Now there are two

[magid]

Go, New Jersey!

Comments

[dalbino83.livejournal.com]

Guess it was not good news; I just got this email from equalmarriage.org:

Dear Donna,

This afternoon, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples do not have the right to marry. However, they did state that couples in NJ should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts. This leaves the decision up to the legislature.

It is unfortunate that the Court has turned its back on New Jersey's long history of equality and justice and said that the state’s Constitution is not offended by discrimination against same-sex couples and children.

If you would like to view the ruling you can download it here. (.pdf)

Best regards,

Chris Shorrock
Co-Chair, EqualMarriage.org – The Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts

[cnoocy]

EqualMarraige seems to be pessimistic, while MassEquality is happy. I think it's very similar to the Vermont ruling, and puts the ball in the Legislature's court, who could either create civil unions (which would still be a net increas in the rights of NJ same-sex couples) or allow marriage (which would be awesome.)

[ckd]

Well, it's news.

The good news is that the court held that the rights have to be given;

The bad news is that they also allowed the "magic word" theory to lead them to "separate but equal".

The good news in the bad news is that the 4-3 decision was four judges who accepted the "magic word" theory, and three judges who called shenanigans and said "separate but equal" is crap and that marriage should be extended, not any "civil union" half measures.

IOW, seven of seven said that same sex couples have rights.

[dalbino83.livejournal.com]

Doesn't NJ already have civil unions?

[cnoocy]

Apparently they have domestic partnerships, which give some of the rights of marriage, but not all.

[(Anonymous)]

Awesome awesome awesome!

I was drawn to the words "New Jersey" as I scanned your most recent postings, paused to attempt to interpret the header, and then realized what was being indicated. The above was my immediate reaction.

Thank you for sharing this news. I hadn't yet heard.

I'm sorry the news isn't quite as good as it could be, as I subsequently learned from the article and the other comments here, but, yay!

[magid.livejournal.com]

Although it would be better if there weren't a distinction in terminology, having a civil union that is the same except in name is a definite step forward.

(And frankly, I'd be happy if we redefined "marriage" as something one did religiously (under the auspices of whatever religious organization), while the government was only in the civil union business, for whatever pairs of adults wished to have one.)

[electrictruffle.livejournal.com]

Okay, the wow factor for me is that I used to work with Cindy back in my Princeton days. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gay.marriage/index.html

[magid.livejournal.com]

The world is ever-shrinking.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is that the term "marriage" is too meaningful in our society.

The reason really-truly-exactly-the-same-but-called-something-different arrangements do not work is the term "marriage" is necessary for equal acceptance and understanding.

On a scale smaller than that of society-at-large: if I announce that a shiva minyan is being held, you know exactly what that means and entails and how it relates to you, but if I lack that term, I will have to describe and explain the type of gathering will be held, and for what purpose, and what is needed, and what the etiquette is, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Same-sex couples, in the case of, say, a medical emergency, in order to be easily understood without further explanation, need to be able to say "I am married to this person." This will begin to be easily accepted only when civil *marriage* for same-sex couples is common across the country.

For the same reasons, civil marriage won't be abolished and turned into civil unions. It would be great if religion and government were truly separate. It would be great if joining in civil partnership involved only signing of papers instead of mimicking of a generic, usually Protestant, ceremony. (Civil divorce involves no such ritualistic ceremony.)

But the term "marriage" is too loaded; people have a need to say they are married. Even if civil marriage were transformed into civil union, couples would still say they were married, and this would be automatically understood and rarely questioned for opposite-sex couples, whether they were in fact religiously married or only civilly joined, and not immediately accepted, especially without documentation for proof, for same-sex couples.

[(Anonymous)]

Um, not "do not work" but rather "do not accomplish full equality."

[magid.livejournal.com]

I know that marriage is not going to change from civil-and-religious to be just religious; as you say, there's too much history there. Part of the problem here is the terminology, which I don't see changing anytime soon to anything that will be accepted across the boards. Marriage will stay being both, muddying the distinction that seems so clear to me, that there are different requirements for union by the state or by X religion. I have no problem (OK, less problem) with whatever religious group saying that their religion mandates one man, one woman pairings to be recognized, but the state should be gender-neutral on this, as it is now race-neutral.

So many people are against this, as profaning marriage somehow. I don't understand this at all. How is one couple's marriage hurt by some other couple getting married?

if I announce that a shiva minyan is being held, you know exactly what that means and entails and how it relates to you, but if I lack that term, I will have to describe and explain the type of gathering will be held, and for what purpose, and what is needed, and what the etiquette is, and so on, and so on, and so on.
This sounds like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Having a concept named means it can be talked about more efficiently, which in the end means it's more likely to be discussed, and so on.

I agree that people need marriage in the long run. Out of curiosity, though, do you think that people who are joined by a civil union couldn't say "This is my spouse" and have that be sufficient for things like emergency health situations?

[(Anonymous)]

Agree, agree, agree.

Hadn't heard of the Sapir-Whorf concept; thank you for introducing me it. I adore linguistics. Doesn't seem to be quite what I mean, but, yes, related ideas.

No, I do not believe that would be sufficient at this point. I think that in situations that lack the immediate acceptance and understanding, the issue is escalated. Such a spouse would be at least questioned, perhaps asked to provide documentation.

Meanwhile, a woman can claim to be your sister and be immediately treated as such. A man could even claim to be your fiance, and this would be automatically sufficient for unrestricted visits and information updates.

Personally, I don't like it that my mother can walk into any situation and gain trust and access simply by claiming to be my mother.