CNN-BREAKING: NJ Supreme Court-Gay Couples Same Rights As Heterosexuals

[kpete]

CNN: Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

Americablog
BREAKING: New Jersey Sup. Ct adopts George Bush position on gay relationships - some kind of civil unions is acceptable, says NO to "marriage"
by John in DC - 10/25/2006 03:15:00 PM

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. Here is the ruling.

Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution....

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....

We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. 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.

more at:http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-new-jersey-sup-ct-adopts.html

Atrios
Had to hunt for it, but here it is:

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.

...reading through, the majority decision seems to be that the state doesn't have to let gay people get married, just has to grant them the option to have all of the rights and benefits conferred by marriage.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_10_22_atrios_archive.html#116180376758246069

[babylonsister]

1. kpete, look at the LBN post on same topic.

:shrug: I know one is right.

[kpete]

5. hope I clarified..

[Maven]

2. Um, this is NOT correct

The court didn't say NO to same-sex marriage, they just said that the legislature must EITHER a) allow same-sex couples to marry, OR b) grant the same rights/benefits under a different "statutory scheme."

The court didn't say "no" to marriage.

[eleny]

3. Watching on CNN - Congrats!!!

K&R

[Warpy]

4. Civil unions? That's VICTORY, folks

Who cares what they call it, as long as gay couples can be recognized by the legal system as having all the rights and privileges as straight couples.

They're going to be surprised when straight couples start to opt for civil union. They've done so in Canada.

[Richard Steele]

6. Exactly. This seems to say that NJ MUST ALLOW marriage...

...just as long as they call it something else.

This is HUGH!!!!

[pnwmom]

10. It gives NJ two options. They may either construct a civil union

for gays that gives them exactly the same rights as straights -- but is not called "marriage."

Or the legislature may simply change the marriage laws to allow gays to marry.

So whether it is "huge" or not depends on whether you think civil unions are huge.

[mom cat]

17. They can call it a fire hydrant if it does not discriminate!

PS: You can always come to my state if you want to have something called a "marriage license". :bounce:

[Richard Steele]

19. That sums up my feelings.

I think the actual RIGHTS and EQUAL PROTECTIONS are much
more important than whatever title it's called by.

"A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet."

[pnwmom]

20. I agree. I think the Vermont model is fine, at this point.

It carries less of a chance of a backlash. And if most states enacted civil unions, it would be an easy step to marriage.

The problem now is in the federal law that doesn't recognize either.

[buddysmellgood]

22. Yes! My wife and I will gladly abandon our "marriage" in favor of any other

term describing the relationship so long as it is afforded to all Americans. If you want to be "married" find a church, club or cult and let them
tack a ceremony onto your legal document.

[bullimiami]

7. oh god. thats is. america is done for. hail satan. sodom and gommorah.

dogs and cats living together. men marrying men and having families. women marrying women and wearing mens clothes and no makeup. shameful.

ITS OVER.

[AndyA]

8. I kind of wish this hadn't happened until after the elections.

This is just what the right wingers need to get all whipped up into a frenzy over the "gay agenda". :eyes:

I can hardly wait to see how this is used against the progressives during the next two weeks.

Edit to add: I am happy with this ruling, I just wish the timing were different.

[pnwmom]

15. The Court is only requiring the state to give gays the same rights,

as they have in Vermont with civil unions. NJ doesn't have to call it "marriage." So at this moment, NJ is more of a civil union state.

[endarkenment]

9. 2 down 48 to go.

Eventually the novel idea that equal protection means equal protection might just catch on.

[pnwmom]

14. You're jumping the gun. NJ could still go the way of Vermont

and decide to enact civil unions. The legislature has 6 months to decide.

If you're pro-civil unions, then you can say 3 down, 47 to go.

[Reverend_Smitty]

18. From what I've heard civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage...

right? I don't know why heterosexuals have such problems with the word marriage, this is really a semantics issue. I've read poll numbers in NJ where a majority support both civil unions and marriage but the support for civil unions is much larger, I don't get it. If they are both the same thing, why do their opinions change? I can understand the perspective from gay people who want to call it the same thing as straight people because it is a matter of equal rights.

[pnwmom]

21. I think it's because of traditional religious teachings that the

majority of heterosexuals accept.

But whatever the reason, I think that we might have made faster progress, really, if we had all just pushed for civil unions all along. I think the backlash after the MA decision -- and especially after the flurry of short-lived actions in Oregon, California, and New York -- may have set us back a number of years because of the way the issue DID affect the 2004 election.

If Repubs hadn't gained so much influence in 2004, we could have many more states with civil unions by now. And from there, it would have been a much easier step toward marriage . . . or maybe we would have decided it didn't really matter.

Because until the federal law gets changed, nothing will ever really be equal.

[Bluebear]

25. The issue did NOT affect the 2004 election.

That has been debunked over and over again.

[endarkenment]

24. NJ can call it whatever they want.

However 'it' has to be identical to the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage. The court was quite clear about that.

[madmax]

11. Ok... you guys!!!

No more Joisey jokes, k? :evilgrin:

We're not such a bad state after all. :kick:

[ourbluenation]

12. snaps for all my gay peeps! This is a wonderful victory for y'all.

:kick:

[pnwmom]

13. To clear up the confusion

what the opinion says is that the legislature has two choices.

Either amend the marriage statutes to allow gays to marry.

OR create a new civil union structure that gives gays the exact same rights -- but doesn't call it "marriage."

Either way, the new or amended legislation has to be completed in 6 months.

13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)
14. In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society's changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64)
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)

[abluelady]

16. NJ was Home and Now VA Is

VA is trying to put a marriage amendment in the constitution. Sure hope this helps keep it out. I am so proud of NJ. Wonder if I will ever be able to say that about Virginia.

[bigwillq]

23. Kick

:bounce:

Thank you, NJ!