Step in the right direction for same sex marriage
 

From CNN:

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

But the court left it to the Legislature to determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

The case was brought by seven gay couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry. (Opinion -- pdf)

New Jersey is one of only five U.S. states with neither a law nor a state constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage. As a result, the state is more likely than others to allow gays to wed, said advocacy groups on both sides.

Only Massachusetts -- by virtue of a 2003 ruling from that state's top court -- allows gay marriages.

Proponents and opponents from across the country are watching the case closely.

"New Jersey is a stepping stone," said Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. "It's not about New Jersey."

From a practical standpoint, the Massachusetts court decision made little impact nationally because the state has a law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.

New Jersey has no such law.

People on both sides of the issue expect a victory for same-sex unions would make New Jersey a destination for gay couples from around the country who want to get married. Some of those couples could return home and sue to have their marriages recognized.

Daniels said gay-rights advocates are already looking ahead to such lawsuits. "Their game, of course, is they figure all they need to do is execute this maneuver in a half-dozen states and they'll have the momentum," he said.

David S. Buckel, the Lambda Legal lawyer who argued on behalf of the seven New Jersey couples, said he expects some couples would travel to the New Jersey to get married if his suit is successful. But, he said, "it won't be tidal."

Buckel said that there have been relatively few such lawsuits filed in the U.S. by couples who went to Canada to exchange vows.

And, he said, while many same-sex couples would prefer to be married, they are getting more legal protections for their relationships. Several states, including New Jersey, offer domestic partnerships or civil unions with some of the benefits of marriage. A growing number of employers are treating same-sex couples the same way they treat married couples.

Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

Conservatives watching the cases believe the best chance for gay marriage to be allowed would be in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Gay marriage supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

:thumbsup: Very good news indeed.

Good news! :)

I was waiting to hear what would come of this. thanks for posting!

One small step for two men.... :laugh:

Great news!

At first I had assumed that the split vote (4-3) meant that there were 3 conservative a$$hats who were going to use that old bull***** circular argument that "gay marriage is not a long-standing tradition because it has never been legal" or "marriage is for procreation," like the yahoos in NY state. I was totally wrong.

The majority opinion did indeed state that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the same rights as opposite-sex couples, but stopped short of mandating the designation "marriage" because it was supposedly not a fundamental right under the state constitution. It would then be up to the state legislature to decide whether to update the state's definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, or whether to create a slew of godawful "separate but equal" legislation for same-sex unions- within the next 180 days. The minority opinion actually went further than the majority: "I would extend the Court's mandate to require that same-sex couples have access to the 'status' of marriage and all that the status of marriage entails." In other words, the minority felt that the state supreme court (not the legislature) had the authority to mandate the extension of the designation "marriage" to same-sex couples.

In any event, there is reason to be hopeful... but it's not a slamdunk yet. So now the question is whether the legislature will cave into the right-wingers (yes, they do exist in NJ unfortunately) over the next 180 days, or whether they will simply change two words in the state's definition of marriage and all go on holiday.

I saw this earlier, very good news! I hope it sticks and isnt brought down by legal challenges, but you know thats wishful thinking :shrug:

Im so sick of this debate, it drives me nuts. I still cannot believe the world we live in where something as simple as marriage and rights are still denied to people.

Thank God I live in NZ where this is all done and over-with....

Yay. I am so happy. I think that everyone who wants to get married should be able to. I hope soon this all happens...:)