10/25/2006
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Unions
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples wishing to legalize their unions. However, it appears that the court will leave it to the "democratic process" to determine what that union is called.
In a 4-3 decision in which the three dissenters were only partial dissenters (Justices Poritz, Zazzali, and Long filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion in which they agreed that "the finding 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") the Court ruled that 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 legislature has 180 days to amend the marriage statues or enact an appropriate statutory structure.
From the opinion:
"Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental. 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. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying 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. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. 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."
It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on the upcoming elections. Much of the division over gay couples gaining equal rights in this area comes over the word "marriage". I think that by pushing the decision of what to call the same-sex union to the legislature, the Court has effectively blocked many of the arguments of those who would object to the decision purely on semantic terms.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:22 PM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, New Jersey, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
YES!!!! I don't care about the consequences to the midterms right now.
Posted by: scott | Oct 25, 2006 3:29:33 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: JT | Oct 25, 2006 3:34:40 PM
I believe this is exactly what should have happened.
Posted by: Wayne | Oct 25, 2006 3:35:45 PM
Finally, a ruling that doesn't rely on some obtuse amendment process, i.e. Mass. This is a great day. A moderate state's courts has made a clear ruling and then left it to the legislature to hash it out. Screw the short term consequences. This is a great victory for us all.
Posted by: Mitch | Oct 25, 2006 3:35:59 PM
This is horrible timing. The mid-term elections are vital, and if the democrats don't take the House & Senate, then all hell is going to break loose in the world. Worse than it already is, and this mess only gives the republicans the diversion they have been looking for to take the attention away from the real messes Bush has made of everything he touches.
Posted by: toyness | Oct 25, 2006 3:36:09 PM
Jurisprudence takes the long view - unlike politics, which concerns itself only with two and four year cycles. In the end, this is by far a net benefit for supporters of same sex marriage.
Posted by: GM | Oct 25, 2006 3:37:59 PM
God Damn, every time the gay agenda moves one step forward, it then takes two steps back. This could not have happened at a worse moment in history!
Posted by: wtf | Oct 25, 2006 3:38:58 PM
Toyness, I think the Supreme Court of New Jersey handled this in a way that Republicans can't reallyl use as campaign fodder.
Congratulations to all of you 'mos in New Jersey. Now let's get the rest of the blue states to follow suit. New York? Illinois? California? We're listening.
Posted by: Tread | Oct 25, 2006 3:40:46 PM
Scott; If you don't care about the elections in two weeks, then you are missing the meaning of how bad this is right now. The asshole republicans will now use gay marriage to reinforce that we must re-elect the same republicans to stop the homosexual agenda.
Posted by: wrong ideas | Oct 25, 2006 3:40:58 PM
We've been reading the ruling on an earlier post, Andy. A few things we've pointed out:
- The decision was 4-3; the dissent, written by the outgoing chief, wanted to legalize full marriage for gays under the banner of due process (equal protection of gays doesn't come up)
- The court leaves the legislature free to bar couples from other states from getting married in NJ
- And the legislature's got to get its shit in order in 180 days. If they pick civil unions over marriage, the court has left the door open to another challenge that such a division is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 3:41:18 PM
YAY!
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:41:59 PM
It is great
We get rights in NJ and the rovians do NOT!!!! or as little as possible get hot air for the anger balloon.
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
The rights themselves, not the name is important
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:42:14 PM
Tread: I don't believe that. The republican will definitely use this, there is no doubt about it!
Posted by: Toyness | Oct 25, 2006 3:42:47 PM
Please. Bush promised them a "Stop" to Gay Marriage. Yet again he fails. You think the Jesus freaks are going to rush to the ballot box this time? No. Another reason for them to stay home.
Posted by: Tony | Oct 25, 2006 3:43:08 PM
Tony good point
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:44:33 PM
I don't get why people expect life to happen in some sort of linear, elegant and painless manner. It is what it is and if the republicans and crazy radical christians have to dig deeper into their bag of tricks to distort and lie ....let them.
Remember, it was only when dogs and fire hoses were turned on black children in Mississippi on national tv, did moderate (i.e. white) americans taken notice and create an environment in which politicians felt they could act on behalf of civil rights. It's not as if segreation was not painful or evil before that, it's just that most americans needed to be jolted out of their it's not happening in my back yard so it's not that big of a deal complacency.
Perhaps there ares some paralells here. Celebrate the good news whenever, wherever and however it comes!
Posted by: hoya86 | Oct 25, 2006 3:44:53 PM
See the postings on the previous post. This decision is almost perfectly written by granting (or more specifically, not permitting denial of) all the rights and privileges of marriage without endangering those rights and privileges by calling them "marriage". This decision insulates our rights and privileges as same-sex couples from denial as an atttack on "marriage".
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:45:26 PM
To call this decision 4/3 (as many of the news sites such as CNN are) makes it sound like a split decision. But in fact the dissent by the chief justice and two other justices was only IN PART. The dissenters would have gone even farther than the majority to grant full rights to marriage without parsing the term. So essentially 7 out ot 7 justices on the court recognized at least the right to full realization of all legal benefits. That is no small event. This is progress.
Posted by: Jay | Oct 25, 2006 3:46:53 PM
The NJ Supreme Court did not rule in favor of gay marriage. They specifically ruled that gay people do not have a fundamental right under the Constitution to marry. The Court ruled that we should be afforded the same rights as opposite sex couples, but that can be accomplished by a separate but equal statutory scheme.
This is great news, but it is still less than what Mass. has.
Posted by: sam | Oct 25, 2006 3:49:28 PM
The Court identified two issues: (1)
"[W]hether committed same-sex couples have a consitutional right to the benefits and privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples and, if so, (2) [W]hether they have a constitutional right to have their relationship recognized by the name marriage."
WE WON on the fundamental consitutional issue of ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. We lost on the issue that calling it a "marriage" is a constitutional right. This intelligently writted decision is tantamount to eating our cake and having it too (to use a legal term of art). The Court said to the legislature that it could call it anything it chose but it MUST provide ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. This seeming hair-splitting avoids the pitfall inherent in DOMA. The NJ legislators can still defend "marriage" but they cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:49:56 PM
Jay, that is awesome! I hadn't read that.
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:50:49 PM
What are all of you thinking? Of course the republicans are going to use this in the elections any way they can. Has everyone forgotten how nasty they fight?
Posted by: what? | Oct 25, 2006 3:52:08 PM
First this... and then Madonna on "Oprah"! What a truly blessed day.
Posted by: jeff | Oct 25, 2006 3:53:19 PM
What
Then they will have to re-tool all their propaganda to protect us from civil-unions....protect us from domestic partnerships...protect us from....."
The lack of the word "marriage" hampers them a bit.
When people are knee jerk reactionaries and or brainwashed....the inability to use the catch phrase "marriage" hampers it all
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:54:59 PM
How can the Republicans use this? It adheres to Bush's position on gay marriage - in support of civil unions but not the term "marriage." Most people are fine with the idea of affording gays equal rights but are a little uneasy with the idea of calling it marriage. The Republicans are going to have to work really hard to get some reaction out of this ruling, IMO.
Posted by: Anita Woodward | Oct 25, 2006 3:56:02 PM
Hey, nervous nellies...the decision was clearly carefully thought out in order to benefit gay rights and limit any effect on the elections. It's pure good news. It is not as easy for any right-wingers to yell, "Do you want, uh, the right to civil unions, like, uh, Jersey?" It's good news. Andy, you're 100% right that this decision is all good and its negative impact on races is next to nil. If anyone loses a race, it is not going to be due to this decision. (Let alone in NJ, where the vast majority of the state is cool with civil unions and against constitutional anti-marriage amendments...and where, just for good measure, Menendez is on record against gay marriage.)
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 25, 2006 3:58:37 PM
dred scott and plessy v ferguson must have seemed like such solid decisions in their time. but along came brown et al and the world changed.
history and justice have a way of catching up to one another. i've been married to my partner for 21 yrs (as i've said many times, call it whatever you want, it's a marriage) and i'm willing to walk in the shadows of opinion and elections and rovian darkness a while longer because i know, as dr. king knew, that the light will come.
maybe it's what i have to believe, but i do believe it. for my two sons, their spouses and my granddaughter, i celebrate that little light shed today in new jersey. and in time, they will be able to embrace it.
Posted by: MALCOLM | Oct 25, 2006 3:59:22 PM
No! Not "should be" afforded the rights of "marriage" but MUST BE AFFORDED ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, call it what you will. As Jay pointed out, this is actually a unanimous opinion in favor of constitutional protection under the equal protection clause of all the rights and privileges of "marriage" without the consitutional right (as yet) to call it that (three judges would have required that term). Congrats Zeke, Jimbo, et al. This is a huge step forward. Will it remain a political wedge issue. Undoubedly, but the opinion carefully requires (consitutionally mandates) all the rights and privileges while permitting the NJ legislature to continue to defend "marriage". A brilliant opinion.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:59:44 PM
Hoyass is right. Nothing is neat, clean or linear. Right-wing Christianist Republicans may now get out and vote, but there were really no assurances that they were going to stay home.
Independents and fired-up Democrats will make the difference in the Midterm Elections, and the NJ Supreme Court ruling in favour of full rights for gays and lesbians won't change the fact that moderate Republicans and Independents are really pissed off at the state of the nation. Just make sure you get out and vote, and do what you can to get those you know and love to vote, too.
This old cow is going home to NJ tonight and telling his farmer that we're getting engaged. No more free milk--I want a blender!
Posted by: LiamOg | Oct 25, 2006 4:00:12 PM
As a resident of NJ and currently with my partner for almost 7 years, I'm pleased with this decision. If they can remove the label of "marriage" from equal rights for same-sex couples, the idea may be more palatable to some. I mean new jersey already has domestic partnerships, maybe they can just extend those benefits and rights to be equal to "marriage"
Posted by: Scott | Oct 25, 2006 4:00:56 PM
P.S. I do agree the right will use this decision. However, wise up: The right has always used gay marriage and this decision does NOT up the ante in any real way. So yes, the right will hammer it hard as they can to drown out all their scandals and the country's general dissatisfaction with George W. Bush's face...use it, yes. But it will not be effective.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 25, 2006 4:03:20 PM
wrong ideas--what an apt handle. if you think we can secure equal protection under the law by HIDING, you're quite wrong.
the idea that gay-bashing re-elected Bush has been thoroughly debunked. maybe this will swing a few close races, but it's not going to chance the outcome: we'll retake the House, but not the Senate. That's how it was gonna be at 2PM this afternoon, and it's how it's gonna be at 4PM this evening.
Posted by: scott | Oct 25, 2006 4:04:53 PM
Liamog
LOL
roflmao
LOL
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 4:06:42 PM
Bravo NJ.
Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 25, 2006 4:09:31 PM
scott, I think we will take the senate as well
We are now up to 9 contested senate seats with 4 of them already in our favor.
The field a few months ago was no real plan to take the senate this year....then it moved up to a possibility....then it moved to 7 seats in contecntion...and now Arizona and NV have moved into dark horse would be total upsets but neck and neck within the margin of error....9 in play can turn into 6 gained
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 4:09:46 PM
scott; why all of a sudden is everyone giving the republicans the benifit of the doubt on this matter, and acting like they will take the high road? When they never do, they fight as mean and nasty as they can, ALWAYS! I hope you are right about the elections, but I do not think you are.
Posted by: don't believe it | Oct 25, 2006 4:10:25 PM
I question the timing®.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 25, 2006 4:15:35 PM
Have those of you who are screaming bloody murder about the affect that this is going to have on the mid-term election even read the decision?
There is nothing in it that the Republicans can gain traction on. They would have to grossly misrepresent its findings in order to stir up the base. Does ANYONE here believe that they wouldn't have done that anyway, regardless of the ruling?
This was the absolute BEST possible ruling we could have hoped for. It is exactly what I was hoping for and more.
The nomenclature issue will be remedied sometime down the road when people begin to realize that gay marriages will not lead to the destruction of civilization and all things holy.
I can tolerate waiting for the name; I can’t tolerate waiting for the rights.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:19:51 PM
Meanwhile, in VA they are going to wipe out DP laws and company non-discrimination benefits policies with a state constitutional amendment.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:22:55 PM
As a lifelong, proud, Southerner it KILLS me to say this but:
GOD BLESS NEW JERSEY!!
Geesh, I'm gonna need mint to get the taste of that outa my mouth! :)
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:23:50 PM
"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. … I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." George W. Bush 2004
I don't see how the right wing Republicans can spin this as a negative when their hero has specifically endorsed it.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:27:55 PM
Oh, and with all the language in the ruling regarding "changing attitudes" since the DP law was passed in 2003, I wonder to what extent BBM influenced this decision. Could something so stark influence the court? Could anything else have made as much a difference in three years? (I agree that they also include a timeline from 1947 and another from 1970, however they are overruling the state DP law as unconstitutional based on changing attitutes.)
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:28:15 PM
Rejoice my people! We have a unanimous opinion that ALL the rights and privileges of "marriage" MUST be made available to our community. Three of the seven judges would have gone even further but that might have endangered our new constitutionally protected rights and privileges by being construed as an attack on marriage. We are reaching the point where most European countries have been for many years. There is a mandatory civil component to marriage that conveys all the state-protected rights and privileges and a "spiritual" component that is granted by an optional religious ceremony. I can live without the grace conveyed by the sacrament of marriage just as I can live without the grace conveyed by the sacrament of "last rights" (formerly known as "extremeunction"). That is a matter of faith. What is not permissible under the Court's opinion is for the state to deny me any of the rights and privileges of "marraige" because I have a same-sex relationship. Rejoice! The political sting of "same-sex marriage" has been reduced by a mere (a I believe temporary) inability to call it a "marriage". this has actually clarified the issue by making it one of basic human rights and not confusing it with matters of religious faith.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 4:29:18 PM
Hmmm...perhaps the NJ legislature will get the seperation of church and state correct this time and get out of the "marriage business". They should declare that "Marriage is best left to religous institutions and that the state, in it's concern for it's citizen's wellbeing can only issue civil unions-the same thing for all people." We could only hope. I know that the conservative right would scream bloody murder, but our founding fathers in their infinite wisdom recognized that the inherent dangers in mixing religious institutions and their inherent bigotry and government used such phrases such as "all men(people)are created equal" What a radical idea! Let the churches of the world have their ceremonies and let the state treat their citizens equally and let's not mix the two. Way to go, Supreme court! You basically nailed it. Now it's up to the legislature to get it right.
Posted by: Bob | Oct 25, 2006 4:30:46 PM
And Zeke buddy, (to quote a wise woman) "You've had worse things in your mouth." But now you have rights and privileges. Believe me, we will all look back upon this day as a major victory for our families.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 4:33:55 PM
Bob: well, you actually have it backwards, religions got into the marriage business after governments did, particularly in Europe.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 4:36:03 PM
When I got the CNN Breaking News Alert, I was in pure disbelief. I agree with two steps forward, one step back but am grateful we have been able to take the two steps forward.
Posted by: Blair | Oct 25, 2006 4:37:11 PM
Rudy, Who is this wise woman and what does she know about what I've had in my mouth?
In the famous words of our 42nd President, "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" ;)
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 4:40:06 PM
I agree with Anon: it is the churches that need to remove their influence on civil discourse and licensing. This is why there is a separation of Church and State.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 25, 2006 4:42:03 PM
Tom,
NJ Supreme Court justices must resign at age 70. The chief justice turns 70 this week, I believe, so the decision had to be made before she left the bench. Her replacement is set for swearing in on Thursday.
Posted by: LiamOg | Oct 25, 2006 4:43:50 PM
This is definitely progress, and we should be happy for it. But the endorsement of the separate-but-equal approach makes it less than it could have been (and less than what MA has). Of course, the NJ legislature could choose to simply open up marriage to same-sex couples, and I hope they do so. They should be lobbied hard to do so. If they go the VT civil-union route, that will be a shame, for two reasons. First, setting up a separate "civil union" status is an explicit statement that our relationships are less than different-sex ones. Yes, folks, Brown v. Board had it right all those years ago: separate is inherently UNequal.
And second, comes the very real and very practical issue of recognition in other states. Here in NY, we had a couple who were together for many years and were joined in a civil union in VT. When one partner was killed due to alleged malpractice by St. Vincent's hospital, the other partner sued for wrongful death, which is the right of any spouse. The courts here said that because the two were not "married" in VT, but only had a "civil union," the wrongful death statute was unavailable to him, and threw the partner's case out. Even though it was absolutely without question that had they been married in VT, the opposite would have been the case.
Not affording us equal status has real consequences, folks. Nothing less than full participation in marriage will ever be satisfactory, and in that sense then, this decision, while progress, is disappointing.
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 25, 2006 4:46:20 PM
Gary, The history and the wording are against you. There is a separation of Church and State only to prohibit the government from "establishing" a state-sponsored religion. The clause is actually very narrow; it does not prohibit religions (more specifically their representatives) from participating in public discourse. Indeed, that would have been a very strange notion to our founding fathers (and yes they were all wealthy, white, property-owing males). This country was founded by religious dissidents for the purpose of having the ability to express their religious beliefs as part of public discourse. REpresentatives have First Amendment rights to express their opinions as part of the democratic process. More speech not less speech. Democracy is founded on the political faith that the marketplace of ideas will sort out the best ides from the multitude of voices.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 4:50:45 PM
The problem is how the media is reporting this: "New Jersey legalizes GAY MARRIAGE". Rotten ass Carl Rove will use it again. They'll start cornering Democratic candidates on how they feel about the decision. Y'all have a lot more faith in the intelligence of the American electorate than I do. 'Course I do understand the jubilation, but why couldn't it happened on November 8, 2006? Then again, I'm a fatalist old bitch, let the idiots re-elect their right-wing Republican Congress...they'll suffer for it. Yeah.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 25, 2006 4:52:41 PM
I'll hazard that Americans have more important issues than gay rights on their mind this election cycle. I think this story will probably lose traction before nightfall.
Posted by: FASTLAD | Oct 25, 2006 5:13:35 PM
These reactions are unbeliebable. Do all of you who think this is wonderful think that the bad timing of this will have no negative repercussions? I am gay and I want same sex marriage legal everywhere, but this is most definitely going to affect the elections. Anyone who thinks it won't is being very naive. And these elections are going to directly affect future gay marriage laws throughout the USA.
Posted by: unbelievable | Oct 25, 2006 5:13:49 PM
This is already on MSNBC in an article about today's descision.
“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.”
Posted by: naive naive | Oct 25, 2006 5:29:27 PM
Fastlad says: "I think this story will probably lose traction before nightfall."
You must be kidding!
Posted by: my america | Oct 25, 2006 5:31:25 PM
Everyone who is negative about this ruling:
Stop the bitching and start thinking about ways to get out into the community (all communities) and educate. This is exactly why the Republicans are so strong, they ALWAYS have a strategy while Demecrats seems to constantly sit on the side-lines licking their wounds.
Get off your asses and make change happen!!
Posted by: Ogden | Oct 25, 2006 5:37:02 PM
I am not sure what the repercussions will be, and I am scared about the backlash, but I am happy with this verdict! They did the very best they could and provided an excellent response! And just like Zeke, it pains me as a southerner to say it but God bless NJ! I will be the first to admit I was hoping for them to say no so close to election day, but I am surprised to say that I am elated by the decision. I am still concerned, but the court really did a good job of stating that we deserve our rights!
Posted by: RB | Oct 25, 2006 5:37:04 PM
I truly believe that Bush has used up all the good will he may have had. The country wants a change, we need a change.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 25, 2006 5:42:07 PM
My only question is do we hyphenate our last names or what? Jeez so much to think about in the next 180 days. Oh and I suppose our spring trip to Santorini will be a honeymoon.
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 6:02:55 PM
The Washington State Supreme Court declined to reconsider their bypocritcal opinion on gay marriage today. I guess the fundies can take some solice in that.
Posted by: Buddy | Oct 25, 2006 6:16:13 PM
This is a double edge sword. I truly believe the gay community will spike divorce rates far greater than our less-homosexually included brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Robert | Oct 25, 2006 6:21:45 PM
As always I'm ambivalent. I'm happy about the ruling but jesus fucking phd christ will I regret it if the GOP retains their hold after next election. I don't even have a boyfriend yet. lol.
Posted by: Damon | Oct 25, 2006 6:22:38 PM
The wording of this decision will be very difficult for the repubs to use. They didn't use any of the buzz words and those fundies aren't brightest at decifering new terms, ha ha.
Besides those crazy fundies were still going to go and vote regardless, their churchs are still telling them they must for jesus sake. The real saving grace in this election will be the middle ground folks who are finally sick of the fucked up running of the war and all the real issues the current crop of idiots in power have messed ruined. Congress has a 16 percent aproval rating fer crying out loud. This decision isn't going to change things that much.
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 6:24:04 PM
Jeez, why isn't there an option to go back and edit your misspellings? Guess this lefty isn't so hot at using the language either.
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 6:27:42 PM
Robert you have a point! We need to understand what "marriage" means. It means that we now have a responsibiity to someone other than ourselves and you cannot just walk away if it gets bad. There is a relationship that is honored by our government and gay marriage will absolutely bring about gay divorces that just like the straight world will get ugly! A double edged sword is putting it midly!
Posted by: RB | Oct 25, 2006 6:28:42 PM
Oh, thank Christ, Little Taffy.
This decision gets us in the -- hee hee -- back door for rights and is still complex enough to a) elude the sheeple and b) make news editors throw up their hands and give it short shrift because it's too difficult to explain in 12 seconds.
It's not going to move any major needles with regard to public opinion.
That said, the right will lie and twist and spin and fearmonger on this as they always do. Not much we can do about that...
Posted by: Becks07 | Oct 25, 2006 6:28:47 PM
I really do believe people are tired of this whole gay marriage amendment bull shit.
With that guy's book (Hua?) where he writes that the Republicans were using the religious right and marriage amendments just to get them votes, the so called Christians aren't really that motivated to vote as they were in 2004. I think they are ready for some losses now so they can start again and "punish" those Republican who have used them.
Having said this, still I believe Rove will try to use this gay marriage issue once again.
BUT IT WILL NOT MATTER?
Why? Because a good number of Americans have opened their to the disastrous BUSH REGIME and the harm they are causing our country. They also know that bush and his criminal do not care for We The People because they remember:
9-11: bush regime did not care!
Katrina: bush regime did not care!
CHILDREN protected from predators like Foley: bush regime did not care!
And the list goes on and on ...
The gig is up for the all CONs in our government: NeoCONs, RepubliCONs, and CONservatives!
Posted by: FunMe | Oct 25, 2006 6:35:54 PM
As I said in the earlier post, this is not a presidential election coming up, it is congressional. The NJ Sup. Ct. ruling today has national implications, but it won't, in any way, affect the upcoming congressional elections. No matter how riled up the "fundies" get, they can't affect races in, say, Nevada or Wisconsin. Those are the states that are flipping and voting Democratic this election, and they don't care about gay civil unions, they care about the economy and Iraq.
It's a no-brainer. We got a great court ruling AND it's going to have no impact on the upcoming election.
Posted by: stolidog | Oct 25, 2006 6:49:17 PM
There's pretty current info about the actions and statements of Garden State Equality and the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay coalition at
http://savvyplannersblog.blogspot.com
Posted by: Good Stuff | Oct 25, 2006 7:05:16 PM
PS. I think the whole debate will become MUCH more interesting when we start seeing lawsuits in states (specifically Vermont) arguing that marriage is a religious institution and that, per separation of church and state laws, state sponsored "marriage" should be re-defined as a "civil union".
It's the end game around the whole seperate but equal debate, and if you can get a state to redefine marriage as a civil union, bingo. There's no argument left. Civil Union is a state institution, marriage is a religious institution. Everyone needs a Civil Union certificate, those who wish can have their union recognized in a religious cerimony, marriage.
Posted by: stolidog | Oct 25, 2006 7:07:52 PM
Over at Daily Kos
Dkos where there are more true progressives then Hillary dems= bush in a dress......
Hetrosexual married (they are stressing) men are saying "we have to stand up for what is right and not what is politicaly expedient."
"We are either for what is right or we are for power which would make us repubs"
etc
etc
They are stressing that they do NOT think this will hurt the dem party because of all the other issues, but even if it did....the vast majority of left leaning progressive dems are on our side and applauding this decission and willing to loose power for what is right.
The NJ ruling is a happy tear jerker and the people at DKos are also great wonderful tear jerkers.....
There were a few concerned more about power than what is right and the majority flamed them
Makes one proud to be part of a party that at least has a large segment that supports what is right no matter what the cost
:-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 7:11:04 PM
This was a non-story on NBC Nightly News tonight.
Posted by: Robert | Oct 25, 2006 7:12:13 PM
yep, this is a non-story I think.. it will last a day or two and then Iraq and other things will pile back on the REpublicans.
and it paves the way for California when the court there rules in favor of marriage equality or the legislature AGAIN passes it... it will be a real non-story by then.
Posted by: Trey | Oct 25, 2006 7:20:35 PM
Maryland is ruling on this in december!!!!!!!
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 7:24:36 PM
MARY-land HAHAHAHAHAHA...
Could it become MARRY-land?
God, I'm off my meds...
Posted by: Becks07 | Oct 25, 2006 7:39:41 PM
Anyone remember what Corzine said a few weeks ago about how he'd handle the outcome of this case? He said he'd honor their decision but can we determine from that statement if he'd agree to calling it marriage or something else? He's the one who counts from here on out right?
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 7:46:27 PM
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action.
Posted by: Kevin Tillman | Oct 25, 2006 7:55:15 PM
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action.
Posted by: Kevin Tillman | Oct 25, 2006 7:57:26 PM
Somehow...I find your posting tedious.
Posted by: Becks07 | Oct 25, 2006 8:08:29 PM
Somehow....one time in band camp...tedious is hardly descriptive enough! Kevin, presentation, please!
Posted by: RB | Oct 25, 2006 8:31:08 PM
The Kevin Tillman post is the one going around from the brother of the football player who was killed in Afganistan. His name escapes me at the moment but he's the one who gave up the lucrative career to go fight. Somehow I doubt the actual Kevin Tillman is posting on Towleroad, but I may be wrong.
Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 8:39:08 PM
The letter by Kevin Tillman about his brother Pat is powerful and eye opening but this is not the forum to discuss the Tillman letter.
We should stick to the topic here.
Andy has posted the Tillman letter with a forum to discuss it.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 8:51:02 PM
This is not being more than mentioned on cable news. No stories at all. It's about the Bush Iraq press conference tonight.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 8:54:20 PM
And under the ruling, gay and lesbian couples would face new issues common in marriages, like child support, custody disputes and even support after a union dissolves. - NYT
Here's where you seperate the gay boys from the gay men.
Posted by: Robert | Oct 25, 2006 11:46:37 PM
I cant wait to see how Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell stick their foot in their mouth with this one. The next disaster to hit the U.S. will be God's wrath for this Supreme Court ruling. I also wonder how many times we will hear from the right the phrase "activist judges"
Posted by: Norm | Oct 26, 2006 12:01:52 AM
Robert-
I would agree with you. As gay men, we may not enjoy the same rights as married couples, but we also don't have the headaches that come when our unions end.
Can you imagine a gay man actually having to part with his mid-century coffee table in a divorce settlment?
I think it will take atleast one or two generations before gay men are in line with their straight counter-parts. We have too much person freedom to simply fall into line with the standards that create the legalities of marriage. It's going to be an interesting time.
Posted by: Sam | Oct 26, 2006 3:56:33 AM
The morning after and I am still elated. Re-reading the magnificent opinion only strenghtens my belief that the NJ court was masterful in standing up for basic human rights. Our family has a unanimous opinion that ALL the rights and privileges MUST be conferred, call it what you may. In holding that the right to use the term "marriage" was not constitutionally protected the court threaded the needle perfectly. This avoided confrontation with the DOMA statutes and deflated the political posturings of the so-called religious right. I emphatically do not care if their church blesses my relationship. I care deeply that the government may not discriminate against me and my family. WE WON. Hallelujah!
Posted by: rudy | Oct 26, 2006 7:18:25 AM
The most amazing thing to me about the NJ Supreme Court decision is that all 7 Justices agreed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded heterosexual couples. When you consider that both lower courts (Superior Court Law Division and the Appellate Division) had come out with the opposite view (including the published decision by the Appellate Division), and that so many other state courts and Legislatures have as well, this decision will be seen as monumental.
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2006 7:49:16 AM
So how about the reports this morning that some NJ Repubs. are looking to impeach justices and want to introduce a constitutional amendment prohibiting civil unions?
Posted by: JT | Oct 26, 2006 9:45:31 AM
JT
links would be nice
no links= no story
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 26, 2006 10:05:50 AM
Rudy
This atheist is singing halelujah right along with you
Heck, the less power churches have over my life the better. I neither need, want, or demand their blessing....I don't wan't them having any power to begin with. Government protection of my rights now that is deffinetly something that deserves a halalujah shout out to the great fairytale flying spaghetti monster in the sky.
:-)
smile my brothers and sisters.....the sun has arisen, a new renasance is coming
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 26, 2006 10:09:52 AM
JT, the Dems are in control of the NJ Legislature... any Repugs that are talking about impeachment or constitutional amendmend are just showboating for the rabid party faithful. They have no power to do it.
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 26, 2006 10:21:39 AM
Let's make this clear tho...
this is about "rights", not marriage.
I'll be damned if i'm gettin' married anytime soon. But i'd like the opportunity to kidnap Ryan Gosling and marry him in Newark, NJ if ya know, that should come up or something...
Posted by: Derrick | Oct 26, 2006 10:30:54 AM
Becks07 kills me. Now THERE's a queen with an acid tongue.
Posted by: Marry | Oct 26, 2006 10:36:22 AM
Rudy-the issue at hand, however, is not about historic prejudice and whether we tolerate their intolerance. It is about whether we allow civil marriage, which all opposite-sex couples must apply for regardless of whether they are joined in a church, synagogue, mosque, back yard or Justice of the Peace. Let the churches do whatever they want to consider certain unions as 'ordained' but the license lies with the State, not the Church.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 26, 2006 11:31:33 AM
JIMMYBOYO...I hope your "new renasance" includes mandatory spelling lessons. You were in the bathhouse arguing for gay marriage when you should have been in class, weren't you? Hmmmm???
Posted by: Becks07 | Oct 26, 2006 11:41:09 AM
I'm not kidding. I'm delighted by this news, od course, but the story's fallen off the headlines as I thought it might.
Go to CNN, go to ABC, go to the Huffington Post even - it's nowhere in sight.
Iraq's exploding, Cheney's trying to convince the few remaining idiots that waterboarding isn't one of the most vicious forms of torture ever devised, and they're building a wall accross Mexico.
News at 11.
Posted by: FASTLAD | Oct 26, 2006 11:56:25 AM
becks you must be new
I post appologies quite often for my spelling mistakes and typos. Usualy every other day. I type quickly and do not edit my posts.
That said. sarcasm is great, but if all you have is sarcasm and nothing of substance in your posts (which I haven't seen in one of your posts yet) then all you have is shit spewing forth from your mouth.
Bath houses....LOL Only ugly people go to bath houses. I guess you have a life long membership.
Peace and cheers
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 26, 2006 12:07:47 PM
Oh, and sorry for my typos
Learn typonese, it is an under appreciated language.
fastlad, yeah....it has dropped off the radar. It also didn't help that 219 Iraq soldiers yesterday called for the troops to come home
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 26, 2006 12:09:55 PM
Gary, Please read my comments. You make the argument that I have been making 90 posts ago. But if you want to re-state it, go forth...
Posted by: rudy | Oct 26, 2006 12:22:12 PM
This is a double edge sword. I truly believe the gay community will spike divorce rates far greater than our less-homosexually included brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Robert | Oct 25, 2006 6:21:45 PM
As a straight chick, I believe that gay men and women deserve the EXACT same rights as straights. That includes divorce as well as marriage. Maybe divorce will sky rocket even higher after all gays can legally marry, but divorce is already at an extremely high rate as it is! Before you lecture gays, you should first maybe lecture straights about divorce too. It's not gays who are going to ruin the "sanctity of marriage" like all those nutty right wingers keep on saying. It's already been ruined by us straights since divorce was created.
But then again, there's a good possibility that gay marriages can work better than even straight ones. Plus I think it will help more gay men and women come out of the closet and live more open and free like they should. And I think you'll see a HUGE decline of closeted gays getting married to the opposite sex and starting families based on lies. Now THAT is far more worse than gay divorce if you ask me.
Posted by: Sandie | Oct 26, 2006 12:42:05 PM
Sandie
thanks for your post
That brings up, the highest rate of divorce in america is in red bible belt states.
ironic
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 26, 2006 12:58:04 PM
Quote from Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality, 10/25/06:
"The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet."
Posted by: MW Savant | Oct 26, 2006 1:06:59 PM
Goldstein is exactly right. For those of you who think that refraining from calling it "marriage" is just semantics, it's not. First, contrary to some of the comments here, "marriage" is not just a religious term, it's the term used under the law as well. So don't think that all the NJ court did was differentiate between the religious aspects and the secular legal aspects. They said that we don't have the right to participate in the secular, civil legal institution of "marriage."
And if you think the name doesn't have consequences, here's what an appeals court in NY said when man whose VT-civil-union partner tried to sue for wrongful death (a right he would have had under marriage):
"Although the dissenters equate civil union relationships with traditional heterosexual marriage, we note that neither the State of Vermont nor the parties to the subject relationship have made that jump in logic. In following the ruling of its Supreme Court in the case of Baker v State the Vermont Legislature went to great pains to expressly decline to place civil unions and marriage on an identical basis. While affording same-sex couples the same rights as those afforded married couples, the Vermont Legislature refused to alter traditional concepts of marriage (i.e., limiting the ability to marry to couples of two distinct sexes) The import of that action is of no small moment. The decedent herein, upon entering the defendant hospital, failed to indicate that he was married. Moreover, in filing the various probate papers in this action, the plaintiff likewise declined to state that he was married. In essence, this Court is being asked to create a relationship never intended by the State of Vermont in creating civil unions or by the decedent or the plaintiff in entering into their civil union."
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 26, 2006 1:26:39 PM
One of the Right's most often-played criticisms regards "activist judges" "legislating from the bench." It seems that the NJ Ct was wise in precluding this criticism by letting the Leg. decide - for better or for worse.
Posted by: yo | Oct 26, 2006 1:27:08 PM