Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
[q]New Jersey Court Backs Rights for Same-Sex Unions
By LAURA MANSNERUS
The State Supreme Court in New Jersey said today that same-sex couples are entitled to “the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.” But the court, in its 4-3 ruling, that whether that status would be called marriage, or something else, “is a matter left to the democratic process.”
The court’s eagerly awaited decision found that an arrangement similar to that of Vermont, which authorizes civil unions between same-sex couples but does not call them marriages, would be consitutional in New Jersey under the equal protection guarantees. The court gave the legislature a six-month deadline to enact the necessary legislation to provide for same-sex unions.
The decision leaves Massachusetts as the only state to authorize same-sex marriages as such. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court held in 2003 that that full marriage rights were required for all couples under that state’s constitution, gay-rights advocates have suffered a string of defeats in other states. The Court of Appeals of New York rejected a similar argument in July.
Steven Goldstein, the chairman of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, said the court’s decision was disappointing.
“Those who would view today’s ruling as a victory for same sex couples are dead wrong,” he said. “Half-steps short of marriage — like New Jersey’s domestic-partnership law and also civil union laws — don’t work in the real world.”
Mr. Goldstein promised an immediate campaign to change the state law.
According to the 90-page description of their ruling published by the court today, the justices acknowledged that “times and attitudes have changed.” “ There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this state,” they wrote.
But the justices wrote that this case and other federal cases cited by the plaintiffs “fall far short” of establishing a fundamental right to marriage, which is an institution the court termed “deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this state."
“Despite the rich diversity of this state, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution,” the court wrote.
But the court also said that denying 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.”[/q]
i'm fine with this. it basically requries NJ to have civil unions, and then let the people decide what to call them. fine. i'm taking a bit of a "let the baby have his bottle" attitude. if the word "marrige" is so precious to heterosexuals who shit out countless kids in and out of wedlock (and who need the word "marriage" to protect children from the dangers of rampant heterosexuality, as the NY State Court ruled earlier this year) and divorce 50% of the time, then leave that word to them. but it's refreshing to see the court insist that while there might not be a right to Marriage, as culturally understood, there is a right to equal treatment under the law. this seems thoroughly sane and well-reasoned and entirely rational. marriage is not being imposed; civil unions are. and this is in no way "activist." is there a logical option other than to apply the equal opportunity clause to everyone? i pay taxes, therefore i'm entitled to the same civil treatment by the government as Joe Heterosexual 6-Pack. if the majority heterosexual citizens of NJ need to have a vote to impose a label on these unions that will be, by definition, derogatory and impose a colliquial status of "less-than" in comparison to marriage, i suppose that's just one more slap in the face gay people will have to endure. nothing new. and that horrible 1996 DOMA law -- that prevented Gerry Studd's husband from getting any federal death benefits -- keeps this in NJ only.
what's there to complain about?
now, let's see how Rove can spin this to scare the Christofascists out to the polls ...
By LAURA MANSNERUS
The State Supreme Court in New Jersey said today that same-sex couples are entitled to “the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.” But the court, in its 4-3 ruling, that whether that status would be called marriage, or something else, “is a matter left to the democratic process.”
The court’s eagerly awaited decision found that an arrangement similar to that of Vermont, which authorizes civil unions between same-sex couples but does not call them marriages, would be consitutional in New Jersey under the equal protection guarantees. The court gave the legislature a six-month deadline to enact the necessary legislation to provide for same-sex unions.
The decision leaves Massachusetts as the only state to authorize same-sex marriages as such. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court held in 2003 that that full marriage rights were required for all couples under that state’s constitution, gay-rights advocates have suffered a string of defeats in other states. The Court of Appeals of New York rejected a similar argument in July.
Steven Goldstein, the chairman of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, said the court’s decision was disappointing.
“Those who would view today’s ruling as a victory for same sex couples are dead wrong,” he said. “Half-steps short of marriage — like New Jersey’s domestic-partnership law and also civil union laws — don’t work in the real world.”
Mr. Goldstein promised an immediate campaign to change the state law.
According to the 90-page description of their ruling published by the court today, the justices acknowledged that “times and attitudes have changed.” “ There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this state,” they wrote.
But the justices wrote that this case and other federal cases cited by the plaintiffs “fall far short” of establishing a fundamental right to marriage, which is an institution the court termed “deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this state."
“Despite the rich diversity of this state, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution,” the court wrote.
But the court also said that denying 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.”[/q]
i'm fine with this. it basically requries NJ to have civil unions, and then let the people decide what to call them. fine. i'm taking a bit of a "let the baby have his bottle" attitude. if the word "marrige" is so precious to heterosexuals who shit out countless kids in and out of wedlock (and who need the word "marriage" to protect children from the dangers of rampant heterosexuality, as the NY State Court ruled earlier this year) and divorce 50% of the time, then leave that word to them. but it's refreshing to see the court insist that while there might not be a right to Marriage, as culturally understood, there is a right to equal treatment under the law. this seems thoroughly sane and well-reasoned and entirely rational. marriage is not being imposed; civil unions are. and this is in no way "activist." is there a logical option other than to apply the equal opportunity clause to everyone? i pay taxes, therefore i'm entitled to the same civil treatment by the government as Joe Heterosexual 6-Pack. if the majority heterosexual citizens of NJ need to have a vote to impose a label on these unions that will be, by definition, derogatory and impose a colliquial status of "less-than" in comparison to marriage, i suppose that's just one more slap in the face gay people will have to endure. nothing new. and that horrible 1996 DOMA law -- that prevented Gerry Studd's husband from getting any federal death benefits -- keeps this in NJ only.
what's there to complain about?
now, let's see how Rove can spin this to scare the Christofascists out to the polls ...
