Same-Sex Marriage in NJ

[EBU]

From CNN: New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. "Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples," the decision said.

NJ, unlike Massachusetts, allows out-of-state couples to marry.

Implications for NJ? Will this ruling stand?

 

[Cleon]

Finally, score one for the good guys.

How much you wanna bet Bush & Co. try to use this as an election gimmick to rally the fundies?

 

[Wheezebucket]

I was just watching Fox News a few minutes ago, and this wasn't the conclusion they came to (though they kept saying over and over that the document was 90 pages and they hadn't read it all yet). They said that the court decided it wasn't up to them.

I came online to read more on it, but dialup is making that fairly difficult.

 

[brodski]

You know, it's been almost a year since what effectively amounts to gay marriage was legalized in my country, I'm still waiting for society to crumble, you know, with Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

 

[This Guy]

You know, it's been almost a year since what effectively amounts to gay marriage was legalized in my country, I'm still waiting for society to crumble, you know, with Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

I'm sure it will come to pass, before this generation ends

 

[Darth Rotor]

Finally, score one for the good guys.

How much you wanna bet Bush & Co. try to use this as an election gimmick to rally the fundies?

I am betting the over on someone playing the "activist judiciary" card very soon.

DR

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

From CNN: New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I was just watching Fox News...They said that the court decided it wasn't up to them.

A little from column A, a little from column B. The court said they should be allowed to be married, but leave it up to the state legislature to define what marriage would be.

 

[back2basics]

OMG you can almost hear families breaking up all over NJ! This is the end of the family, we are all going to hell in a basket!

 

[drkitten]

A little from column A, a little from column B. The court said they should be allowed to be married, but leave it up to the state legislature to define what marriage would be.

From CNN:

New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

But the court left it to the Legislature to determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed the best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Apparently, the NJ Supreme Court decided that Equal Rights demands some access to the benefits. But they left it up to the legislature whether that means Massachusetts-style marriage or Vermont-style civil unions. As soon as I can access the the ruling online, I'll post a link and add more comments.

ETA: Apparently Bozo beat me to the punch

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why does New Jersey's Supreme Court hate America?

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Link to full ruling

The decision was 4-3. The minority opinion was both in part a separate concurring opinion and in part a dissent. They agree that there is a fundamental "Equal Rights" right to the benefits of marriage, but they also see a fundamental due process right based in the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 1, which mandates that the defendants be accorded the right to actual marriage, rather than allowing the legislature to define a lesser civil union status.

The first paragraph of the syllabus of the majority opinion details the not-exactly-fence-sitting nature of the decision:

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 same-sex 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 same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

Quotes from the Justice Albin's majority opinion:

In conducting this equal protection analysis, we discern two distinct issues. The first is whether committed same-sex couples have the right to the statutory benefits and privileges conferred on heterosexual married couples. Next, assuming a right to equal benefits and privileges, the issue is whether committed same-sex partners have a constitutional right to define their relationship by the name of marriage, the word that historically has characterized the union of a man and a woman. In addressing plaintiffs’ claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State.
Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-4. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

Perhaps more significantly, New Jersey’s Legislature has been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), L. 1991, c. 519, New Jersey became the fifth state See footnote 15 in the nation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “affectional or sexual orientation.” See footnote 16 See N.J.S.A. 10:5-4. In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians. See also Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 334 (“[T]he overarching goal of the [LAD] is nothing less than the eradication of the cancer of discrimination.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S. Ct. 75, 102 L. Ed.2d 51 (1988). In 2004, the Legislature added “domestic partnership status” to the categories protected by the LAD. L. 2003, c. 246.
The LAD guarantees that gays and lesbians, as well as same-sex domestic partners, will not be subject to discrimination in pursuing employment opportunities, gaining access to public accommodations, obtaining housing and real property, seeking credit and loans from financial institutions, and engaging in business transactions. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12. The LAD declares that access to those opportunities and basic needs of modern life is a civil right. N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.
Additionally, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is outlawed in various other statutes. For example, the Legislature has made it a bias crime for a person to commit certain offenses with the purpose to intimidate an individual on account of sexual orientation, N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1(a)(1), and has provided a civil cause of action against the offender, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-21. It is a crime for a public official to deny a person any “right, privilege, power or immunity” on the basis of sexual orientation. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6(a). It is also unlawful to discriminate against gays and lesbians under the Local Public Contracts Law and the Public Schools Contracts Law. N.J.S.A. 40A:11-13; N.J.S.A. 18A:18A-15. The Legislature, moreover, formed the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category, N.J.S.A. 52:9DD-8, and required school districts to adopt anti-bullying and anti-intimidation policies to protect, among others, gays and lesbians, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, -15(a).
In 2004, the Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, L. 2003, c. 246, making available to committed same-sex couples “certain rights and benefits that are accorded to married couples under the laws of New Jersey.” See footnote 17 N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(d). With same-sex partners in mind, the Legislature declared that “[t]here are a significant number of individuals in this State who choose to live together in important personal, emotional and economic committed relationships,” N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(a), and that those “mutually supportive relationships should be formally recognized by statute,” N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(c). The Legislature also acknowledged that such relationships “assist the State by their establishment of a private network of support for the financial, physical and emotional health of their participants.” N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(b).
For those same-sex couples who enter into a domestic partnership, the Act provides a limited number of rights and benefits possessed by married couples, including “statutory protection against various forms of discrimination against domestic partners; certain visitation and decision-making rights in a health care setting; certain tax-related benefits; and, in some cases, health and pension benefits that are provided in the same manner as for spouses.” N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(c). Later amendments to other statutes have provided domestic partners with additional rights pertaining to funeral arrangements and disposition of the remains of a deceased partner, L. 2005, c. 331, inheritance privileges when the deceased partner dies without a will, L. 2005, c. 331, and guardianship rights in the event of a partner’s incapacitation, L. 2005, c. 304.
In passing the Act, the Legislature expressed its clear understanding of the human dimension that propelled it to provide relief to same-sex couples. It emphasized that the need for committed same-sex partners “to have access to these rights and benefits is paramount in view of their essential relationship to any reasonable conception of basic human dignity and autonomy, and the extent to which they will play an integral role in enabling these persons to enjoy their familial relationships as domestic partners.” N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(d).

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, as Connecticut and Vermont have done. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-38aa to -38pp; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 1201-1207.

--(emphasis mine)

Raised here is the perplexing question -- “what’s in a name?” -- and is a name itself of constitutional magnitude after the State is required to provide full statutory rights and benefits to same-sex couples? We are mindful that in the cultural clash over same-sex marriage, the word marriage itself -- independent of the rights and benefits of marriage -- has an evocative and important meaning to both parties. Under our equal protection jurisprudence, however, plaintiffs’ claimed right to the name of marriage is surely not the same now that equal rights and benefits must be conferred on committed same-sex couples.
We do not know how the Legislature will proceed to remedy the equal pro tection disparities that current ly exist in our statutory scheme. The Legislature is free to break from the historical traditions that have limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples or to frame a civil union style structure, as Vermont and Connecticut have done. Whatever path the Legislature takes, our starting point must be to presume the constitutionality of legislation.

Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage. 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. Their next appeal must be to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.

Quotes from Chief Justice Poritz's minority opinion:

I concur with the determination of the majority that “denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1[,]” of the New Jersey Constitution. See footnote 29 Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). I can find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage, and therefore dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it declines to recognize that right among all of the other rights and benefits that will be available to same-sex couples in the future.
I dissent also from the majority’s conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage “encompassed within the concept of liberty guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1.”

But there is another dimension to the relief plaintiffs’ seek. In their presentation to the Court, they speak of the deep and symbolic significance to them of the institution of marriage. They ask to participate, not simply in the tangible benefits that civil marriage provides -- although certainly those benefits are of enormous importance -- but in the intangible benefits that flow from being civilly married. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has conveyed some sense of what that means:

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial
or social projects.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed.2d 510 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

Language and labels play a special role in the perpetuation of prejudice about differences.

.....

We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as “real” marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.

 

[drkitten]

Link to full ruling

Thank you.

 

[Darth Rotor]

From CNN: New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. "Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples," the decision said.

NJ, unlike Massachusetts, allows out-of-state couples to marry.

Implications for NJ? Will this ruling stand?

How do the Mafiosi feel about this? Isn't New Jersey their home state?

DR

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Thank you.

De nada.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm sure it will come to pass, before this generation ends

 

[steverino]

Link to full ruling

"The decision was 4-3. The minority opinion was both in part a separate concurring opinion and in part a dissent. They agree that there is a fundamental "Equal Rights" right to the benefits of marriage, but they also see a fundamental due process right based in the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 1, which mandates that the defendants be accorded the right to actual marriage, rather than allowing the legislature to define a lesser civil union status."

Let me get this right. Are you saying that in Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 334 (“[T]he overarching goal of the [LAD] is nothing less than the eradication of the cancer of discrimination.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S. Ct. 75, 102 L. Ed.2d 51 (1988). In 2004, the Legislature added “domestic partnership status” to the categories protected by the LAD. L. 2003, c. 246. ?

Jeeeezus! And I thought Fuchilla v. Layman was a heavy-weight boxing match.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Although there were amicus briefs which attacked the "Equal Rights" claim, the State's attorney in both his brief and in oral arguments concentrated on the "fundamental due process right" claim and the counter-claim of separation of powers (arguing that marriage regulations are the legislature's responsibility, not the Court's).

It seems that the strategy worked, as the result is that all found for the "Equal Rights" claim, and the majority found against the "fundamental due process right" claim and deferred to the legislature on that issue.

I'm not sure, however, that the rights and benefits of marriage can so easily be divided into "tangible," which are guaranteed by the Equal Rights ruling and "intangible," which are free to be granted by the legislature in ("non-fundamental") due process, and am saddened that four of the seven justices can so blithely say so.

The conservative legislators will vote against marriage. Given that they only have one other choice, they will certainly vote for civl unions. Many of the legislators who would otherwise have been swing voters will also vote for civil unions to spite the defendants for attempting to "end-run" the legislature. I'm afraid that marriage is still several years off.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I like the Robin Williams line, "why is everyone upset about same sex marrage? Anyone who is married knows it is the same sex."

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

George Bush has been quiet on the subject of SSM for most of the last year, but Wednesday's ruling galvanized him again.

Link to story

Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his standard stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

....

The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

Actually, I agree with that last sentence. Marriage is a sacred institution critical to the health of our society and the well being of families. And it must be defended. The president and I just disagree about whose political agenda it is against which marriage must be defended.