Gay Couples' Rights in New Jersey: Homosexual Union Ruling Passed

Wednesday October 25, 2006 has become the next landmark in the fight for gay rights. New Jersey's highest court ruled that homosexual couples must be granted the same rights under the law that heterosexual couples receive. The New Jersey Supreme Court stopped short of demanding that the state allow homosexual couples to be allowed to marry; they granted legislators 180 days to determine how to provide for these rights.

The ruling in New Jersey could place gay couples in the same position as Vermont's 1999 decision that led to civil unions, it could lead to any other arrangement the legislators can imagine to offer the same rights as marriage, or it could open the door to homosexual marriages like Massachusetts has. This certainly seems to be a long shot in the country's current political climate, but some of New Jersey's Democratic lawmakers have already said that they will be pushing for a change to the current marriage statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The reaction from conservatives to the decision was split. Some expressed excitement, not at the ruling itself, but at its political implications. They are taking a view akin to "losing the battle but winning the war", saying that the New Jersey ruling would be fuel for their cause. The publicity generated by the imminent legal acceptance of homosexual unions or marriages in New Jersey might encourage more people to vote for Republicans in the upcoming election, they feel, and could possibly push things in their favor in close races.

There are also constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriages up for vote in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin on November 7th, and cases similar to the one in New Jersey are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland. Other conservatives are far less enthusiastic and say that the potential for the New Jersey ruling to affect the upcoming votes is not enough. Assemblymen Richard Merkt threatened to seek impeachment for all seven New Jersey Supreme Court Justices, despite the fact that the decision was a non-unanimous 4-3 majority.

Leaders of various homosexual rights groups also had mixed opinions on the New Jersey ruling. While most were pleased by the ruling, and some claimed it as a full victory, others deemed anything short of full marriage rights incomplete. However, the legislature has six months to reach its final decision on exactly how the rights will be granted, so they are not yet giving up hope. As Craig Hutchinson said, "it's going to give us the opportunity in the next 180 days to educate people about why separate isn't equal."

Justice Barry T. Albin wrote the majority decision in the ruling, saying that "times and attitudes have changed". The decision praised New Jersey for its diversity and goodness and said that though the court "cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution", the justices agreed that "the unequal distribution of rights and benefits to same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated".

The New Jersey Supreme Court showed a clear commitment to their position in our country's law-making process by refusing to proclaim a manner for which homosexual couples' rights should be obtained, an by limiting their ruling to an interpretation of what the current laws require. The court called the democratic process "the great engine for social change in this country". The final determination of New Jersey's position on same-sex marriage now rests with the people.