NJ Marriage Decision

[Darcy]

Well. there's good news and bad news ...

The good news is that the court held that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. The bad news is that they didn't recognize that anything other than marriage isn't really equal, giving the legislature 180 days to provide the same benefits, but explicitly allowing them to call it something other than marriage.

Interestingly, this is being reported as a 4-3 decision, which makes it sound very close. But the three dissenters are dissenting from the majority's refusal to go all the way to mandating marriage, which means the court was UNANIMOUS that the state is obligated to extend all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples!

I spent the afternoon at the rally in front of the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton waiting for the NJ Supreme Court to release their decision in the same-sex marriage case, Lewis v. Harris. I had managed to get into the courtroom for the oral arguments before the appellate court, and the overflow room when it was argued before the supreme court, so I felt obligated to be there for the decision.

I had been hoping to call my wife and ask her "Will you marry me - again?" like that diamond ad on TV. Somehow, "Will you enter into yet another quasi-marital relationship with me" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Imagine how people would respond if told that everyone has the same rights and benefits - but white people will be called "citizens" and everyone else will be called "residents". (That's not original with me, BTW - I ran across it while looking up "separate but equal inherently unequal" from Brown v. Board of Education.)

So now we turn to the legislature and try to get them to do the right thing. Three legislators have committed to introducing a marriage equality bill. I suppose the politicians could surprise me and do the right thing, but I'm not terribly optimistic about the prospects.

[Auriam]

In france we have the PACS but it's not the same of marriage.

But in the next election of president we have 3 cadidate who want gay marriage

we will see !

[Brianna]

In spain we have the marriage but if a baby born in it (artificial insemination or something like that) the no biological partner is not recognised as a mother! when in heterosexual marriages is...

[badkitty]

I feel like I've been on a roller coaster of emotions the last few days. I am from NJ, and I would very much like to move back, but financial constraints have me trapped in Ohio for now. So, the NJ decision was very important to me personally, since I plan on living there again. Eventually.

When I first heard the news, it was sort of misreported as a victory, and I just read the headlines and assumed it was a total victory. That we actually got full "marriage" rights. Now, as a lawyer, I've always viewed the issue from a distinctly lawyer-like position: just give me the same rights as heteros, and call it what you want. Call it "turd sandwich" for all I care. Just gimme the rights, dammit. But as a human being, with feelings and emotions, I realized with full blunt force trauma to the head yesterday that the word marriage isn't just a word. It doesn't just mean something. It means everything.

So when I first heard of the "victory," I quite literally fell to my knees (well, first I had to shut the door to my office, so my co-workers wouldn't think I was insane) and I cried in utter joy and total disbelief. It was an affirmation of everything that I am. I would finally be able to refer to Mary and "my wife" outside the confines of safe places like the kitten board, and not worry about anyone looking at me funny or worse.

Then, I went from that joy to a rather anti-climactic "oh" when I understood what the decision meant. What it means is that the court punted. What it means is that the concept of "seperate but equal" decried by this nation's highest court as being patently unconsitutional in Loving v. Virginia, was suddenly just fine when applied to homosexuals. We cringe in sickness and horror when we think there was ever a time in this country where a black person couldn't legally marry a white person. We look at a case like Loving and think, "of course!" Yet we have no problem applying the illogic of holding like the one that came down from the NJ court yesterday to our lives and think that it's ok. It's not ok.

Don't get me wrong - I am happy that the court held that we are entitled to the same rights. But you don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate the simple elegance of Justice Poritz's dissent. We're still not invited to the party. We're still "other." As my mom would wryly say, "it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick." Ok then.

I'm hopeful that the NJ legislature will, rather than cut and paste NJ's civil marriage law and apply a different name to it for the gays, that they'll instead do the right thing and just add gays and lesbians to the existing law. Because anything less than that just isn't enough.

*stepping off my soapbox now*

-bk

[Darcy]

I know what you mean about the roller coaster. I was waiting outside the Justice Complex for word on the decision when one of my staff called me from his car, where a local radio station had just announced that we'd won. The people near me started getting excited, and I tried to explain that this was - at best - third-hand information. But after thinking we'd gotten the whole enchilada, it was really disappointing to find out it was only a side of guacamole.

But Garden State Equality has already announced that at least three legislators have committed to introducing a bill for full equality. Keep up your hopes.

[Willowlover]

This might not be in the right thread at all but i have to ask the U.S. Kittens something about gay marriage. I have never heard why the united states doesnt like the idea of gay marriage. Any kitten who can tell me, using words from government officials, why we dont have it nation wide can you please tell me.

on topic: I hope that they do add gays and lesbians to the existing law because like everyone else has said anything less isnt quite enough.

[badkitty]

Willowlover:

I think you might get a lot of different answers to that question. I can only give you my point of view, which is this: there is a rather large cross section of the US population who identify as Christians, and they come in many stripes. Fundamentalists, Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals, to name only a few. Many (and by no means certainly not all, but many) Christians believe that homosexuality is evil. Because they feel so strongly about the issue, many of them are quite politically active, and attempt whenever possible to impose their morality upon the population at large. The right wing (aka Conservative Republicans), led by the brilliant but evil Karl Rove, found out about six or seven years ago that these people, who are collectively known as "the religious right" are large in number, and very likely to vote for a candidate that they think shares their point of view. George Bush probably didn't care one way or the other about the gays once upon a time, but when he discovered that he could get a whole lot of votes by taking sides with the religious right, he started demonizing the gays because that made him popular. It got him votes.

Politicians also need scapegoats for when they screw up. So, when bad things happen like the war in Iraq going down the toilet, or perhaps a Republican politician is discovered stealing money, chasing underage boys, or accidentally shooting their friends in the face, they try to stick the "gay issue" back in the headlines so that people will not pay attention to how badly they are screwing up. They demonize us. They make it sound like we're out to ruin marriage for everyone, and that we want to turn their children gay. They create a "gay panic" because they know that extremely close-minded, bigoted people will fall for it. And they do, every time.

In a nutshell, quite a large number of Americans, primarily those who would identify as "conservative," don't want gays to be able to marry because they (rightly so, I might add) think that by allowing that to happen, it basically signifies a societal acceptance of homosexuality in general. And they don't ever want to see that happen.

Hope that helps.

-bk

[Willowlover]

Thats what i thought but i was hoping someone would be able to point out a time when a politician admited it was because of religion. Because if so i would have more use in debates against them. Im only in high school but im working to get into politics mostly because of this. I have to say that even though this is the most obvious un-equal thing are government does there are alot more i would like to fix. Until this issue comes to the desired conclussion (Equal rights for the gay community) I am trying to help.

[kisstheviolets]

the next 180 days will be rough for you kids in new jersey, and i say this having lived in massachusetts when the goodridge decision came down. our 180 days were filled with a lot of hate speech, ruthless politickinig, and pathetic attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater. but there were also beautiful displays of solidarity and support from some of the most unlikely people. in a way, it really let us know who our friends were. so hang in there during this tough time new jersey. i know an all out victory would have been amazing, but you can't lose sight of the fact that this decision is still progress and far from the end of the road.

[Darcy]

Thanks for the kind words from the pioneering state in the struggle.

There are three crucial differences between the situations in Massachusetts and New Jersey which I hope will make our wait less chaotic.

1) The NJ court was unanimous in finding that we were entittled to equal rights; they differed only on the remedy. The Goodridge decision came from a divided court, which gave encouragement to opponents in their belief that that the court had exceeded its proper bounds.

2) In the time since Goodridge, public opinion has moved toward supporting full marriage equality, and this decision comes down when polls show that at least 50% of New Jersey residents now support it. The Rutgers-Eagleton poll mentioned in the Philadelphia Inquirer indicated support for marriage at 50%, with 44% opposed, and 65% support for civil unions. I've seen other polls that peg marriage support even higher.

3) New Jersey has the example of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has full marriage equality, and the consequences have been - inconsequential. Rather anticlimactic, given all the apocalyptic predictions by opponents.

That said - although I'll be hoping and pushing for full equality, I think some sort of civil union solution is more likely. This is one instance when I'll be ecstatic to be proved wrong!

[Auriam]

Hello kittens
i need some help
For some work on a paper i have trouve to find informations about stades where we have gay marriage.
So if you have some web site can you link them please ?
Thank you very much