New Jersey & Marriage Equality
The opinion on the "gay-marriage" case in New Jersey was handed down today by that state's supreme court. The opinion, which I haven't read yet entirely, is interesting. Here's the pivotal bit:
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.
Of course, this won't really satisfy anyone, which is what makes it interesting. However, although I believe that using the term "marriage" is really very important, I also feel that gaining equal benefits regardless of the nomenclature is operationally fundamental, so I think this is a positive step, particularly realizing that this position at this time is itself pretty bold, even if it falls short of the final goal. The goal can be reached if we keep moving in the right direction.
Of course, much of the contention has been over the use of the word "marriage", which is itself curious. But now the New Jersey court has called the bluff of reactionaries who give ample lip-service to "not hating homosexuals" and claim that they would be fine, just fine, giving all the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples just as long as it's not called "marriage".
I'm not convinced that this latter group will see much victory in today's decision. Look for renewed excitement over "activist judges", tired rhetoric that will be seen more clearly as such by an electorate that is learning how to interpret the right's hysterical hyperbole.
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 26 October 2006 at 04.05
Permalink
This strikes me as giant stride, commendable in its intention to ensure fairness.
The nomenclature, as you put it, has deep emotional significance to a whole lot tradition-bound people. Not all of them are bigots by any means.
Like the song says, "There will come an answer;let it be."
on Friday, 27 October 2006 at 01.13
Permalink
I thought marriage had some embodiment of the biological and social function of bearing and raising children. It seems to me marriage should have some color of procreation attached to it. Now that we are outsourcing our population growth to Mexico and other countries, I guess marriage has become a set of rights and benefits bestowed upon persons much as Queen Elizabeth II would bestow a title.
on Sunday, 29 October 2006 at 02.02
Permalink
RSF, you express a completely understandable traditionalist sentiment. It's one probably shared by most Americans, even though a growing percentage refuse to feel threatened in any way by the prospect of gays and lesbians having an equivalent institution.
I think we're big enough and smart enough, most of us, to come up with and then accommodate parallel, very similar institutions that meet everyone's needs and satisfy the overall need for fairness. It's not a zero-sum situation.
In a macro sense, inevitably, traditional marriage has usually had a procreation function, to use a thoroughly unromantic term. However, sterile men and barren women have always been able to marry, as have couples who chose not to have children. So?
If you're really worried about the future prospects of procreation, support Democrats' efforts to help low-income people with their day care and preschool needs. The challenge and expense those needs represent for millions is probably a bigger factor in suppressing the birth rate than anything else.
Looking ahead, I wouldn't be surprised if, a couple of generations hence, people call it marriage, whether homos or heteros are thus united, with no particular harm or loss to anyone resulting. They'll probably look back and chuckle at what all the fuss was about.
on Sunday, 29 October 2006 at 08.10
Permalink
The birth rate of low-income people tends to be at or above replacement rate. Middle and upper income birth rates fall below replacement rate.