The New Jersey Supreme Court today:
We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
In other words, civil union rather than marriage is OK as long as the rights and benefits are equal (but you cannot deny the equal rights).
Someone agrees; can you guess who said this (in 2004)?
And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.
George W. Bush said that. It will be interesting to see the political fallout from the New Jersey decision.
New Jersey did not pass a law.
Indeed, New Jersey did not pass a law. Its supreme court unanimously ruled that it was a violation of the state constitution to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. The decision will require that they amend the New Jersey constitution or that the legislature amend an existing law or pass a new one.
In any case, my point, and George Bush’s, is that it should be up to the state.
I suspect George Bush’s point, which is different than yours, is that that it should be up to the voters, not judges.
Lead paragraph in a New York Times story Thursday night: