NJ gay marriage WTF?
Oct. 25th, 2006 13:34![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhai am seeing people on my flist go YAY for NJ because of the ruling by its supreme court on gay marriage. i don't feel a whole lot like yaying. i was hoping for a lot more, and it even seemed likely that we'd get that.
if i understand the ruling correctly, this is not super great news. bottom line: the NJ supremes have upheld the ruling by a lower court (pdf), against the gay couples bringing the suit. and kicked the whole thing back to the legislature with an admonishment to give equal rights to gays as to heterosexuals (well sorta) -- instead of declaring discrimination in marriage law unconstitutional. the latter is what most gay rights advocates want. the latter is what i want.
i consider that a "maybe" on gay marriage in NJ and really, deep down, a "no" overall. "oh, you gays should have all the same rights, but we're not gonna give them to you because maybe you shouldn't be allowed to call what you do "marriage"; we leave the decision over that to the 'democratic process', kthxbye".
yes, the NJ legislature is now required to either allow same-sex partners to marry same as hets, or to enact separate civil union legislation (gee, i wonder which it'll be, first class or second class). but this will only apply to residents of NJ. if the court had declared the current law unconstitutional, people from anywhere in the US could have come to NJ to marry there, because NJ, unlike massachusetts, does not have any local limitations on marriage licenses. so NJ will probably become another vermont. that's good for people who live there, or are willing to move there, but it becomes meaningless if they ever want to live somewhere else together, because there is no such thing as reciprocality between states (or countries) when it comes to civil union. civil union does therefore not bestow all the same rights as marriage, and it's two-faced of the supremes to pretend it does.
oh, and look at this bit: 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.28 It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships. any bets as to whether this last bit will not happen? uh hn. thought not. us polyamorous folk are the next bugbear now, right next to pedophiles.
on the positive side, gays in NJ will at least get civil unions, which is a bit of a step up from the already existing domestic partnership laws. the court said that denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
but this is a blow to gay marriage rights advocates across the US.
if i understand the ruling correctly, this is not super great news. bottom line: the NJ supremes have upheld the ruling by a lower court (pdf), against the gay couples bringing the suit. and kicked the whole thing back to the legislature with an admonishment to give equal rights to gays as to heterosexuals (well sorta) -- instead of declaring discrimination in marriage law unconstitutional. the latter is what most gay rights advocates want. the latter is what i want.
i consider that a "maybe" on gay marriage in NJ and really, deep down, a "no" overall. "oh, you gays should have all the same rights, but we're not gonna give them to you because maybe you shouldn't be allowed to call what you do "marriage"; we leave the decision over that to the 'democratic process', kthxbye".
yes, the NJ legislature is now required to either allow same-sex partners to marry same as hets, or to enact separate civil union legislation (gee, i wonder which it'll be, first class or second class). but this will only apply to residents of NJ. if the court had declared the current law unconstitutional, people from anywhere in the US could have come to NJ to marry there, because NJ, unlike massachusetts, does not have any local limitations on marriage licenses. so NJ will probably become another vermont. that's good for people who live there, or are willing to move there, but it becomes meaningless if they ever want to live somewhere else together, because there is no such thing as reciprocality between states (or countries) when it comes to civil union. civil union does therefore not bestow all the same rights as marriage, and it's two-faced of the supremes to pretend it does.
oh, and look at this bit: 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.28 It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships. any bets as to whether this last bit will not happen? uh hn. thought not. us polyamorous folk are the next bugbear now, right next to pedophiles.
on the positive side, gays in NJ will at least get civil unions, which is a bit of a step up from the already existing domestic partnership laws. the court said that denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
but this is a blow to gay marriage rights advocates across the US.
no subject
on 2006-10-25 22:05 (UTC)Thanks to DOMA, even a marriage wouldn't necessarily be recognized anywhere else.
no subject
on 2006-10-26 02:09 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 02:44 (UTC)looks like fundamentally our preferences are very similar.
no subject
on 2006-10-26 16:15 (UTC)