10/25/2006, 5:22 p.m. ET
By TOM HESTER Jr.
The Associated Press
Gay marriage or a form of civil unions?
Those are the choices the state Supreme Court said New Jersey lawmakers have to make by an April deadline as it ruled homosexual couples are unfairly denied the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy. The high court stopped short of legalizing gay marriage, instead ruling that lawmakers have 180 days to either rewrite marriage laws or establish a parallel system of unions for homosexuals.
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora said he and two other Democratic lawmakers will support giving homosexual couples the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. Democrats control New Jersey's Legislature and governor's office. "New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said Gusciora, D-Mercer.
Republicans, however, immediately began pushing for a constitutional amendment that would require voter approval and deem marriage as being only between a man and woman. "Not only does this reflect the intent of the current law, but it also would give New Jersey voters a chance to have a voice in this matter when the issue comes to the ballot for a vote," said Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Morris.
Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce accused the court of seeking to "legislate from the bench." "If a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is put up for a vote in the General Assembly, I will personally support that measure," he said. "Doing so would be consistent with my personal beliefs, and would allow the issue to come before the people of New Jersey for a vote on the ballot question."
No bill has ever been introduced to authorize gay marriage in New Jersey.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine and legislative leaders didn't immediately react to the ruling, but Corzine has voiced support for considering civil unions.
Gusciora predicted the ruling will split the Legislature among those who support overturning the decision and those who support civil unions and marriage rights, and require lawmakers to make public stands. "The court unfortunately sidestepped the issue," he said....
[...] Republican Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he will try to impeach all seven justices. Though it was a 4-3 decision, the three justices who dissented did so because they wanted gay marriage legalized. "When judicial decisions cease to be impartial and fall prey, instead, to deciding cases based on political leanings, the courts deprive the people of the honest broker promised them by the state constitution to decide cases," said Merkt, R-Morris. Merkt scoffed at how the court has pushed the final decision to lawmakers. "This is a complete usurpation of the policy-making function, but aren't they nice: they'll let us decide whether to call it marriage or something else," he said.
I suppose I ought to be celebrating. After a long string of defeats, another state supreme court actually said that we deserved simple human rights ... kinda sorta said, anyway.
And yet, this decision is really the worst of all possible worlds. At the least, I could wish that this decision had come on November 8 or so. As it stands, the decision will be used by the conservatives to distract from the spectacular policy failures and corruption of the current administration. Even in states where it isn't an issue, they'll say, "See! See! Look at New Jersey! We need a constitutional amendment to save us from activist judges like those!" And many conservatives who are now too disillusioned to vote may actually bestir their stumps to vote and voice their disapproval of the existence of gays, through sending people to Congress to punish us for daring to so exist and ask to be treated as human. In those states where it IS an issue ... well, really, it probably won't have any effect. After all, if you can't be stirred to express your bigotry in your own home state, why would some other state's decision make you want to do so? (Theoretically, Wisconsin is balancing on the edge; polls seem to indicate that it could go either way. Public expression of bigotry of any sort being subject to a savage social desirability bias in polls -- see "the Bradley Effect", below -- it seems fairly clear that the amendment banning gay marriage will be easily approved in Wisconsin.)
In terms of actually doing anything, it does ... nothing. As Republican bigot ... er, pardon, Republican Assemblyman Merkt notes, the court essentially demands a policy response from the legislature, while declining to state what the policy response should be. The proposal to amend the New Jersey state constitution to define marriage, which has basically been cordially ignored, will now almost certainly get consideration. The question is, how liberal is New Jersey's legislature? Is it liberal enough to defeat those efforts? And is New Jersey one of the states where a constitutional amendment can be instituted by voter initiative? (I will note that this is the most bizarre 4-3 judicial decision I've ever seen. Four justices saying, in essence, "This type of discrimination shall not stand; we will leave it to the legislature whether or not to allow full marriage rights to all, or to allow 'separate but equal' status in the shape of civil partnership. Three justices saying, in essence, "This type of discrimination should not stand, and we should require the state to give full marriage rights to all consenting adults." All seven say it's unconstitutional discrimination; they're just in a wrangle about what to do about it.)
It's just a frustrating way for this to work out. Although, if nothing else, New Jersey is better than Illinois, in that the state supreme court has actually said, "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 governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes." I'm not sure that the Illinois Supreme Court has ever had to issue a decision on the topic; the legislature passed the Illinois DOMA, and they've been able to turf the issue ever since.
It is interesting, and peculiar, to look at how the states fall out on this issue. Every single state in the country which has neither passed a Defense of Marriage Act nor a constitutional amendment defining marriage is in the northeast -- with one exception. For some odd reason, New Mexico has declined to enact such a law, despite repeated attempts and great provocation; the state senate keeps passing a law -- rather easily -- and the state house essentially sticks its collective fingers in its collective ears and says, "LA LA LA LA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!" The law dies without the house ever taking action. Very strange.
Posted by iain at October 25, 2006 05:24 PM
