The New Jersey marriage decision is handed down:
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.
Looks like a Vermont solution! We'll soon see how this plays out in the political process.
More.
Time magazine asks, Will the Gay Marriage Ruling Rally the Base?
Rick Sincere blogs from Virginia, a state facing a fierce ballot initiative over a state amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and even contractual same-sex partnerships. Wanting to make sure that the anti-gays don't spin the decision to their advantage, he weighs in with New Jersey Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Rights.
Those with the luxury of living in true-blue states where such amendments aren't conceivable may have wished that the N.J. court had, like in Massachusetts, mandated full marriage equality delivered on a platter the legislature be damned now. But the rest of us would have paid dearly for such a fiat.
Prior posting:
The liberal-learning New Jersey supreme court announced that on Wednesday at 3:00 pm eastern time it will hand down its decision on the question: Does the New Jersey Constitution require the State to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Sadly, if the ruling finds that the state constitution grants gays full marriage equality, we can say goodbye to any slim chance of winning anti-gay-marriage referendums in Virginia and Wisconsin. If the court rules that same-sex couples are entitled to the rights, benefits and obligations that the state grants/expects of married couples, but allows for these to be accomplished through civil unions, the immediate political repercussions could, arguably, be less severe. And if the court finds no right to spousal equality, it could bolster the argument that we don't need to keep amending state constitutions to defend against so-called "activist judges."
But why, oh why, couldn't the New Jersey court just wait till after the election to hand down its ruling?
Worth noting. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, on Democratic politicos' quite obvious nonsupport of gay marriage.
The political process is where the battle for marriage equality should be fought, not the courts. Through the political process, the public could be educated, and hearts (and minds) changed. But one party is actively hostile, and the other is missing in action.