The much-anticipated ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the legality of Gay Marriage seems to be little more than a punt. According to an AP article on Yahoo:

New Jersey's highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

...

[T]he high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.

We haven't seen any opinions yet, and news is still scarce, but since there are no valid, rational arguments against gay marriage, we can only assume that this decision is just more of the usual unjustified and unjustifiable homophobia that makes us cringe. In short, the ruling seems to say that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals (which is good), but the court won't decide if those rights should come under the moniker of "marriage" or some other name (which is asinine). Truly, a stupid point to debate.

We're also curious as to what happens at the end of the 180 days if the legislature doesn't pass a measure in line with the ruling. Does gay marriage turn back into a pumpkin or something, or do they just get to ignore the rights of a sizable portion of the population for another few years?

More to come....

[We're currently perusing the decision (PDF) which includes both the majority opinion and a very interesting concurring/dissenting opinion. — Ed.]

"We haven't seen any opinions yet, and news is still scarce, but since there are no valid, rational arguments against gay marriage, we can only assume that this decision is just more of the usual unjustified and unjustifiable homophobia that makes us cringe. "

Well, I have seen the opinion, and it's simply following the law. There's nothing negative about this decision, and I'm not sure why you meet it with derision. Gays are afforded the same benefits of marriage as straights -- that's a win. The ONLY outstanding issue is what those "unions" are called, but as you suggest, who CARES?

I suggest you read their earlier rant on that issue, Kman. It makes their position pretty clear. I'd prefer if we could just call it marriage, but that would upset all those idiotic Christians who say "Marriage is a religious institution!" In a democracy, sometimes you have to compromise with the idiots in order to make any progress at all.

Despite the issue of the name, I choose to see this as a minor victory. They could have delegalized gay marriage by any name, but they instead mandated that it be allowed under some name. It's a step in the right direction, at the very least.

Infophile pretty much summed up our reply (thanks!), but since we went to all the trouble of writing one, we figured we'd post it anyway.

Yes, the rights themselves are important, and we openly acknowledged that particular part of the ruling as a good thing. But what's the rationale for explicitly extending the same rights as marriage, but under a different name? Who says it shouldn't be called marriage? Logically, it makes no sense to create a whole new nomenclature for something that is exactly the same as marriage except that it's for homosexuals. So yes, securing the same rights is a victory, but creating a distinction between gay marriage and "real" marriage just reinforces the essential inequality for no justifiable reason. We do realize that the decision in no way dictates that a homosexual union cannot be called marriage — it merely leaves it to the legislature to decide whether to grant the mandatory equal rights under the current marriage laws or whether to create a new form of civil union. But to us, leaving it open is not the right thing to do. The court should have called for full equality here. It's very literally "separate but equal" all over again, and that's incredibly myopic. Step in the right direction or no, we don't really see that as a "victory."

As we said in the previous post that Infophile mentioned:

To these people, we pose a question: would it really help matters if we called it, say, "narriage"? Would it really make it more palatable if two gay men or women could get narried, but not married? If so, we'd need to add an entirely new section to the law, regarding narriage contracts. We could copy and paste the majority of the marriage contract laws, with just a few tweaks here and there (including a search-and-replace which substitutes "narriage" for "marriage"). We could build up a new industry catering especially to narriage (and if Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is any indication, those neddings would be fabulous). Every insurance form, medical form, tax form and census questionnaire would need to be amended to include a checkbox for "narried" — and perhaps another two for "nivorced" and "nidowed," in case you want to drive the point home that these homosexuals were never married in the first place. An entirely new branch of vocabulary would open up, recognizing the existence of narriage, nivorce, nusbands and nives, even nildren!

...or does this all seem somewhat silly and exclusionary?

And, see, that's the point — why come up with a wholly new semantic world just to describe something which we essentially already have? In fact, as evidenced by BushCo's push for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we wouldn't even have to rewrite the laws to include gay marriage — marriage laws can be read to already allow them. The fact that eleven states have rushed to reword their legislation to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman strongly suggests that marriage was not defined that way originally, no matter what the neo-conservatives would have us believe.

Here's a wake-up call: calling gay marriage something other than "marriage" is just as hurtful and exclusionary as not allowing gays to marry at all. What good is it allowing gays "equal rights" when the actual inequality of it is invoked every time it is discussed?

Don't get us wrong — if this decision does secure the same rights for homosexuals as those that already exist for heterosexuals, and if the only flaw is that it uses a separate name, then we applaud it as a step forward. It just means there are more steps needed before equality is truly reached.

On that note, we just got a hold of the opinions. While we have only taken a cursory look at the ninety page document, one thing that jumped out at us was the vote, and the details behind it. This case was decided on a 4-3 vote, but the three justices who "dissented" actually agreed on the need to grant the same rights to same sex couples, and just disagreed on what it should be called. The fact that this was the crux of the argument and that the issue of fundamental rights was never in question is remarkably good to know, and makes us feel a bit better about the whole deal.

Points taken, although I still remain optimistic. I suspect that, whatever name is given to the gay union "on the books", rank & file people will call it "gay marriage" and (in time) just "marriage".

I also suspect that many heterosexual couples will engage in "civil unions" further blurring the "us" and "them" distinction.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with being optimistic about this ruling. And even if the legislature decides to go with "separate but equal," it's certainly possible that many people will end up blurring and erasing the distinction through normal sociocultural behaviors over time. We tend to agree — we've always said that, within a few generations, we firmly expect gays to be generally accepted in most places — simply due to social exposure — no matter what laws are passed today.

Our point is only that the court shouldn't have left the door open for the legislature to pass "separate but equal" laws, and that the population shouldn't have to overcome that in order to arrive at social equality. The court seems to have taken the position that it "isn't their place" to dictate what these equal rights unions should be called, and that's where we disagree; in the interests of justice and fairness, it is their place. To us, it's clear that it isn't "just a name" — it's a matter of being truly equal or being separate-but-equal. Actually, from what we've read of the dissenting opinion, that document sums up many of the arguments pretty well.

So, did they "punt"? Well, on this aspect of the issue, yeah, they did. Did they secure equal rights for same sex marriages? In large part, yes, and the importance of that can't be overlooked. We just wish that they'd gone all the way to true equality, instead of leaving the option to "stop short" on the table.

All that said, the fact that all seven justices seemed to agree that the issue of equal rights was a no-brainer does give great cause for optimism.

I think we should combine the words 'Gay' and 'Marry' and call it 'Gary'. As in 'We're getting Garied this weekend' or 'When are you two lovebirds going to Gary?' Just for the surreal element.

Or we could take a page from Dan Savage and name it after a particularly homophobic republican...now, the gays can get 'Cheneyed' or 'Fristed'...well, maybe not 'Fristed'. Too graphic.

What bothers me about this debate is the fact that no one seems to be providing any rationale for why the state needs recognize any marriage. What the New Jersey court is basically saying is that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals before the law. Beyond that, what they choose to call their legal union is none of the state's business.

A civil union is a state recognized legal status, a marriage is a religious and cultural institution that is none of the state's business. There, problem solved.

Or we could take a page from Dan Savage and name it after a particularly homophobic republican...now, the gays can get 'Cheneyed' or 'Fristed'...well, maybe not 'Fristed'. Too graphic.

I wouldn't go with Cheney. His daughter's a lesbian, and it's forced him to become a lot more tolerant. As an alternative, how about "Scaliad"?

Yes and no. If the government granted all of the rights that are today lumped under the term "marriage" under the alternative term "civil union," and relegated "marriage" to a social institution, then we would be willing to bet that we'd still be having this same argument with the Neocons over the sanctity of "civil unions." So while we tend to agree with the approach you outlined, Todd, sadly we don't think it would solve the problem.

But ideally, yes, the government would only concern itself with the laws around civil unions for all people and those unions would bestow all the rights and responsibilities that today are granted by marriage. Legally, homosexuals would get the same rights as heterosexuals, and have the same legal status. Then, the question of whether gays got "married" or "narried" or "Garied" or "Scaliad" (we're strangely repelled by yet strangely enamored of the imagery of getting "Fristed," by the way) would be one of personal preference only. So yes, that would be a perfectly acceptable way to go, but no, it wouldn't stop the argument against "gay civil unions" coming from the same homophobic asshats who are against "gay marriage." After all, those who are irrational enough to demand that other human beings not be granted the same rights that they themselves are granted aren't going to be deterred by a change in semantics.

I keep forgetting that the demented fuckwits are in charge of this country. Explain to me again why we have to argue with people who are irrational?

Because the majority of people are irrational, so they vote irrational people into office. Democracy sucks, but it's the best we've got.

I think this is generally a good ruling.

However, to say that the legislature must create something equal to marriage but they may call it something else invites a legal problem. If they call it something other than marriage, the only purpose for doing that is to discriminate against gay couples (because it would be the same as marriage in all other respects). This could present a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause problem.

Right — it's outright maddening that the court demanded equal rights for same-sex couples, but then left the door open for the legislature to perpetuate discrimination. Now, if the legislature decides to go the separate-but-equal route, they know in advance that the courts have backed them. That's why, at best, this case can be seen as a step in the right direction — but a step no better than the clearly flawed (and long-ago overturned) Plessy v. Ferguson.