Three Way News

Your Source. For everything. Really.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

NJ gay marriage

This just in from the New Jersey Supreme Court:

To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. 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.FN28 It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships.

Lewis v. Harris, 2006 WL 3019750. A total of 4 justices signed on to the majority opinion. The 3 justices who concur in part and dissent. From the concurring opinion:

I concur with the determination of the majority that “denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1[,]” of the New Jersey Constitution.FN29 Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). I can find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage, and therefore dissent from the majority's opinion insofar as it declines to recognize that right among all of the other rights and benefits that will be available to same-sex couples in the future.

Looks like this was more or less unanimous decision that gay couples are entitled to all the same rights, privileges and duties as straight couples, with 4 justices saying you can't call it marriage and 3 justices saying you have to call it marriage.