You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
This is what the New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Today:
"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 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 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....The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples....The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union....Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude....To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision."
17 Comments:
I take back all of the less than favorable New Jersey jokes I've made in the past.
New Jersey has stepped up to the plate and come through with flying colors in affording true Justice For All. Bravo New Jersey! (New York--are you paying attention to your neighbor???)
posted by Anonymous, at
10/25/2006 6:54 PM
It is commendable that the NJ Court has stated that same-sex couples must enjoy the same right and privileges of civil marriage, but my gut feeling is that civil unions will be the route in which they choose to bestow such rights. A step in the right direction definitely, but unless those rights are granted under the word "marriage", then clearly this is not equality, but sexual apartheid, separate and unequal.
Sorry, I don't share you joy in this one. The Courts declared how we are entitled to rights but then declared they are not giving them to us. That is wrong on every level. For a group of judges to decide we deserve rights by the constitution of a state, but also decide they will not grant them is an insult on every level.
This is not a day to rejoice, it is a day to be disgusted with the innaction of man.
posted by Joe Brummer, at
10/25/2006 8:16 PM
Joe- do you understand that the courts only interpret the law- they do not write it??? They are called judges (as in to evaluate) They are not called writers. Which is a very, very good thing as that would put the law of the land into a very few hands. Their instructions seem very clear. Unfortunately for and fortunately for - this is the process.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/25/2006 8:59 PM
This is not a day to rejoice, it is a day to be disgusted with the innaction of man.
Maybe this is a day for all of us to brush up on our civics. Our legislatures make laws, our judiciary interprets them -they don't "grant" rights. That's just silly.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/25/2006 11:35 PM
I would have certainly preferred it if NJ would have sided with Ma., but the decision is lightyears ahead of the decisions in Washington and New York.
You guys should pay attention to the Dworkin citation in the minority decision. Dworkin is the greatest American legal philosopher alive, and he recently provided strong support for gay marriage on The New York Review of Books.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 1:28 AM
I find it hypocritical for the NJ court to state that under its constitution, there is no fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Hmmmmm...if that is the case, then there is no case for opposite-sex couples to marry if equal rights are guaranteed for all. I find that conflicted and a double-standard. Marriage is also a civil right and as such, we are denied that right in 49 states. This is nothing but selective discrimination based on religious, bigoted interpretation of what marriage implies. In a true democracy, everyone enjoys the same rights, not just the majority. That the court stated that we have a right to the rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage is quite an admission admittedly, but if it had any guts and truly believed in equality, they it would have ruled in favor of civil marriage for all, but it didn't and could have. They're stalling to come up with a civil union bill to appease the right wingers and other religious bigots so as not to lose votes. Hardly anything to be happy about and you can bet we won't see civil marriage available to NJ gays in 180 days.
Robert NYC, I agree with you 100%. This decision is a mixed bag, although we are BETTER OFF today than we were two days ago. So the reason to celebrate is there. But we also have reason to feel let down, too. Listen, America is what America is. The country has great ideals but consistently falls tragically short of them. Most Americans pay mere lip service to the constitution. What good is "equal protection" if you only grant it to people you're comfortable with? The battle continues!
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 9:59 AM
Chris, with you on all of that. Its way too soon to rejoice but would have been appropriate had they really believed in those rights by ruling in our favor to allow us to marry right away. They failed, dismally. Expect no surprises in 180 days either. Having ideals is one thing, but action speaks louder than words. I hope I'm proved wrong but the psyche in this society is too entrenched in the religious interpretation of marriage, not the civil aspect of it. Unfortunately, religion is allowed to influence political outcomes in certain legislative matters, this being one of them. If NJ is given civil unions to obtain marriage rights, we should not accept it neither should any of us enter into any discriminatory unions either. In any event, civil unions like marriage equality in one state do NOT lend portability. Once you leave the state, your marriage or union is not worth the paper its printed on. How insulting and offensive does it get?
Robert, I agree. I guess a person has to be gay in order to understand why these kinds of decisions are so insulting and offensive. If "civil unions" provide the EXACT rights as "marriage", then the difference is clear. We're essentially being told that we belong in a "seperate category". Civil Unions simply allow the marginalization and cultural stigmatization of gays and lesbians to continue. I really think that those persons who work towards maintaining that marginalization should hang their collective heads in shame.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 1:19 PM
Chris - I agree. Change the word, changes the meaning and makes a big difference. civil union does not equal marriage.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 1:24 PM
Chris, thank you. What is more offensive is that any state legislature can decide which rights we as gay and lesbians can expect to enjoy when the majority gets everything no matter what. We're not a true democracy in that respect, we can go on ranting about our freedoms and having more than others, but its clear we do not. The Supreme Court should have done the right thing and ruled that marriage must be available to all. They've given the anti gay marriage foes more ammunition to play with and in the end, we'll come off the losers with those equally offensive civil unions, meaning that we're just not as good as heterosexuals. Throwing the dog a bone to appease us doesn't work any more. Its abominable and nothing more than state legislated homophobia. Thank goodness Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada and soon South Africa have seen the light and done the right thing by their people. Those are the true democracies. We should have done a whole lot better. I'm so disgusted and outraged.
Regan, you are the definite exception. But I apologize, as there are many heterosexuals who do understand, of course. :) Look, to anyone who is disheartened, we should at least take heart in knowing that things seem to be moving our way. The religious fanatics rant and rave all the time, but what do they really accomplish politically? New Jersey was one single vote away from full marriage rights. Washington State was 5-4. The country has changed dramatically, and we are going to have to continue to work hard. But the truth is on our side, and we will prevail. Sooner or later, injustice MUST crumble.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/26/2006 3:39 PM
So there we have it. Governor Corzine and Senate President Dick Codey of NJ have stated that a gay marriage law will NOT pass in their state and they will probably draft a bill to approve civil unions to gain the rights and privileges of marriage, almost as offensive as the defense of marriage act. I knew it.
*Sigh!* In politics, it usualy works best to drive the wedge in narrow edge first. Once civil unions happen and people see the earth doesn't quake, boulders don't split apart, and the dead don't come out of their tombs and walk about (pace Pat Robertson!); they'll be primed for the next step.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/27/2006 1:52 PM
Should the New Jersey legislature decide to enact Civil Unions rather than marriage, it will make obtaining marriage equality all the more harder. It will remove the meat from the marriage argument if gays are granted the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, alimony, etc. through Civil Unions. While these things are vitally important from a practical point of view, obtaining them through Civil Unions still paints gays as the 'other' and people who are less than their heterosexual counterparts.
Now that 'equal rights' have been obtained in New Jersey, gay allies might soon become frustrated by the continued demands for marriage.
I've always thought it was a mistake for gays to speak of marriage as though it were some kinda of goodie bag. Unlike Civil Unions, it transcends the 'rights' it provides. There is a vital intangible quality to it that speaks to love, sacrifice, and committment. It is that divine quality that separates man from beast.
Too much political capital has been expended to be satisfied with Civil Unions which could have been accomplished with far less effort. With 7 gay marriage amendments on the ballot in several states, we might never know the true cost of that Supreme Court decision. If this decision propels more Christian conservatives to vote for these amendments, that decision will have done irreparable damage to thousands of gay people who have scant hope of obtaining any rights whatsoever.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/02/2006 10:13 AM
