I love my home state...

[lagilman]

"Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules." -- CNN News Update

ETA: Following this on the news, and it looks like my first evaluation was right -- this isn't an MA-type "gay marriage is legal" blow, but a very measured legal ruling that states that marriage-rights may not be determined by gender makeup but rather by commitment. The legislative branch now has a set period of time to determine how to make it so.

The wording may not be what activists want -- "one marriage for all couples" -- but I firmly believe that wording is less important than protection, esepcially with so many hetero couples opting out of marriage in favor of domestic partnerships, these days...

Comments

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

WAHOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Oh, hooray! Braver than New York... so that's MA and NJ so far?

[kalligraphy.livejournal.com]

actually the court didn't rule in favor of gay marriage, they required the state to provide something that grants the same rights and responsibilities to same sex couples as heterosexual marriage. They in fact left the door open to civil unions. The problem is that civil unions are not recognized by anyone but Vermont and I think Conneticut. Some people in the legislature are pushing for a gay marriage law now though, and if that passes, it would have the benefit of applying to anyone, not just the residents of NJ, like the Ma law does. So while the NJ State Supreme Court didn't rule in favor of gay marriage per se, they did leave the door open and did require equal treatment. I'll take it as a partial victory. Let's hope the legislature continues on the right track and grants marriage rights and not just a civil union.

[lagilman]

Never said they ruled in favor of gay marriage, just that they said that gay couples had the same rights with regard to marriage as hetero couples. That's actually more useful, as it helps build a stronger case for there being one standard, period.

Me, I'd rather have a civil union, as the Religious Types have claimed marriage, and I'm not a Religious Type. A civil union says that you have legal rights pertaining to your prtner, and vice versa, and nobody can ell you you're not family and therefore are Left Out? All for that, yahyoubetcha. A civil union says you can choose how you want to file your taxes (jointly, singly, etc)? Yahyoubetcha. A civil union says that you can share in medical and fiscal benefits? Yahyoubetcha. All sounds good to me, and no religious anything need apply.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, here in France we have the PACS (PActe Civile de Solidarity). But it's not as good as marriage financially. And it's for both hetero and homo sexuals. I think they whould make marriage a nice ceremony upheld by the church, but conferring no legal rights and civil unions/PACS that provide all the legal guarantees for anyone who wants to make that committment. But hey, what can I say. I'm a dreamer.

FF

[otterdance.livejournal.com]

Re: civil union. Yes, I'm with you there. I think civil unions should be the required step, legally, and open to any couple. If people also want to have a relgious ceremony, then that's fine, too, but you still need the civil paperwork. I'm not usually for more beaurocracy, but in this case I think it's imperative to remove the religious element, and put the focus back on the rights of citizens.

So good for you, NJ!

[otterdance.livejournal.com]

And I do apologize from my atrocious typing, oh former editor type person. ;-)

[lagilman]

have you SEEN my typos, woman? When LJ allows us to edit comments, then I'll point-and-mock.

Anyway, good writing has never had anything on tyops. Everyone knows that...

[otterdance.livejournal.com]

"Anyway, good writing has never had anything on tyops."

Tyops. Now, THAT is a great word, and I'm stealin' it! You're in my next acknowledgments, woman.
:-)

so long as we're worldbuilding...

[lagilman]

I'm even willing to go one further, and say that "marriage" should be a step after civil unions for the sole and solemn purpose of begetting offspring*, and that before marriage (which can be officialized by ANY duly-registered and established religious organization) all participants must take religious training, said training involving at least one course in childcare, one in fiscal planning for college, and one in teen crisis managment.

Anyone have any other suggestions?


*with the usual loopholes for after-the-fact, but fines for not planning better, to find the aforementioned classes...

Re: so long as we're worldbuilding...

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I like it -- but I think fiscal planning and budgeting sound be the whole nine yards, not just college (for self or kid) -- too many people get hitched because of a pregnancy, and have NO idea what they are doing....

[kalligraphy.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with civil unions at all. The real problem is that rules, regulations and laws do not cover civil unions. Which makes things a bit more difficult. When I go to my health insurance company to get medical coverage for my same sex partner, will the insurance company recognize my civil union as a equal to a marriage? Will the Federal Government? If I move to Pa. will my civil union be worth the paper is it written on? It is is called a marriage, it automatically starts to be treated as a marriage, but as long as a civil union is not recognized as being equal to a marriage then it is seperate and unequal and that is not acceptable.

Another aspect of gay marriage, and why the religious right is so opposed to it, is that it normalizes homosexual relationships. It says that gay people are entitled to the same rights, responsibilities and protections as straight couples. It says that gay people aren't any different than straight people. The CC can't have that, because if that happens, then they won't be able to be hateful. Besides, in their eyes, civil unions aren't really valid, so gay people will be having sex outside of holy matrimony and will therefore still be sinners. And sex is what this is all about. The RR controling who has sex and who doesn't.

As I said, I don't have a problem with civil unions in and of themselves, but marriage has a whole load of meaning that civil unions don't. And even in Mass. where gay people can get married, there is a host of issues they have to deal with. For instance, their marriage is not recognized by the federal government, which means they still need to pay inheritance taxes, and they still have to file their taxes seperately.

This was not a bad decision, it could have gone better and as I think about it, I think it might have been better if they had waited 2 weeks to announce it. I have a feeling there is going to be a backlash on this and the proximity to election day will spell bad news for progressive candidates.

[lagilman]

which is why many folk are pushing to make a civil union the non-religious and legally binding version. The Religious Left Right and Center wants to claim marriage, they can have it. I don't care what it's called, so long as the legal protections are in place. And that's what the NJ ruling is a step toward (and why they worked it the way they did, as opposed to the MA ruling).


It's not just about homosexuals, in the long run. It's about anyone who wants to create a legal parity between partners. The sooner it can be considered in that light, the sooner we'll be able to establish it, and give the bigots and the 'man-as-master, woman-as-wifey' religious traditionalists a much-needed kick in the ignorance.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I was married in Indiana, and you needed a civil license, good for XX days, when a JOPeace or minister would make it binding. Oh --- Indiana still required a blood test. In a sense, you had a civil marriage -- combined with a religious marriage, if you wanted.

[lagilman]

The real problem is that rules, regulations and laws do not cover civil unions

from FindLaw:

Domestic Partner Benefits
The term "domestic partner benefits" refers to employee benefit plans that offer to non-married couples the same or similar benefits as those provided to married couples. More and more employers, in both the public and private sectors, are offering benefit plans that provide coverage to the unmarried partners of employees. In fact, some cities and states require such coverage as a condition for competing businesses to obtain government contracts. Although domestic partner benefits are increasingly popular, the rules that govern those benefit plans are not uniform. Below is a discussion of domestic partner benefits and related legal issues.

Who is a "Domestic Partner"?

A domestic partnership is usually understood to mean two unrelated, unmarried adults who share the same household. In order to qualify for domestic partner benefits, an employee may need to demonstrate that his or her "eligible partner" meets certain criteria set by the employer.

The definition used in many domestic partner benefit plans defines an "eligible partner" as someone:

At least eighteen years old;
Not related more closely than would be allowed for a legal marriage under state law;
Sharing a "committed relationship";
In an exclusive relationship with his or her partner; and
Financially interdependent with his or her partner.
Some domestic partner benefit plans limit participation to same-sex partners, and participation in domestic partner benefit plans is often limited to those in a relationship that is considered "committed" -- a term that is defined in many different ways. Some states and cities allow domestic partners to register their partnership. This registration, while not carrying the same legal status as marriage, is sometimes made a condition of participation in a benefit plan. Other plans require a waiting period of six months to one year before a partner will be eligible to enroll in the benefits plan.

[wesley-1701.livejournal.com]

That's really good.

-Wes

Suricattus,

[wesley-1701.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if you've seen my lengthy posts on this subject over on my LJ, but we had an ongoing discussion for a while. The discussion really gets started on part 3.

Here's links to the posts:
Gay Rights (http://wesley-1701.livejournal.com/19408.html)
Gar Rights: Part II (http://wesley-1701.livejournal.com/19678.html)
Gay Rights: Part III (http://wesley-1701.livejournal.com/19759.html)

-Wesley

Re: Suricattus,

[lagilman]

bookmarked for a moment I'm not on deadline, thanks!

Re: Suricattus,

[wesley-1701.livejournal.com]

:)

[ferragus.livejournal.com]

Yay!

My Adopted State is still learning (AZ) they have Prop 107 on the ballot this year, which is so broad and poorly written I can only assume that the drafters wanted it to fail.

Not only is marriage a man and a woman, civil unions or anything by anyone in the state that looks like a civil union is outlawed. That's anyone, not just the government. So Hetero couples living together can't share a health insurance policy, or have family visitation rights during a grave illness, or what have you.

I think it was written to offend/impact the greatest number of people possible.

Hoping it gets voted down, but if not, my nickles are in to the ACLU to fight it.

[lagilman]

Not only is marriage a man and a woman, civil unions or anything by anyone in the state that looks like a civil union is outlawed. That's anyone, not just the government. So Hetero couples living together can't share a health insurance policy, or have family visitation rights during a grave illness, or what have you.

And you want me to move there? I think not...

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about moving to Arizona for a combination of school and health purposes, but they're just too conservative, as far as I can tell. (Admittedly, this assessment is mostly based on newspaper articles of legislative activities.)

[plattcave.livejournal.com]

First good thing to happen in NJ in a while.

[(Anonymous)]

Ironically, in France, civil marriage is the only legal one, but they still make it so only heteros can do it. The idea of gays/lesbians being able to "marry" still twists the kniockers of even many socialists. Go figure.
Here they also have a nifty little thing called "concubinage", which is basically just for living together, without any kind of real legal rights/responsibilities. But if you are "concubin/e", you are considered to be family for insurance and for health care. You don't get any of the financial perks that come with marriage though. The PACS is a legal contract that give many of the legal benefits of marriage. You can have a lawyer write the contract so that everything is covered. But it's not the same as marriage. Especially for successions (Is that the right word in English? What you leave to your next of kin), which are not automatic as with marriage. If you die without a will, your partner gets zilch. And even if you have a will, you pay through the nose in death taxes (up to 40%). Marriage is a MUCH better deal financially, which is why all couples should have the option.

As long as civil unions are (would be) the legal deal,I don't have a big problem with marriage being a ceremonial religious/sacred institution, with all the inherent taboos, because I don't buy into that whole sacred deal, but I have some gay friends who really wanted the cachet of acceptance that comes with marriage. Luckily, they live in Mass.

FF

And in my adopted state...

[argillaceous-d.livejournal.com]

Here in Virginia...home of the always awesomely dissapointing Allen/Webb campaign, I drive past about a billion bright yellow "Vote YES! for Marriage!" signs on everyone's lawns...

I take solace in the fact that my vote is NEEDED here in the Old Dominion as NJ seems to be headed in the right direction all on its own.