The Extreme Christian right will blow a gasket over this ruling. Expect a heavy dose of judge bashing coming soon.
The decision: "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 samesex 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 samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."
Which means that gay couples may end up with civil unions rather than marriages, which is kind of crappy, but in the end this is a big step forward.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled today that denying committed same-sex couples the same rights and benefits that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution.
HELD: 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 samesex
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 samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
George Bush came out in support of gay civil unions before the 2004 election. He believes gay couples should get the benefits of marriage, but not marriage itself. The New Jersey Sup Ct just ruled the same. The rules specifically says NO to gay marriage, but YES to providing some kind of benefits to gay couples. That is George Bush's position as enunciated prior to the 2004 elections.
My initial judgment is that this outcome is good, but not good enough. To grant all the rights and benefits of marriage, but to refuse to use the word to refer to same-sex unions, reveals the continuation of discriminatory and indefensible attitudes. Since in fact it will be marriage, then call it that.
Aside from the atavistic racists among us, do we refer to African-Americans as "compatriots" or "colleagues," rather than as "citizens"? It's the same issue.
Do it right. Call it marriage
