NJ Gay Marriage Case Decided: Equal Rights Not Necessarily Marriage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:39:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via atrios, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision on gay marriage. Quoting the syllabus:

HELD: Denying committed 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. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

I got an idea, why don't we call them civil unions.

< The Paranoid Style: Jungle Fever? | The Paranoid Style: The Gay Agenda >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NJ Gay Marriage Case Decided: Equal Rights Not Necessarily Marriage | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Gay Marriage Debate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Slado on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:01:56 PM EST

I'm just about sick of the gay marriage debate.

I don't know why my fellow conservatives get all in a twitter when it's brought up and I cant stand liberals clamoring for a religous institution to be controlled by the state.

Marriage is a religous institution. The state should get out of the marriage buisness and get into the civil union buisness. I'm married and got married in a church. To me that is marriage. Two guys or two girls isn't a marriage in my religion. If the state says it is isn't my concern. I take my religous teaching and rules from my church not my state. For that matter I don't think a hetero couple eloping and getting married in Vegas is a real marriage. They can call it that but to me it isn't. The problem is the state and the church all are mixed together now and we fight over a "right" that doesn't exist. The state doesn't have a "right" to decide which religous beliefs should qualify under the rulles of the state. Instead the state should give rights as the populace sees fit and if they disagree with religous practices so be it.

Here in lies the problem. The state has meddled in a religous instition and taken upon itself to declare what is and what isn't a marriage. Now we are arguing over the specifics when we all deep down know that anyone who isn't getting married in a church isn't really getting "married" but instead doing something else in order to get the same rights as those who choose to perform their civil union in a church. If a chruch chooses to marry gay people good for them.

I would have been happy to stand in line at the courthouse with gay and non-religous couples while we waited to sign the big thick book, drop off our blood-work and get our civil-union licensces.

: Religion and marriage (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by HK on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:54:18 PM EST

The idea that marriage and religion are somehow inextricably linked is entirely false. The dictionary (which for me holds infinitely more truths than the Bible) defines marriage as:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2. a combination of two or more elements.
Religion is not even mentioned. My husband and I got married in a Registry Office. Our marriage is not just a legal arrangement but a meaningful and personal union that we simply chose not to formalise before a God we don't believe in. We have not based the last 9 years on some kind of flippant contract.
Consenting adults have every right to decide for themselves the meaning of their relationships and they should not be refused legal standing based on their gender.
I would never dream of trying to legislate against your religion; don't try to use your beliefs to influence what should be my legal right.

: We got married by a judge (none / 0) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:15:47 PM EST

Marriage is a religous institution. The state should get out of the marriage buisness and get into the civil union buisness. I'm married and got married in a church. To me that is marriage.
Leo and I got married by a judge in a small ceremony in our condo attended by our friends and family. Are you saying I am not married? That would be news to us and we take our marriage seriously. Next thing you know, you will be telling us because we are childless we aren't married because marriage is for procreation.
Care to rethink your position?

: Pragmatism (none / 0) (#6)
by roy on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:21:05 PM EST

Marriage is a religious institution, but it's not only a religious institution. Straight couples can legally marry in civil ceremonies. Atheists marry. Religious people sometimes marry without the blessing of their church. So the religion angle, while relevant, is not a trump card.
Further, although I agree that the state could get out of the marriage business, it ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes. And I say that hoping to live another 60 years. It's just not a real option. So which is the lesser of evils: the state meddles in marriage by allowing only straights to marry, or the state meddles in marriage by allowing straights and gays to marry?

gay rights (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Sailor on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 05:48:30 PM EST

Here in lies the problem. The state has meddled in a religous instition and taken upon itself to declare what is and what isn't a marriage.

Actually, they went out of their way not to meddle in that. They just said it was discriminatory not to allow gays the same benefits as straights according to the NJ constitution. It was a legal ruling, not a religious one.

Now we are arguing over the specifics when we all deep down know that anyone who isn't getting married in a church isn't really getting "married"

Uhh, no, deep down or up front, that is a bogus statement. Especially when you are the one who gets to pick what a 'church' is.

If a chruch chooses to marry gay people good for them.

Which isn't allowed until the state will issue a marriage license.

I'm ordained, but I can't legally marry folks unless the have a license from the state.

Why doesn't the state get out of the marriage business? They can stay in the contract business, and issue contracts (i.e. 'civil unions') to any parties that ask.

Churches can then decide to marry anyone they feel is fit under their religious guidelines.

That's a true separation of church and state.

Re: New Jersey Gay Marriage Case (none / 0) (#1)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 02:47:35 PM EST

Or we could just call it "marriage." This is perhaps the most nuanced result we've seen yet in the gay marriage cases. It's a good step in the right direction. First equate the result. Once it's clear that same-sex couples and straight couples are entitled to the same result, we can fix what to call it.

scapegoat of the month (none / 0) (#4)
by Joe Bob on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:07:08 PM EST

No, I don't think this will play into the GOP 2006 electoral strategy that well. See, the gays were the 2004 scapegoat. Republicans have spent the past year making Mexicans the 2006 scapegoat. So, they just can't change course and make gays the scapegoat again.

Besides, if they do try to make gays an issue again that will do little more than remind people of a certain someone (hint: last name spelled F-o-l-e-y) the GOP is trying to keep out of the news.

What (none / 0) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:33:47 PM EST

If anyone has problems posting comments you now have to enter something in the subject box.

Response to Molly (none / 0) (#9)
by Slado on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:58:41 PM EST

Molly,

If someone is atheist or chooses not to practice their religion then no skin off my back. I am not self absorbed enough to think that my way is the only way. I have chosen to be Christian but I struggle constantly with my own beliefs but part of being one is accepting that certain points and institutions in my life are different because I involve God in them.

Don't confuse my belief system with your rights or your marriage. You're point is exactly my point. Who draws the line? The state?

Roy says it's impossible and he's probably right but the only real answer IMHO is for the state to give out civil licences to both of us so there is no debate. We're equal in the eyes of the state and what we choose to do in our private lives is private. I don't care what you call it and you don't care what I call it.

Roy asks which side we should favor. How can you expect agreement from a non-religous and a religous person on a religous institution? The moderate to non religous says make it all marriage. The moderate to religous person says no way it doesn' match my beliefs. To quote Clive Owen..."Here in lies the rub".

By the way congragulations on being and staying married. The deeper reality is I could care less because I'm married and the vows I exchanged where with my wife and we only answer to eachother and God. You only answer to your spouse and your God or no God. That's a contract you made so keep at it and good luck.

actually................................. (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 11:06:34 PM EST

slado, the line is drawn by the state, not the church. "marriage", as defined by law, is a contract, between two consenting parties. it is most decidedly a public issue, as it involves property rights, child custody issues, etc. that's why you get a license, in pretty much all jurisdictions in this country.

"marriage", as defined by religion, is a mystical union of two souls, who become one under their chosen god. the state could not care less about that, and shouldn't.

to be married, according to the state, you needn't ever set foot in a church, or be religious. you will be just as subject to the contract if you get married by a judge, as you will be if by a priest, rabbi, minister, imam, etc.

however, if you don't get the state's approval, you could be married by the pope, and it won't be recognized by the state.

The law is one thing, the practice is another (none / 0) (#12)
by Slado on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:00:35 PM EST

Cpniva.

Again my point. Right now the law says it is marriage between two men and women. That's the law.

If you live in Mass. then you can be gay. Everywhere else too bad for you.

Change the law or change the name. To state simply that "marriage" is a state instution is correct according to the law but not in practice. Most Americans get married in a church, by a preist, rabbi, Imam etc... so to them it's a religous institution and their rules apply.

That's why men and women can't marry people of the opposite sex in 49 of the 50 states.