Equal Rights for All

Equal Rights for All

October 26, 2006

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday 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." The right is trying to spin the ruling to motivate their base, but this decision is a positive step towards equality, and an affirmation of the importance of stable relationships and healthy families.

• The courts decision is consistent with the 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."
  
  
• Yesterday’s decision was a modest one, despite claims to the contrary by the right. Even President Bush, who believes the. 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."
  
  
• The right-wing is distorting the ruling to motivate their base. Conservative activists hope yesterday's ruling will energize their right-wing base. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, "called the ruling 'a plus' on the premise it would stir up resentment of 'arrogant judges' and boost conservative election prospects." But to enrage voters, the right has resorted to making false claims about the ruling to inflate its importance. Religious right leader James Dobson claimed the Court had "blatantly and arrogantly ordered the state Legislature to rip up what marriage has meant for thousands of years." The Alliance for Marriage, a leading advocacy group in favor of the anti-gay constitutional amendment, said that "radical activist groups" had "convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature." And conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt falsely declared that the "the imperial judiciary" had "impose[d] same sex marriage in New Jersey." None of this is true.