While I am not a lawyer, I review my share of contracts at work, and so I think my reading of the first three pages of the 90 page decision is accurate.

The New Jersey State Supreme Court has ruled that the state legistlature must do one of two things with 180 days:
1. Change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples
2. Provide an alternative structure for same sex couples which offers all the same rights and benefits as marriage (ie civil unions)

And what's cool is the only dissenters said, no, the definition of marriage needs to be changed, option #2 is not acceptable. There was no dissenting opinion arguing for the preservation of the status quo.

Compare this to the New York Supreme Court ruling from a few months ago, where they justified denying same sex couples the right to marry because it would make marriage too unstable for heterosexual couples, and because it's bad for kids. And NJ is only a mile away from me, as the crow flies. Perhaps I'll move across the river--part of a mass migration of gay couples from New York City to the lovely New Jersey suburbs. :)

Wow - Sounds promising. I really hope something comes of it. Having finally been granted same sex recognition (although it does fall short of marriage) in this country (UK) it is always nice when you see the possible progress made elsewhere.

Hope you can keep track of this for the board. Would be interested to see how it develops for you.

Article from the Advocate:

N.J. justices say no to marriage, yes to rights
published Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New Jersey's Supreme Court on Wednesday failed to find the state's same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
But the justices found New Jersey's 3-year-old domestic-partnership system inadequate, and gave the Legislature 180 days to "enact an appropriate statutory structure" giving same-sex couples rights equivalent to those of married couples.

The New Jersey Supreme Court released the highly anticipated decision Wednesday in a case brought by seven same-sex couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry.

Now, lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

"If it's a yes, it will be one of the happiest days, if it's a no, it will be a huge disappointment," said Saundra Heath-Toby, a plaintiff in the case, before the decision.

Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed 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.

Proponents and opponents from across the country watched the case closely.

"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."

From a practical standpoint, the Massachusetts court decision made little impact nationally because the state has a law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.

New Jersey has no such law.

People on both sides of the issue expect a victory for same-sex unions would make New Jersey a destination for gay couples from around the country who want to get married. Some of those couples could return home and sue to have their marriages recognized.

Daniels said gay rights advocates are already looking ahead to such lawsuits.

"Their game, of course, is they figure all they need to do is execute this maneuver in a half-dozen states and they'll have the momentum," he said.

David S. Buckel, the Lambda Legal lawyer who argued on behalf of the seven New Jersey couples, said he expects some couples would travel to New Jersey to get married if his suit is successful. But, he said, "it won't be tidal."

Buckel said that there have been relatively few such lawsuits filed in the United States by couples who went to Canada to exchange vows.

And, he said, while many same-sex couples would prefer to be married, they are getting more legal protections for their relationships. Several states, including New Jersey, offer domestic partnerships or civil unions with some of the benefits of marriage. A growing number of employers are treating same-sex couples the same way they treat married couples.

Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

Marriage equality supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions. (Geoff Mulvihill, AP)

Man, the pace of progress on this issue is slow.

Thanks for the article abzug. At least the decision didn't have the Neanderthal overtones of the NY decision.

A.

I wrote an essay on this topic for a law and gender module last year, adn it really is incredibly interesting. especially when you compare the different state's. Not coming from america, I didn't realise that there would be such differing standpoints in each state. But each case seems to reflect societal differences. For instance Baehr v Lewin in Hawaii seems so advanced when compared to some other states, and that was over 10 years ago.
I totally understand where you're coming from saying the progress is slow... there are too many prejudices in the world.
As for the UK position, I personally think the civil partnership v marriage issue has created an apartheid system, where supposedly both unions are equal and yet they are separate, and not accessible to all. The best option would be to allow heterosexuals to choose to have a civil partnership (and thus claim the financial/tax benefits even if they are against the institution) and to allow homosexuals to choose to marry.

What I think is so interesting in the UK is that civil unions were legalized before gays were allowed to adopt children. In the US it has been the opposite: many states have legalized gay adoption, but few have legalized gay marriage or civil unions until very recently.

The disparity between different state's laws is quite interesting, and has been a staple of US politics and legislating since the country was formed. Much of it began with the issue of slavery--some states had it and wanted to preserve it, while others didn't. So from day 1 back in 1787, it was important to states that they be allowed to set many of their own laws. But of course, it's what makes progress so slow on these issues.

Back in 1967 when interracial marriage was "legalized" by the US Supreme court, the majority of the states had already legalized it, but there were a few states which were hold-outs, and that's when the US Supreme Court stepped in with the decision that all states had to allow interracial marriage. The same will probably be true of gay marriage--it won't be until most states have already legalized it on their own that the US Supreme Court will finally strike down the laws against it in the few remaining states. I expect a 20-30 year timeframe on that. Sad, isn't it?

But the positive side is that liberal states like New Jersey and Massachusetts can do what they want, without any interference by conservative states.

An equally fascinating thing to me is how un-stereoptypically "New York"-like New York state is. Many people who live outside the US - and even *in* the US think New York is this bastion of liberalism, when the adage that all politics are local seems to apply to New York more than most states. And I think the Court decision there on gay marriage proves it. As disappointing and, to some extent shocking, as it was to many Manhattanites, the majority decision probably got nods of agreement in many of the areas I drive through on my 500-mile journey between Toronto and the Metro Area.

The New Jersey decison does allow for apartheid, but I'm hoping that the legal battles to prevent separate form being unequal will eventually lead to a common-sense solution of simply making the legal aspects identical and let the word "marriage" only apply to the religious part of the contract.

30 years is long time... :(

Wow NJ is finally figuring it out that it is discrimative not to let same sex couples get married and Holland (the country who was the first to legalise gay marriage) might actually change the law not allowing it anymore.

Little clarification... On nov 22th there are elections. In Holland we have a multi party system. One political party will never get 50% of the votes and in most cases two major political parties will not have 50% of the votes either. So they need a third party.

Now these are only talks but one of the biggest changes is that CDA (a middle of the road party) will join forces with VVD (a rightwing party) CDA has the C of christian and was against gay marriage in the first place. VVD was for the legalization. So for not really a problem. But the third party might be the ChristenUnie. (very very christian party. much more than CDA and they are campaining that the want mariage to be defined as a bond between a man and a woman)

So if ChristenUnie makes three, it might be possible for the government to change the law.

Nothing has happened yet. It might never come to this, but i think it would be a real shame if it happens.

Do you think it would pass through parliament? even with a majority there may be dissenters. I can't imagine that they could revoke such a human rights based law as that without uproar from the public... are the public in general in Holland happy with the law as it stands? If so, the parties mightn't want to jeopardise their political strength by going against what the masses want. I woul dbe interested to be kept up to date with this situation

I guess it all comes down to what happens during the election. CDA is currently the biggest party. Within them, there are lots of people who would like to revoke the law. VVD is liberal; they'll keep the law but not at all expence.

It all comes down to who will be the third party.


As for the dissenters... yes there may be, but the members of parliament only vote differently then their party if they really feel strongly about something. The partyleader will bite your head off if you vote differently, so i don't see a lot of people doing that. And if the opposition isn't strong enough...

I don't know the figures Hollands standpoint towards gaymarriage. Most aren't against it, but i don't see them protesting to keep it.



I'll give you an update when the time comes. It'll probably be somewhere late December.

What kind of ruling is that ??

That's not even a ruling at all !!!!

Gir.

Bleeding State Courts....

Maybe the New York ruling lowered my expectations, but I'm not too unhappy with the New Jersey judges. They have acknowledged that gay couples deserve the same rights under the law as straight couples and I think that's a huge step forward. To make it an issue of civil rights and equal protection under the law, defuses all the religious rhetoric and moves the discussion into a more sane, practical arena.

The fact is, there are so many laws and government protections linked to marriage, that trying to legislate a separate but equal set of laws to meet the standard set by the New Jersey court will be a burden. Of course, one way to remove that burden is to allow gay couples to marry and change nothing else. The court didn't require that, but it is a remedy for the current inequality that can be enacted by the state legislature.

The judges cannot be accused of being activist, but they have nevertheless put the state in an awkward situation. Reading the reaction to the ruling in various "letters to the editor" has provided much amusement for me. Man nobody is happy. One guy wrote the New York Times and pretty much predicted the end of civilization because civilization is built upon procreation within heterosexual marriage. Who knew that gay marriage could cause sterility in straight couples?!
A.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/10/26/1

Text:

Thursday, October 26, 2006 / 09:47 AM

The same-sex marriage issue in New Jersey is morphing from a legal dispute to a political one.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that New Jersey must extend all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. But the justices left it to state lawmakers to decide whether to provide those rights in the form of marriages, civil unions, or something else, and gave the legislature 180 days to reach a decision.

Several Democratic lawmakers said they will push for full marriage rights. But some Republicans, the minority party in both houses of the legislature, said they will seek a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, vowed to have the justices impeached.

"Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.

State Senate President Richard J. Codey and Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr. pledged in a joint statement to block an anti-gay marriage amendment. They also complained that the court-imposed deadline allows too little time to define the type of union that would be granted to gay couples.

The New Jersey ruling is similar to the 1999 high court ruling in Vermont that led that state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.

"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 New Jersey's four-member majority.

The court said the legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gay couples all the privileges and obligations afforded to married couples.

The three dissenters, including Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, argued that the majority did not go far enough: They demanded that same-sex couples be given the right to marry.

National gay rights advocates embraced the ruling. Lara Schwartz, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples.

"They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," she said.

But the leader of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's most influential gay rights group, said the ruling falls short of the organization's desired goal of the right to marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," chairman Steven Goldstein said.

Cindy Meneghin, who with her partner joined other couples in suing the state for the right to marry, said during a news conference in Newark that the court's ruling left her "feeling butterflies." She said her thoughts turned to the day in a Catholic high school gym when she first saw her partner of more than 30 years.

"Will you, Maureen Kilian, marry me?" Meneghin tearfully said to her partner.

"Yes, if the legislature lets us," Kilian responded.

New Jersey adopted a domestic partnership law in 2004 giving same-sex couples some of the same rights of married couples, but the same-sex marriage debate has never played out fully in the statehouse in Trenton. It might have, had former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, made it a priority. He has said he did not support same-sex marriage at the time because he was afraid of being perceived as gay.

"I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey said Wednesday. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor." (Geoff Mulvihill, AP)