Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling (emphasis added).
In other words, we're making this up as we go along. If my Constitutional Law prof were dead, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Statements like that are fodder for the anti-judicial activism crowd. Karl Rove must be happy with this decision.
I don't know the NJ constitution, but it has always seemed to me that civil marriage cannot be denied based on the equal protection under the laws clause of the Constitution.
The other reason is that aversion to the word "marriage." Giving gays the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples who commit to each other -- good. Keeping it a separate class -- not so good. Seems that whole separate-but-equal thing hasn't worked out so well in the past. I know there is a religious connotation to "marriage" and I do believe in freedom of religion to NOT recognize same sex marriages. But -- I won't force you to marry me in YOUR church, don't forbid me to be married in MINE.
No comments:
Post a Comment