New Jersey Gay Marriage Opinion - Gay Unions Required

NJ Supreme Court ^ | 10/25/06 | NJ Supreme Court

[conservative in nyc]

To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme, it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships.

The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the cooperation of the Legislature. 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.

For the reasons explained, we affirm in part and modify in part the judgment of the Appellate Division.

JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.

[zbigreddogz]

Link please?

[Alex1977]

Could this help Kean jr. to win?

[OldFriend]

Poritz is the one who assured McGreevy that she would go along with the swap of Toricelli for Lautenber.

[conservative in nyc]

So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?

Well, I'm still trying to read this thing. It's 90 pages long. That's what it sounds like. The phrase "gay unions" (that I used in my made up title) might be misleading because the Legislature need not even call it that. They can call it marriage if they wish, or anything else. My GUESS is that they will call it a civil union.

[RonF]

I've heard they meet an American gay, marry him or her and become a legal permanent resident of the state.

I don't see how. Legal residency in the U.S. is a matter of Federal law, not State law, and Federal law does not recognize the validity of same-sex unions.

[katieanna]

God is not amused.

[Captain Rhino]

To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme, it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships.

The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the cooperation of the Legislature. 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.

For the reasons explained, we affirm in part and modify in part the judgment of the Appellate Division.

JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.

The decision part of the decision.

[juliej]

It is not a bit loss: the legislature may pass a gay marriage bill; or it may go to a referendum and it will be appealed. It will be litigated, have no fear. Corzine would sign a gay marriage law.

[rface]

actually - I thought that NJ would say that "Marriage is a Constitutional Right".....instead they said that civil union would suffice ---- if the democratic process so decided.

[gridlock]

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 by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.

So why do the "samesex" couples have to be committed? There is no similar requirement for opposite-sex couples, is there? Isn't this just additional discrimination?

Since when is "samesex" a word?

[musikman]

After all, you can't discriminate against pedophilia, can you. I mean, that's just age discrimination.

[conservative in nyc]

Kean + 5 gay-marriage bump.

Whaddya think?

Not clear. I think most Jerseyites support civil unions, so the backlash might not be as bad as you think. It could energize conservative voters in New Jersey, though.

[buckeyenation]

Absolutely... I can't believe I'm the first one to play the "Rove, you magnificent bastard" card...

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

They didn't punt anything. It's the same thing. They only exposed the farce that there is a difference between gay marriage and gay civil unions.

If you change your name from OldFriend to AgedChum you are still the same freeper.

[Spaghetti Man]

i believe Corzine has already stated that he would NOT sign a law prohibiting gay marriages.

[dead]

Any idea how much this will affect the Kean/Menendez race?

Considering that the race is between a liberal trying to appear more moderate (Menedez) and a liberal trying to appear more liberal (Kean), it will probably have little impact.

[zbigreddogz]

Well, in fairness, people under 18 aren't granted the same rights as adults, so from a legal standpoint, there is a greater difference between a kid and an adult then a man and a woman.

But still, you aren't completely wrong. Given enough time we could be headed in that direction.

[Aetius]

I love that final line where the Court says the name given to gay marriage is up to the democratic process. How generous of them. I guess that counts for judicial restrain the eyes of the Left.

[mrsmith]

I can't believe their political masters let them do this at this time.
Wow.

[COEXERJ145]

If Kean is smart, he'll come out and say he opposes this decision because this is an issue that is best left up to legislatures and the people and the courts should stay out of it.