Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Equality NJ is going back to court

Timothy Kincaid

January 7th, 2010

On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey unanimously found that the constitution of that state requires that same-sex couples be provided with all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples. But by a 4 to 3 split they allowed the state to determine the method by which to provide equality.

The state legislature opted the next month for civil unions.

However, civil unions have not provided New Jersey’s same-sex couples with all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples. This was determined in a study and, more importantly, conceded during today’s debate by the opponents of marriage equity.

So Equality New Jersey is going back to court to ask the Judiciary to force the legislature to provide full marriage. (Blue Jersey)

With today’s vote in the state Senate, the New Jersey legislature defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples in New Jersey equal protection, as unanimously mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006. That’s why we at Garden State Equality are here with our partner Lambda Legal, which has an extraordinary track record of advancing LGBT civil rights in the courts.

Now our organizations will announce major news. Our side is going back to court to win marriage equality.

Several of the senators who voted against marriage equality have pledged to “fix” civil unions. Marriage supporters doubt that separate but equal can be fixed.

If one of the four justices is convinced that only marriage can remedy the inequality, then marriage may come to New Jersey.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Burr
January 7th, 2010 | LINK

Several of the senators who voted against marriage equality have pledged to “fix” civil unions.

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say they pass these fixes. What’s to say Christie won’t just repeal those?

No. These guys already failed and now it’s time for the court to enforce its previous verdict.

Jason D
January 7th, 2010 | LINK

separate but equal is unequal but design.

If civil unions and marriage are exactly equal, then the differentiation is unnecessary. Therefore they should both have the same name. We don’t call it something else when women vote, as opposed to men. We’re not in the habit of creating separate institutions.

But opponents to equality would say that the different name IS necessary. When pressed for a “why” it’s necessary, they’ll give away the ghost. Probably something to the effect of marriage being ordained by God, or somehow special : in other words, not equal to civil unions.

Bruno
January 7th, 2010 | LINK

I know that one of the 3 dissenters, Deborah Poritz, has retired. So they may or may not need more than 1 of the other 4 to agree.

Lymis
January 8th, 2010 | LINK

Until civil unions grant federal rights, they are not and cannot ever be equal.

The fact that the federal government is not currently recognizing even same-sex marriages is immaterial to the point. The fact that there is no federal legal definition of a civil union is.

The state has the obligation to give all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and, practically speaking, the biggest benefit of state-sanctioned marriage is access to federal rights.

The fact that the federal government has the door locked on their side doesn’t justify not giving same-sex couples the key to the state side.

If DOMA was repealed tomorrow, the married couples in Massachusetts get federal rights, tomorrow. The civilly unioned? Zip.

That isn’t equal, no matter what they call it.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.