New Jersey Marriage Ruling

[morningrob]

The NJ Supreme Court sort of just allowed gay marriage. Basically it said that all of the rights that straight married couples have must be given to same sex couples. However, the actual name of what to call the union of same sex couples is up to the legisture.

[keltic63]

no not Dash, our beloved, it's our hopes that have been dashed!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/...s/gay_marriage

What's your opinion? Will the NJ legislature create equality for lgbt couples?

[morningrob]

In one sense it is interesting about how the media is presenting this ruling. I found out about the ruling from the local TV station- I live in NJ. The title on the web page says "Court Affirms Gay Marriage."
THerefore, it is helpful to read the actual decision. The actual decision says that there is no compelling state interest not to allow same sex couples to marry based on the NJ and Federal constitutions. It notes that changes in attitudes over the years makes it the court's opinion that the argument that heterosexual marriages protects the institution or is for the children is wrong.
In essence the court said that it is irrelevant what the institution is called as long as the rights are the same. This is a little bit different from the Yahoo article that you cited. In other words, the court essentially told the state to get over itself.

[suzer1013]

Well, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't care if my partnership is called a "marriage" or a "civil union" or something else -- if it carries the same rights and benefits of marriage, they can call it a "rhinoceros" (to steal from another thread) for all I care. However, if it's really the same thing, why not call it marriage? The reason why is homophobia -- maybe if they call it something else, the fundies won't get their knickers in such a twist (at least, I think that's their reasoning behind using different names for the same thing).

Whether they call it marriage or civil union or domestic partnership, etc., it still looks like bliss from here in Georgia. Congrats to NJ GLBT folks!

Susan

[morningrob]

It should be noted that as of this time it is called nothing. In other words, the court said that the title is the the proper area of the leg. branch. As of this time we do not know what it is going to be called. Perhaps we will neither have marriage nor civil unions but rhino. (OK, not going to spell that out becasue it is too difficult to spell out) In other words, the legislature may decide to just call it marriage or not, nobody knows yet.

The following is the link to the supreme court decision
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opi...me/a-68-05.pdf

[keltic63]

It's interesting that the ruling/nonruling allows the court to "wash their hands" of it. I think the court was trying to avoid being labeled as "activist judges"

[suzer1013]

I haven't had time to read the entire opinion, but what I did read gives me much hope. Basically, they're saying "call it whatever you want, but you must give the same rights and benefits." This is so nice to read, after the travesty of the NY opinion earlier this year (or was it last year - I've lost all sense of time!).

"A rose by any other name...."

Susan

[BruceChris]

If a union had exactly the same definition and rights as marriage, in New Jersey, it could still be disallowed as not being technically the same thing in any political jurisdiction in the U.S., or in the world, unless there were a test case, or unless legislation were passed, one jurisdiction at a time.

Until I read Keltic's link, I was unaware that a civil union in Vermont was "exactly" the same thing as marriage.

Unfortunately, it seems that we need the title "Marriage" every bit as much as the 'phobes fear our having it.


Edit. But N.J. and Vermont couples could, and can as of now, get married in Massachusetts and lay claim to the legal title of "married". This could possibly give gay couples from those states critical standing, and allow the gay rights movement to get it's foot just that much furhter in the door. I am still looking for legal advice on this end; do we have any lawyers out there who might express an opinion on this?

Peace, Love, and Hope, Bruce Chris

[morningrob]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I think the court was trying to avoid being labeled as "activist judges"

I disagree with this statement. This court has been known to be highly activist. It is even said that the chief justice wanted this decision to be her last decision before she retired as to be a defining part of her legacy.

My own personal opinion as to why the corts left it to the legislative branch is that it did not want to influence the election in a few weeks.

[Giancarlo]

Just another half measure in my opinion. I don't know what is wrong with this country. In Spain we granted full marriage to gay and lesbian couples. This country really treats us as second class citizens. Civil unions aren't, and never will be the same thing. They are a half measure intended to appease. I'm sorry but I'm not falling for it.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by morningrob

I disagree with this statement. This court has been known to be highly activist. It is even said that the chief justice wanted this decision to be her last decision before she retired as to be a defining part of her legacy.

My own personal opinion as to why the corts left it to the legislative branch is that it did not want to influence the election in a few weeks.

fair enough. I posted that statement before I had a good handle on the ramifications of the decision.

[Mia14]

Originally Posted by morningrob

The following is the link to the supreme court decision
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opi...me/a-68-05.pdf

Here's a quote from that link that I adore:

"At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples.
Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the
unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.""

[Dash]

Separate is not equal.

Brown v. Board of Education taught us that.

They know separate is not equal.

And that's why they prefer it for us.

I want equal.

Period.

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by Dash

Separate is not equal.

Brown v. Board of Education taught us that.

They know separate is not equal.

And that's why they prefer it for us.

I want equal.

Period.

I want equal, too. However, I also see this as a long journey, of many steps. NJ has come amazingly far, especially when compared to other states who are codifying anti-gay bigotry into law and even into state constitutions.

I wish we could gain equal rights with one fell swoop. I wish the Supreme Court would simply decide it unconstitutional for heteros and homos to be treated differently when it comes to marriage. What do they say -- if wishes were horses?

I do not see the NJ decision as a bad thing. Now, our GLBT brothers and sisters in NJ will have the same rights and benefits as married heteros. No matter what the NJ legislature ends up calling it (remember, it is not ruled out that they could call it "marriage"), I rejoice that we are a step closer to equality.

I fear sometimes that an "all or nothing" approach will get us nothing. I am frustrated, too, at what seems like such a clear example of inequality, and I get angry over how long it is taking our country to bestow the same rights on GLBT folks as heteros. (In fact, I know I've expressed that anger and frustration on these boards before! ) But the fact is that the NJ court insisted that same-sex couples get the same rights and benefits -- the only difference is in what will be the term used to describe same sex marriages. ALL the rights and benefits folks -- that's a lot!

At this moment, I will rejoice and be glad. We will continue to work toward full equality. Perhaps it's just from my vantage point here in Georgia that this decision seems so positive (I was pleased with the positive way in which the court viewed same-sex relationships -- the court seemed very enlightened compared to, say, the good ole boys down here in "Jawjuh"). Or perhaps I'm just in a good mood today, for some inexplicable reason. It's much better than my recent negativity and surliness.

Blessings...

Susan

[Zerbie]

What is up with the timing here?? I'm sitting at home in Arizona listening to right-wing radio proclaim the threat of judicial activism proclaiming the NJ decision is precisely the reason why we "need" Prop 107 before "activist judges" completely re-define marriage and "force" 'counterfeit marriage' on the people. In other words, they are milking this for every ounce of panic and reaction factor they can muster. Why couldn't this decision wait 3 weeks? There was no way they were going to avoid influencing the election if handing down the decision now.

Do you have any idea how much I hope this timing doesn't tip the scales in favor of the opposition, not only in AZ but in all the other states battling these initiatives? Latest poll showed our NO campaign ahead with 56% of polled voters OPPOSED to 107. I hope like MAD that doesn't change.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Do you have any idea how much I hope this timing doesn't tip the scales in favor of the opposition, not only in AZ but in all the other states battling these initiatives? Latest poll showed our NO campaign ahead with 56% of polled voters OPPOSED to 107. I hope like MAD that doesn't change.

I get your point Zerbie and hope that this decision doesn't tip the vote against your efforts.

There are quite a few articles at NYTimes.com this morning dealing with this issue, one interesting thing being that Republican-appointed judges being in favor of the appellation of 'marriage' while some Democractic-appointed ones were not. Just goes to show that decisons always don't fall along party lines.

I am with Dash on this one: separate is not equal. And I fear that this only concretizes (I seriously doubt that the word 'marriage' will prevail though I am open to being dead wrong!)) matters further. Liberal's perceptions in this matter may prove to be prescient.

[BruceChris]

And Suzer, we love you, but I want to go with Dash on this one. And, this still does not give us the very important financial advantages of being married for federal tax benefits, or Social Security survivor benefits, or inheritance rights. I feel a need to repeat myself here, but I really want some answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a civil union has exactly the same definition and rights as marriage, in New Jersey and Vermont, it could still be disallowed as not being technically the same thing as marriage. This could be true in any political jurisdiction in the U.S., or in the world, unless there were a test case, or unless legislation were passed, one jurisdiction at a time. Lawyers just love to pull this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, it seems that we need the title "Marriage" every bit as much as the 'phobes fear our having it.

But N.J. and Vermont couples could, and can as of now, get married in Massachusetts and lay claim to the legal title of "married". This could possibly give gay couples from those states critical standing, and allow the gay rights movement to get it's foot just that much further in the door. I am still looking for legal advice on this end; do we have any lawyers out there who might express an opinion on this?

And N.J. and Vermont couples can do this right now, they don't have to wait for the N.J. legislature to do anything.

Zerbie, you are so right. We may have shot ourselves in the foot here.

Peace, Love, and Hope, Bruce Chris
__________________

[Zerbie]

Oh yeah, I'd'a been all for civil unions granting the same rights as marriage without the name, except for the point that y'all have raised here - that such status can be challenged as not "really" a marriage, and used against the couple (such as in custody cases, for one example). That's why I am ultimately for complete marriage equality (that and general principles too, of course.)

I just SO lament this crappy timing. All those marriage amendments passed in 2004 in large part as a reaction to Massachussetts - the last thing we need right now is to solidy losses in 8 states because of this decision. Which I agree is a step in the right direction. It's just sad that so many people react to it like the end of the world and a crying shame that I even thought to react with worry instead of joy that NJ is moving in the right direction. But boy oh boy did our local bad news CAP react to the decision as if the apocalypse was starting.

[dewdrop_world]

Interesting viewpoint from Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102600537.html

No Dissent on Equal Rights

By Andrew Cohen
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 26, 2006; 9:27 AM

Supporters of same-sex marriage, no doubt a little disappointed that the New Jersey Supreme Court didn't go a smidge further and order the state legislature to recognize same-sex marriage as such, should take solace nonetheless in the language, rationale and voting math of the ruling. This was a very good day for their cause, even if they didn't get precisely what they wanted.

I'm sure that most people, when they saw that the case came down to a 4-3 vote, figured that the four-Justice majority represented the Court's more liberal or progressive wing. I also suspect that most folks figured that the three dissenting justices were against the idea of same-sex marriage in general and against the idea of equal rights for same-sex couples in particular. Wrong. Those three dissenters weren't the Scalia, the Thomas and the Alito of this story. Turns out they were the ones who would have immediately conferred upon same-sex couples in New Jersey the right to be married.

This means that the majority ruling in Lewis and Winslow et al v. Harris represents the Court's most conservative voice -- and it also means that every single one of the seven justices believes today that New Jersey may not discriminate against same-sex couples when they decide to commit their lives to one another. For same-sex advocates, that is progress by any measure, especially when compared with the way similar arguments have been received by high court justices in other states. Wednesday's ruling isn't perfect. But it could have been a whole lot worse.

Part of the reason for the result here was the difference in tone of the legal debate. New Jersey's long and distinguished record of recognizing civil rights seeped into the arguments offered by the Attorney General's office. For example, tucked away on Page 48 of the 90-page ruling, the Court's majority noted that the "State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children." New Jersey's decision not to make these arguments made seem like common sense to you. But it is an astonishingly different argument from the one made, say, by New York state attorneys when they fought their battle over this soil earlier this year.

In the New York same-sex marriage case, the Court's majority made a number of conclusions based upon the arguments of state attorneys. For example, the New York Justices declared that: "The Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships." New York's highest court also stated: "The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." Not surprisingly, given this rationale, same-sex marriage proponents did not fare as well in June in New York as they did Wednesday in New Jersey.

There was more in the New Jersey decision to mark its distinction from most of what we have seen before in same-sex marriage law. On page 54 of the ruling, for example, the Court's majority wrote: "In protecting the rights of citizens of this State, we have never slavishly followed the popular trends in other jurisdictions, particularly when the majority approach is incompatible with the unique interests, values, customs, and concerns of our people." The four Justices in the majority made this observation in response to the best argument that New Jersey state lawyers had made against affording the same rights to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples now get-- that it would make New Jersey's marriage laws different from almost every other state.

And on page 51 of the ruling came the most poignant passage of all -- one that ought to make same-sex marriage supporters grateful, if not completely satisfied, and one that ought to make same-sex marriage foes worried about what might happen the next time this issue makes to this court. "Gays and lesbians work in every profession, business, and trade," the majority Justices wrote. "They are educators, architects, police officers, fire officials, doctors, lawyers, electricians, and construction workers. They serve on township boards, in civic organizations, and in church groups that minister to the needy. They are mothers and fathers. They are our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends." Imagine what the dissenters would have said.

It's true that the result of Lewis and Winslow et al v. Harris for same-sex marriage proponents isn't the total victory that same-sex marriage advocates had hoped it would be. I'm fairly sure they are a little worried now about all the language near the end of the majority ruling that oozed judicial "deference" to the legislature as it begins now to pick up the pieces left by the case. And now while fighting this rearguard action they almost may have to contend with a push by same-sex marriage foes to amend the state constitution so that Wednesday's ruling would be rendered obsolete.

But it's not like they'll be fighting these next fights alone. In the shadows of the coming debate, lurking like the Ghosts of Landmark Rulings Past, will be each of the seven justices of the state's highest court. And any legislator who feels as though the Court has gone as far as it will ever go, and will go no further in requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage, will be venturing forth at his or her own peril. End result aside, this is a Court that is unanimous about equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Andrew Cohen writes Bench Conference and this regular law column for washingtonpost.com. He is also CBS News Chief Legal Analyst. His columns for CBS can be found online here.

[Vanessa White]

I am not usually very politically savvy, although maybe I should be, but, I am amazed that every single justice, all seven of those individuals, agreed that gay couples cannot be discriminated against/ not given the same rights as heterosexual couples. To me, even though it does not clear up the "marriage" vs. "civil union" discussion, encourages me about what we are entitled to as couples, as per interpretation of the constitution. That seemed to override conservative and liberal thinkers alike. Without diminishing the impact of having marriage vs. civil unions, I am not sure how I feel about having the whole enchilada. Not that I wouldn't want it, for sure, but I am at least encouraged by this step. Timing? Again, my politically un-savvy self wondered the same thing, Zerb, not sure for the same reasons or not. WHy two weeks before elections that could be quite significant to the future of our communities, and this country? Hoping to anger those that don't want it for sure?