Protecting Individual Rights in New Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court just ruled sensibly that homosexual couple should be allowed all of the same rights granted heterosecual ones.

HELD: 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 same-
sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-
sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

This is a punt on granting gay marriage, as it allows the legislature 180 days to figure out what to call these same-sex relationships. But the key question on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been settled in favor of equality. I should remind you that the only state in the union to currently call it gay marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in America, so I don't buy that allowing gays to mary would destroy the institution.

AmericaBlog notes that New Jersey's position is essentially the George Bush position on same-sex unions.

"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."

"Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue."

"In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday."....

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

This debate is over, by the way. It's a matter of time before future generations understand how shameful and, yes, silly it was to deny individuals their rights on the basis of discriminatory standards. You can talk about political fallout, and certainly there will be those who take this ruling and exploit it by playing to the basest elements of society, but the fact remains that most Americans do not believe in discrimination.

I'm glad the NJ Supreme Court did what it did.