Court ruling falls short of equality for same-sex couples

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling on same-sex marriage in late October that failed to guarantee equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. In a 4-3 opinion the court acknowledged that the “unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to same-sex couples” violates the state constitution, but refused to acknowledge the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.

In a sharply worded dissent Chief Justice Deborah Poritz wrote that she found no principled basis for denying gays and lesbians the right to the title of marriage. Her opinion pointed out that only official marriage “bestows enormous private and social advantages” which are currently denied to same-sex partners.

Although the official ruling fails to guarantee all the rights of marriage, the New Jersey case is interesting in the fact that both the majority and dissenting opinions argued for greater legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships.

Both advocates and opponents of full marriage rights are gearing up for a tough battle in the legislature that will determine whether same-sex couples will be afforded the right to marry or if they will be relegated to a separate and unequal arrangement similar to the civil unions recognized in Vermont.

Matt Daniels, president of the anti-gay Alliance for Marriage, promised to fight hard in the legislature and accused the court of “holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature” by demanding even limited recognition of same-sex couples’ right to the benefits of marriage.

In New Jersey and across the country both the Democratic and Republican parties are using the ruling to attack full equality for gays and lesbians, as they play to the bigotry expressed by some voters in an attempt to win contested mid-term elections.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. John Corzine and Sen. Robert Menendez have both stated that they oppose the right of gays and lesbians to marry. Menendez’s Republican opponent, State Sen. Thomas Kean Jr., went a step further and called for a constitutional amendment to ban all same-sex marriage.

Republican strategists in particular are attempting to use the New Jersey ruling to whip up anti-lesbian/bi/gay/trans sentiment in crucial senate races such as Virginia and Tennessee. At the same time, the Democratic candidates in those two states have been vocal in their opposition to full marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples.

For the past two election cycles the only dividing line between the Democratic and Republican candidates has been over the issue of whether or not to have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Republicans have been rather blunt in their support for a clear amendment denying homosexual couples the right to legal recognition of their marriages.

The Democratic strategy following the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling appears to mimic their 2004 strategy during the presidential elections. Democrats have collected a lot of unearned political capital by posing as the more tolerant party on LGBT issues, while at the same time proposing a state’s rights strategy for defeating LGBT equality in order to neutralize extreme right-wing voters.