The NJ State Supreme court just
ruled that the state must provide all of the rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. The decision gives the state legislature 180 days to either modify the marriage laws to allow gay marriage or to grant
all of the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples. In that sense it is similar to the Vermont decision. You may recall NJ already has a Domestic partnership act, but this is insufficient in granting rights to same-sex couples, as we saw from the Laurel Hester story. The decision was 4-3, but the dissenters in an opinion of outgoing chief justice Poritz took an even more pro-marriage equality stance. So really, the decision to grant same-sex couples
all of the rights and prviliges of marriages was unanimous.
The fight for full marriage equality now goes to the New Jersey State Legislature.
From Justice Albin's majority opninion:
To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
The rest of the quotes are from the syllabus that precedes the opinion.
The court has held that the Domestic Partnerships Act fails to provide equal treatment for same-sex couples.
9. The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and
married opposite-sex couples. Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex
domestic partners are also borne by their children. Further, even though same-sex couples are provided fewer
benefits and rights by the Act, they are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership
than opposite-sex couples entering a marriage. (pp. 43-48)
While the ruling does not legalize same-sex marriage in NJ, it does require that ALL of the benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples. (Jeff Greenfield just read this excerpt on CNN and said it was from the opinion. It isn't, it is from the syllabus, which is not part of the opinion of the court.)
10. 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. (p. 48)
There will not be a rush for same-sex weddings in the next week. The state legislature has 180 days to either change the marriage laws to allow same-sex marriage or give it some other name. It is full marriage equality by whatever name.
15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full
constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory
structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)
On the difference between marriage and civil unions, wclathe gives a good
analysis
we understand that separate legal structures called 'civil unions' are still not the same rights and benefits?
Marriages are portable (or should be) between states and federally.
Civil unions aren't.
I know because of DOMA and state amendments even same-sex marriage isn't portable, but... it has a stronger chance of making the argument that they should be if they are marriage. Civil Unions will always be bound within the state
That's why the fight in this state isn't quite over yet. The legislature hasn't chosen between full marriage equality and civil unions, and
Garden State Equality is leading the fight to make sure that they opt for full marriage equality. Assembly speaker pro tempore Wilfredo Carbaballo and assemblymen Brian Stack and Reed Gusciora (my assemblyman!) have
introduced a bill for full marriage equality in NJ.
The opinion has been politically defanged, because it allows the separate civil union structure. The
FULL rights arrangement provided by the NJ Supreme court is supported by a majority of Americans, let alone New Jerseyans. If Kean overreaches on this issue, he will look like Bret Schundler and he will lose.
I don't buy concern trolling about this hurting our chances in the election. I have
said before that I think the effects of this decision will be limited to the marriage amendments on the ballot in WI, CO, and VA:
I do think this might hurt efforts to defeat ballot intiatives in Washington, Colorado, and Virginia. If the Sup Ct. upholds the lower court ruling, it will give Fair Wisconsin and Commonwealth Coalition another talking point against the amendments in WI and VA.
Well, I might have been wrong. This decision, if played right, should not have any negative effect for opponents of the WI, VA, and CO ballot questions, and it might even help defeat those questions.
Reactions:
The Assembly Republican leader Alex DeCroce issued a
press release accusing the Supreme Court of legislating from the bench and declared that he will vote for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Assemblyman Richard Merkt
called the court "clueless." Republican Assemblyman Guy Gregg
is calling for the legislature to vote on such an amendment that he is sponsoring.
So did assemblywoman Allison Littell McHose. But perhaps the
most absurd Republican reaction comes from a 26th district assembly candidate, Jay Webber:
In an effort to ease the alleged discomfort of gay couples with the legal support for traditional marriage, the Court has inflicted far greater pain on the millions of New Jerseyans who abide by and cherish the institution with which our ancestors entrusted us. In that way, this was a particularly intolerant decision.
Senate Republican leader Leonard Lance issued a somewhat more sensitive
press release, though he still called for a constitutional prohibition.
Republican State Chair Tom Wilson
is trying to make this an issue in the Senate race, and in his press release he called on Corzine and Menendez to "make it clear that they support taking the steps necessary to defend" their positions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Democratic Assembly speaker pro tempore Wilfredo Carbaballo and Democratic Assemblymen Brian Stack and Reed Gusciora (my assemblyman!) have
introduced a bill for full marriage equality in NJ.
DEVELOPING...