Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[Godwynn]

CNN

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name. (Opinion -- pdfexternal link)

"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," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.

Outside the Supreme Court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant. Many started to agree that they needed to push for a state constitutional amendment to institute gay marriage.

Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay and lesbian political organization quickly announced Wednesday that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to get full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law the Legislature passed in 2004 giving gay couples some benefits of marriage, such as the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and healthcare coverage for state workers.

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.

Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts including New York, Washington, and in both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven by gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

"New Jersey is a stepping stone," said Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. "It's not about New Jersey."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

From what I understand of it, it's up to the New Jersey legislature to decide whether it is called "marriage" or a "civil union".

I wish Illinois would do the same.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm not familiar with the New Jersey constitution, is marriage specifically mentioned as a right anywhere in it?

Because marriage is, at least in most places, a privilege, not a right. So it's rather hard to deny someone their rights if what you're talking about isn't a right.

 

[Godwynn]

I'm not familiar with the New Jersey constitution, is marriage specifically mentioned as a right anywhere in it?

Because marriage is, at least in most places, a privilege, not a right. So it's rather hard to deny someone their rights if what you're talking about isn't a right.

From the article I would assume that marriage is a right in New Jersey.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Undoubtedly some good news in eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Zarn]

Cool. One state at a time.

I didn't even know about this until now.

The sooner this straight people only 'tude stops the better.

 

[Mark1031]

I'm not familiar with the New Jersey constitution, is marriage specifically mentioned as a right anywhere in it?

Because marriage is, at least in most places, a privilege, not a right. So it's rather hard to deny someone their rights if what you're talking about isn't a right.

Getting a drivers license is not a right. Would you be OK with banning that for gays. How about doubling their taxes? Ever hear of “equal protection under the law”?

 

[Elrohir]

From the article I would assume that marriage is a right in New Jersey.

Or at least that their courts are under the impression that it is.

I did 60 seconds of research, and the only mention of marriage in their constitution is in an offhand way:

C......

The surviving spouse of a deceased citizen and resident of the State who during his or her life received a deduction pursuant to this paragraph shall be entitled, so long as he or she shall remain unmarried and a resident of the same dwelling house situated on the same land with respect to which said deduction was granted, to the same deduction, upon the same conditions, with respect to the same real property or with respect to the same dwelling house which is situated on land owned by another or others, or with respect to the same cooperative or mutual housing corporation, notwithstanding that said surviving spouse is under the age of 65 and is not permanently and totally disabled, provided that said surviving spouse is 55 years of age or older.

They only refer to the rights of a spouse after their spouse has died, they don't mention marriage as a right. Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege, and it is perfectly legitimate to restrict it to whoever society thinks should use it.

Getting a drivers license is not a right. Would you be OK with banning that for gays. How about doubling their taxes? Ever hear of “equal protection under the law”?

I don't think that would be just, no, for either of those things. Banning them from having drivers licenses would, I believe, be legal, though. As for doubling taxes, I doubt it would be, as most tax codes only allow people to pay different amounts based upon whether they are married, have children, how much they give to charity, that sort of thing. It would require a substantial rewiring of how taxes are levied.

 

[Godwynn]

How many does that make now?

Civil Union:
1. Vermont
2. Connecticut
3. New Jersey

Marriage:
1. Massachussetts

 

[Godwynn]

and it is perfectly legitimate to restrict it to whoever society thinks should use it.

Immigrants? Jews? Blacks?

No it's not legit.

 

[.Shane.]

I'm not familiar with the New Jersey constitution, is marriage specifically mentioned as a right anywhere in it?

According to the CNN article, the decision in NJ is not as suprising as it would be in other states, because NJ is one of the few states that does not define marriage.

edit: this was in an earlier version of the report, but now I don't see the quotes. So, take my comments w/ a grain of salt. If I can find them, I'll add them later.

 

[IglooDame]

The court's decision sounds very similar to what led Vermont to civil unions.

And Elrohir, there are many 'privileges' that are required to be offered by the government without respect for race/religion/gender etc (witness mixed-race marriage restrictions being struck down), so you're on rather shaky ground there.

 

[Elrohir]

Immigrants? Jews? Blacks?

No it's not legit.

It's perfectly legal. We live in a representative democracy, and the majority rules, unless doing so contradicts the constitution. (And even then the constitution can be overturned by a significant enough majority) In this case the constitution, both federal and state, is silent - so it's a matter of simple state law.

The court's decision sounds very similar to what led Vermont to civil unions.

And Elrohir, there are many 'privileges' that are required to be offered by the government without respect for race/religion/gender etc (witness mixed-race marriage restrictions being struck down), so you're on rather shaky ground there.

Does New Jersey state law specify that marriage licenses must be given to anyone, regardless of gender? If they don't specify that, then this was a bad decision. If they do specify that they be given to anyone, regardless of sexuality (Which I would be highly suprised to learn) then this was the correct decision.

 

[Godwynn]

It's perfectly legal. We live in a representative democracy, and the majority rules, unless doing so contradicts the constitution. (And even then the constitution can be overturned by a significant enough majority) In this case the constitution, both federal and state, is silent - so it's a matter of simple state law.

So because of that you would be perfectly okay to only allow Protestant Whites to get married if it was voted on and approved?

Or only tax Hispanics?

Or force all homosexuals to live only in San Francisco?

 

[.Shane.]

Right or privilege... who cares? You either think gays should be treated as the equals of straights or you don't.

Dancing around the semantics of it, only serves as a distraction from what is a basic, simple question of equality.

 

[Elrohir]

So because of that you would be perfectly okay to only allow Protestant Whites to get married if it was voted on and approved?

Or only tax Hispanics?

Or force all homosexuals to live only in San Francisco?

No, I wouldn't be. Those changes wouldn't be just, but if they were legally made, would indeed be legal.

In this case, I think barring gays from marrying is both just, and legal, though.

Right or privilege... who cares? You either think gays should be treated as the equals of straights or you don't.

Dancing around the semantics of it, only serves as a distraction from what is a basic, simple question of equality.

I think they should be given equal rights. Privileges are up for negotiation.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is good news. Most people recognise that a marriage between couples of the same sex can occur, and that their 'lifestyle choice' is a logical and legitimate one.

I figure that at least it will get rid of some same-sex adultery if they get married!

 

[IglooDame]

It's perfectly legal. We live in a representative democracy, and the majority rules, unless doing so contradicts the constitution. (And even then the constitution can be overturned by a significant enough majority) In this case the constitution, both federal and state, is silent - so it's a matter of simple state law.

Does New Jersey state law specify that marriage licenses must be given to anyone, regardless of gender? If they don't specify that, then this was a bad decision. If they do specify that they be given to anyone, regardless of sexuality (Which I would be highly suprised to learn) then this was the correct decision.

And what if it isn't specified, either way?

 

[Zarn]

Right or privilege... who cares? You either think gays should be treated as the equals of straights or you don't.

Dancing around the semantics of it, only serves as a distraction from what is a basic, simple question of equality.

Exactly.

Would a state have the right to remove heterosexual marriage or even civil unions, because it was only a privilege?

 

[.Shane.]

It's perfectly legal. We live in a representative democracy, and the majority rules, unless doing so contradicts the constitution.

Sorry, but "majority rules" is BS.

The Constitution recognized and institutionalized the rights of the minority in any number of ways. Best example is the construction of Congress. The Senate reflects just the opposite of majority rule. Thus, North Dakota, population ~500k has the same rights as California, population ~30 million. So, California has ~60 times the pop of ND but in the Senate we are equals. Majority rule my ass.

 

[Godwynn]

No, I wouldn't be. Those changes wouldn't be just, but if they were legally made, would indeed be legal.

Those changes are as unjust as saying homosexuals cannot get married because they are homosexuals.