The NJ supreme court ruled today in a 4-3 decision that same sex couples have a constitutional right to the same benefits and protections as opposite sex couples.
Just like MA did, they’re giving the legislature 180 days to decide if that means changing the marriage laws or setting up civil unions.
2 states down, 48 to go… 
!!! AWESOME !!!
That makes my day. I voted for Georgia to legalize it, but no surprise there…
– IG
I just wish they could have waited two weeks.
What’s happening in two weeks?
Woo-hoo! First time in a while I’m proud to live in New Jersey!
Yep. Couldn’t one of them have come down with “the flu” or something? At least no one is running for President.
Mid-term elections.
My brother is getting his new puppy spayed.
I’m a little confused.
If I’m reading that right, the court said gay couples have the same rights as straight couples, but it’s up to the legislature to define how they would get those rights, whether through marriage or civil union, and they have 180 days to figure that out.
So unless I’m missing something, gay marriage is not legal yet until the legislature makes it so?
I was thinking the same thing.
It won’t last, though. You know it won’t last…
A link to the opinion. (Warning. 90-page PDF.)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf
Oh yea those. Sorry, was a little excited and forgot about the elections for a minute.
You are correct, that’s why I noted in the OP about the 180 days to decide.
I think the legislature is being given a choice between calling it “marriage” or “civil union”, and they have 180 days to decide that. The ruling, however, makes the status of “civil union” indistinguishable from “marriage” for all practical purposes, so far as I can tell. The remaining controversy to be argued in NJ, now, if I read things rightly, is “What’s in a name?”
Well, that, or, more pessimistically, “Is there any way to push a constitutional amendment through in 180 days?”
If it’s anything like in MA, the answer is “no”. I think the realistic time estimated for a consitutional referendum here was something like a year-and-a-half to two years. I still can’t understand why our supremes even bothered with the 180-day stipulation, as there was no practical way for the legislature to deal with the matter than shrug.
Nothing about him would surprise me anymore. Well, a glimmer of common decency, but why look for the impossible? I mean, just take his stance on drugs and addiction. His ability to rationalize that double standard alone is evidence enough of the depths of his pathology. So I don’t really bother with him anymore. It’s his listeners I can’t understand. I mean, I shouldn’t expect millions of people to be just as bereft, should I?
Well crap, that was in the wrong place!
What I thought was interesting was the partial dissent.
In contrast to the usual way these things go, with the dissenters saying the same-sex couples do not have rights, the 3 judge dissent argued that the same-sex couples were entitled to full marriage, not just marriage by another name.
Put another way, it was a 7-0 vote for civil unions at least, with 4 judges saying that the legislature could choose civil unions or marriage and 3 saying nothing less than full marriage.
Not only that, but it was a 7-0 vote on giving same-sex couples the equivalent marriage rights as opposite-sex couples. Only two disagreements between the majority and concurrence/dissent.
From the dissent:
The disagreements are whether there’s a right for the equivalent legal guarantees to be granted the name “marriage” and whether the right to SSM resides additionally in the due process protections.
In my experience, at least, “Civil Unions” is often a term used to grant some of the incidents of marriage to same-sex couples. This decision goes far beyond any civil unions I’ve seen.