The same sex marriage debate is being decided in New Jersey. A case came before the New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday, and ironically, some people on either side of the debate see the ruling as both a victory as well as a disappointment.
How does that work? Let’s look at what the Court ruled. The state Supreme Court, correctly, could not find a fundamental right for same sex marriage. However, it did find that gay couples should have the same rights and benefits extended to married couples.
What does this mean? It means that although the argument over certain rights and benefits has been acknowledged, the validation longed for by same sex couples may not be forthcoming. The language used by the court, “no fundamental right,” is seen by some as a blow, despite the Court’s determination to grant benefits.
For those that oppose gay marriage, the language regarding fundamental rights is embraced. However, the fact that the Court is demanding that same sex couples either be somehow included in existing marriage laws or that the legislature create a new status complete with marriage benefits, doesn’t do much to differentiate between gay unions and gay marriages. They amount to the same thing but are simply labeled differently.
In fact, the court dictated that the legislature must makes changes within the next six months. Now, courts obviously have the power to strike down existing laws that they deem unconstitutional, but when did the judiciary snare the power to dictate the language of future legislation?
New Jersey already recognizes “domestic partnerships,” which include certain benefits as Heather stated, but apparently, the court wants to insure that gay couples are either married or seen as married, but is doing so in a backhanded manner. This is a slight of hand trick in order to avoid backlash over judicial activism, by simply calling it something other than marriage while insuring that it amounts to the same thing.
I guess the people of New Jersey who do not support gay marriage have to be thankful for small favors. The judiciary is allowing lawmakers to at least play a role in lawmaking, while some courts have usurped this power completely.
The ruling arises just before the election, but it leaves many questions unanswered about how lawmakers will deal with the Court’s demands. New Jersey voters won’t know until after this election has come and gone, and we will likely see further debate on this topic in the Garden State, as well as in others.
Some, who defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman, fear that this ruling will wreak havoc in their own states, if the legislature gives in and calls these unions “marriages.” Since New Jersey does not require residency in order to obtain a marriage license, this would mean that gay couples from other states could get hitched in New Jersey and then return home demanding that their unions be recognized as marriages, even if their own state’s laws say the opposite. Only time will tell what this ruling really means for people on either side of the debate.