Justices rule for gays in N.J. case - Same-sex couples are due marriage benefits
Justices rule for gays in N.J. case - Same-sex couples are due marriage benefits
By Stevenson Swanson
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published October 26, 2006
NEW YORK -- In a ruling that could make New Jersey the second state to legalize same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court said Wednesday that gay couples have the same right to the benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples.
The court, whose decision had been awaited for months by advocates on both sides of the contentious debate over same-sex unions, said the New Jersey Constitution's guarantee of equal rights applies to gay and lesbian couples, but it stopped short of ordering state officials to legalize gay marriage.
Instead, it gave the Legislature until April to amend the state's marriage statute to include same-sex couples or to pass a civil union law that provides those couples the same benefits as marriage.
"We do not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples," Justice Barry Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority. "Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
The ruling is similar to a 1999 decision by Vermont's Supreme Court, which resulted in a civil union law. A 2003 ruling by Massachusetts' highest court was more sweeping, making that state the first--and only--state with legalized gay marriage, starting in 2004.
Connecticut allows civil unions between same-sex couples, the result of legislative action that was not prompted by a court ruling.
The case that resulted in Wednesday's ruling was brought by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in New Jersey. The dissenting justices, led by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, argued that the majority didn't go far enough, saying that only marriage would enable gay couples to achieve equal benefits.
In making its ruling, the court reflected on the changes that have transformed marriage during the last 200 years, such as granting women greater rights within marriage.
"The institution of marriage reflects society's changing social mores and values," the majority said in its opinion. "Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society."
After setbacks this year in state courts in New York, Nebraska, Washington and Georgia, gay-marriage advocates greeted Wednesday's decision with relief.
"We received a unanimous decision on one aspect, which is that all seven justices agreed that it violates the guarantee of equal protection not to give same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples," said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal, which argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. "So now the struggle in New Jersey moves to the Legislature."
Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Foes call it judicial arrogance
Opponents of gay marriage said the New Jersey court had shown the same judicial arrogance as the Vermont and Massachusetts courts.
"It amounts to taking the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey," said Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage, which advocates amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Nationally, it will add momentum to the marriage amendments that are on the ballots across the country, and more importantly, it will add momentum to the marriage amendment in the Congress," Daniels said.
That amendment, which President Bush has endorsed, failed to garner support in two votes in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Political observers said the New Jersey decision, coming less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, could rally evangelical Christians and other conservative voters to turn out in heavier numbers than expected in the eight states where constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and woman are on the ballot.
Two of those states, Virginia and Tennessee, are seen as key battlegrounds in the struggle for control of the Senate.
But because the justices stopped short of ordering New Jersey officials to legalize same-sex marriage, the ruling's impact on the election could be diluted, even in the Garden State, which is in the midst of its own tight Senate race. Incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, is being challenged by Republican Tom Kean Jr.
"There was a sense that this could really reshape the Senate race here," said Tim Vercellotti, of the Eagleton Institute for Public Interest Polling, at Rutgers University. "But this is a much more muted effect. I think it's going to be a close race, and I don't think this ruling is going to affect that."
Reacting to the ruling, Kean called for the state Legislature to pass an amendment to New Jersey's Constitution defining marriage as a heterosexual union, similar to amendments that voters in 20 states have approved.
Menendez said he believes marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman but added that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.
3 N.J. lawmakers vow a bill
Three New Jersey legislators said they would introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage. The state already has a domestic partnership statute, which grants some rights to same-sex couples, such as the right to make medical decisions for each other and to file joint state income-tax returns.
Gov. Jon Corzine has said he supports domestic partnerships for same-sex couples but also has said he would not sign a bill prohibiting same-sex marriage.
A June poll by the Eagleton Institute indicated that New Jersey voters are almost evenly divided on gay marriage, with 49 percent of those polled supporting it and 44 percent opposed.
Support for civil unions was far stronger, with 66 percent in favor and 29 percent opposed.
----------
sswanson@tribune.com
By Stevenson Swanson
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published October 26, 2006
NEW YORK -- In a ruling that could make New Jersey the second state to legalize same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court said Wednesday that gay couples have the same right to the benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples.
The court, whose decision had been awaited for months by advocates on both sides of the contentious debate over same-sex unions, said the New Jersey Constitution's guarantee of equal rights applies to gay and lesbian couples, but it stopped short of ordering state officials to legalize gay marriage.
Instead, it gave the Legislature until April to amend the state's marriage statute to include same-sex couples or to pass a civil union law that provides those couples the same benefits as marriage.
"We do not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples," Justice Barry Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority. "Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
The ruling is similar to a 1999 decision by Vermont's Supreme Court, which resulted in a civil union law. A 2003 ruling by Massachusetts' highest court was more sweeping, making that state the first--and only--state with legalized gay marriage, starting in 2004.
Connecticut allows civil unions between same-sex couples, the result of legislative action that was not prompted by a court ruling.
The case that resulted in Wednesday's ruling was brought by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in New Jersey. The dissenting justices, led by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, argued that the majority didn't go far enough, saying that only marriage would enable gay couples to achieve equal benefits.
In making its ruling, the court reflected on the changes that have transformed marriage during the last 200 years, such as granting women greater rights within marriage.
"The institution of marriage reflects society's changing social mores and values," the majority said in its opinion. "Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society."
After setbacks this year in state courts in New York, Nebraska, Washington and Georgia, gay-marriage advocates greeted Wednesday's decision with relief.
"We received a unanimous decision on one aspect, which is that all seven justices agreed that it violates the guarantee of equal protection not to give same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples," said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal, which argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. "So now the struggle in New Jersey moves to the Legislature."
Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Foes call it judicial arrogance
Opponents of gay marriage said the New Jersey court had shown the same judicial arrogance as the Vermont and Massachusetts courts.
"It amounts to taking the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey," said Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage, which advocates amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Nationally, it will add momentum to the marriage amendments that are on the ballots across the country, and more importantly, it will add momentum to the marriage amendment in the Congress," Daniels said.
That amendment, which President Bush has endorsed, failed to garner support in two votes in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Political observers said the New Jersey decision, coming less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, could rally evangelical Christians and other conservative voters to turn out in heavier numbers than expected in the eight states where constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and woman are on the ballot.
Two of those states, Virginia and Tennessee, are seen as key battlegrounds in the struggle for control of the Senate.
But because the justices stopped short of ordering New Jersey officials to legalize same-sex marriage, the ruling's impact on the election could be diluted, even in the Garden State, which is in the midst of its own tight Senate race. Incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, is being challenged by Republican Tom Kean Jr.
"There was a sense that this could really reshape the Senate race here," said Tim Vercellotti, of the Eagleton Institute for Public Interest Polling, at Rutgers University. "But this is a much more muted effect. I think it's going to be a close race, and I don't think this ruling is going to affect that."
Reacting to the ruling, Kean called for the state Legislature to pass an amendment to New Jersey's Constitution defining marriage as a heterosexual union, similar to amendments that voters in 20 states have approved.
Menendez said he believes marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman but added that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.
3 N.J. lawmakers vow a bill
Three New Jersey legislators said they would introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage. The state already has a domestic partnership statute, which grants some rights to same-sex couples, such as the right to make medical decisions for each other and to file joint state income-tax returns.
Gov. Jon Corzine has said he supports domestic partnerships for same-sex couples but also has said he would not sign a bill prohibiting same-sex marriage.
A June poll by the Eagleton Institute indicated that New Jersey voters are almost evenly divided on gay marriage, with 49 percent of those polled supporting it and 44 percent opposed.
Support for civil unions was far stronger, with 66 percent in favor and 29 percent opposed.
----------
sswanson@tribune.com
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home