The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this week that same-sex couples and their families are entitled to the “same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples” under the state’s civil marriage laws. In a 4-3 split, the court rejected the claim that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to have their relationships recognized as “marriages.” Instead, it left that decision “to the democratic process,” ruling that the state legislature must now decide whether to “amend its marriage law to include same-sex couples” or provide these equal benefits, protections, and obligations “by some other means such as civil unions.” This decision is a positive step toward equality, and an affirmation of the importance of committed relationships and healthy families. (The case was brought by seven gay and lesbian couples who have been together from 14 to 35 years, five of whom have children.) The right wing is now trying to use the New Jersey decision to draw a contrast for voters in November’s election, and they’re right, there is a contrast. Some Americans believe in equal rights for all, and some — a shrinking minority — do not.
This week’s decision is consistent with the democratic will of New Jersey voters. The Court’s ruling specifically cites the state’s already “robust set of anti-discrimination protections for gay men and lesbians,” most of which were passed through the legislature. In 2004, state legislators enacted a strong domestic partnership law that granted same-sex couples many of the same financial and legal benefits as married couples. “But the way the laws were written, some rights were still assigned only to ‘married’ couples. The court decision today simply requires that those same-sex partnerships have all of the rights which are given to married couples.” A poll of New Jersey residents taken in June “found that 50 percent said they supported allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, while 44 percent were opposed.”
Conservatives are trying to portray the decision as the work of “radical activists.” But even President Bush, who believes the U.S. Constitution should be amended to discriminate against same-sex couples, has repeatedly said, “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.” Indeed, from a “purely legal perspective, the decision is of narrow and limited significance.” The justices state that their intention in this case was not to “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.” Like the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in 1999, their decision is not “binding on any courts outside New Jersey or relevant to any other state’s laws.” The ruling also involves only the protection and benefits of civil marriage — not religious ceremonies. “This case does not affect religious institutions’ freedom to decide if they want to honor and recognize same-sex unions.”Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Continue reading »