federal amendment, at least, and wish that more Republicans agreed with you.
Since it seems unlikely, though admittedly I haven’t followed the New Jersey legislature too closely, that they’ll actually pass laws allowing same-sex marriage, and much more likely that they’ll go the civil unions route, I suggest we resurrect the term “barriage.”
What is this barriage of which you speak?
It’s a coinage by Chris Matthews, from a year and change ago, which got picked up here for a while, during the debate over the Travaligni-Lees amendment, which would have established civil unions.
There should be a real difference in the rights of same-sex couples and both sex couples, though: same-sex couples should not have a right to conceive children together. Or, put another way, scientists should not have a right to conceive a person using anything other than a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm, because doing it any other way requires genetic engineering and that puts undue risk on the person being created.
<
p>
The question of whether two people should be given a right to conceive together is and always has been exactly the same as the question of if they should be allowed to marry. Marriage is how we have always said “yes – you two may conceive together”, and denying marriage is how we have always said “no – you two may not conceive together”. There aren’t any couples that we allow to marry but don’t allow to conceive, and there aren’t any couples we don’t allow to conceive that we allow to marry (there are couples we don’t allow to conceive, like siblings, children, etc, and same-sex couples should be added to that list)
<
p>
This whole issue is being decided in ignorance, as though there were no such thing as same-sex conception, as though there will never be an issue of whether or not to allow same-sex conception. But we DO have to answer that question, so it is very frustrating that these cases continue to go on and on wasting time, when they will have to all be decided over again once we start thinking about same-sex conception. it’s time to think about it now.
This came up in Life Of Brian, where it was resolved that “We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.” So how to you stand on the Judean People’s Front vs. the People’s Front of Judea?
<
p> – Dan
But there are scientists working on ways for same-sex couples to conceive together (as in, have babies genetically related to both of them), using engineerred gametes derived from stem cells. We have to decide if that should be allowed or not. That would have to be answered the same way we answer the marriage question.
I swear I hadn’t read this when I wrote this.
<
p>
I’ll rate you a six for your wit and brilliance.
I gather that you are proposing a horse-trade on two unrelated issues:
<
p>
1. Human cloning. Which has, I gather, the theoretical potential of producing, among other things, a child genetically related to two parents who are both the same sex.
<
p>
2. Same Sex Marriage.
<
p>
The trade-off would be that, in return for some broad-based recognition of a marriage-like status for homosexuals, advocates for same sex marriage accept a ban on human cloning.
<
p>
Right?
<
p>
But, human cloning for reproductive purposes (as opposed to therapeytic purposes) is 1) as a technical matter, distant, and 2) advocated by no one. It might be illegal already, anyway. So, the SSM advocates give up something they haven’t advocated anyway, and the religious conservatives give up a) a huge base energizer, and b) what they consider to be a matter of faith, upon which hangs, among other things, their eternal salvation/damnation.
<
p>
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
<
p>
What is it about this particular form of cloning– creation of a child from two parents of the same sex– that makes it any more abhorrent than any other kind of reproductive cloning?
It’s no more abhorrent than other forms of non-egg and sperm conception. All forms would be banned by the proposed egg and sperm law.
<
p>
And it’s no so distant, one researcher in New Jersey (coincidentally?) predicts it is just three to five years off. GayCityNews took the story off their website when I started referring people to it, but you can still get google’s cached copy.
<
p>
And people do demand it, as you can tell by the fact that no one steps up to endorse this trade off. Is it because it gives up the name marriage, or because it gives up the conception rights? Well, they don’t say, but they want both.
<
p>
They (researchers, gay rights groups, media, politicians) are trying to keep it secret, keep the public ignorant of it until it is a reality and they can present a smiling baby girl named Jessica or something equally milquetoast. But the fact is, they are working on it and they demand a right to it. They demand that there be no restrictions to any reproductive technology, and that it be “safe and affordable”. Look how many groups signed off on this group’s statement of principles. I’ve talked to many people who insist on it, who say “that’s cool!” and “why not?”, and who say it is anti-gay to be opposed to same-sex conception. But I think all those people are just taking a knee-jerk position, and after some thought, they would agree that same-sex couples would be exploited and children would suffer if we allowed it, and that there are higher priorities that would be achieved if we prohibited it.
<
p>
You are right about conservatives not wanting to give up the base energizer, but that’s why liberals ought to offer up the compromise and challenge republicans to accept it. That would remove this issue which allows republicans to get votes from people that would otherwise support a populist democrat (if there were populist democrats that didn’t support gay marriage – but after this compromise, there would be! victory for populist democrats! end of war, etc). It’s true that if we leave this in the hands of extremists, it won’t get done. The popular middle, the rational normal people, have to become aware of it and make it happen.
Does anyone actually care about practical solutions here, or are ideology and dogma more important? Still waiting for someone, anyone, to look at this compromise solution in good faith and not reject it or ignore it. It starts here.
Who is holding back benefits and protections for committed same-sex couples, harming actual couples? BMG. You all really do have the power to make lives better for same-sex couples, give them more security and more respect, while at the same time regulating the wild marketplace that giant biotech companies want to profit from so that children are not put at risk and couples are not exploited. Those all seem like values that BMG should support, but instead you all are so bound to ideology and dogma that you are frozen, unable to think.
<
p>
Think! Genetic engineering so that same sex couples can have children together is not the highest priority for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples do not need to have the same right to conceive together that both-sex coupels need to have. Abandon the simple-minded equals sign and you wil make progress.
And as long as a same-sex couple’s marriage or civil union is not recognized nationally, where does anyone get the idea that a state granting marriage rights gives “full equality?” All a person in a Massachusetts marriage has to do is move to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage and it’s like he’s not married anymore. That makes the marriage pretty flimsy and unequal to both-sex marriages in a very tangible way. And even if the couple stays in Massachusetts, they can’t get federal survivor benefits or tax benefits, which also makes their marriage unequal in a very tangible way.
<
p>
So they aren’t going to have equal benefits and protection until they are federally recognized and recognized by all fifty states, even if they are called marraige. Does anyone see that happening anytime soon? The court is more conservative than ever, and state after state is passing definition of marriage laws.
<
p>
Who has the best plan to get civil unions in all fifty states and federal recognition for same-sex couples immediately? I do. It requires a small compromise on both sides, but gives each side something they desperately want and are having trouble getting. We get Congress to prohibit non egg and sperm conception as the Bioethics Council recomended they do, and at the same time recognize state civil unions as if they were marriages. Massachusetts would have to change same-sex marriages to civil unions, because they would no longer have a right to conceive together. Civil unions would be defined as being exactly like marriage in every way except not granting conception rights. That distinction is substantial enough that civil unions could be enacted even in states that have passed bans on marriages that include wording designed to ban civil unions that are marriage in all but name.