From The New York Times
N.J. Court Backs Rights for Gay Unions
By Laura Mansnerus
Published: October 25, 2006
"The State Supreme Court in New Jersey said today that under equal protection guarantees of the state constitution, same-sex couples 'must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.' But it said that whether that status is called marriage or something else 'is a matter left to the democratic process.'"
10 months ago
2 comments:
Something else seems to be what they will be calling it.
We're happy about the decision, it was better than we expected, but sad it didn't go all the way.
Separate but equal can never be equal.
Not to sound like a broken record, but my solution is to call all such arrangements (same-sex or different-sex) civil unions in terms of the civil law. Religious institutions and communities can then be free to use "marriage" in the way they deem fit. But I do not think this will ever happen because idiots will say, "the government says we're not married." Thus, the only viable solution is to open "marriage" to same-sex couples.
One big difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is that "marriage" is recognized and crosses borders, "civil unions" do not. Having two terms will keep the legal system busy for quite a while.
The NJ Supreme Court did not do its job. (And I say this as NJ-raised.)
Post a Comment