Don’t call it “marriage.”
Late Thursday, New Jersey lawmakers obeyed an order from their state’s high court, barely 7 weeks after hearing it.
N.J.’s state house and senate passed a civil unions bill in much less time than the N.J. supreme court had given them. And the legislature declined the court’s invitation to give same-sex unions the formal name, "marriage."
The judicial order, in Lewis v. Harris, A68-05, Oct. 25, 2006, was expressly not a "gay marriage" ruling, as T.P.S.M. previously argued here.
In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court split, four to three, over the word "marriage," with the dissenters (lead by the retiring, Republican, chief justice) arguing for same-sex marriage and against a two-tiered system, with queer unions second-best.
So today’s question is, why so fast, N.J. legislature? The court gave you 180 days and very wide latitude, in a decision that (contrary to right-wing complaining) was quite deferential to the legislative branch. You took less than a third of the time allowed. Why?
Blogger John Bohrer at the Huffington Post seems to think the simple answer is, the politicians weaseled out. He’s among those on-line now who call the New Jersey civil unions bill "nothing to celebrate."
The N.J. Domestic Partnership law blog finds an argument in favor of accepting today’s move in poll results that show greater support for "civil union" than for "marriage."
Garden State Equality isn’t buying it, and cites a different poll. GSE’s Steven Goldstein is among those quoted today in the corporate media ("COMA") praising the bill, which N.J.’s Democratic governor Corzine will sign.
So did N.J. lawmakers today authorize a "two-tier," "separate-but-equal" system, as law professor R.A. Lenhardt asserted on Blackprof days after the court’s decision? Prof. Lenhardt quoted from outgoing chief justice Deborah Poritz’s opinion: "Ultimately, the message [of calling it civil union, not marriage] is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage."
Also in the civil union camp are Connecticut and Vermont. In California, same-sex couples can take advantage of a domestic partnership scheme that also benefits different-sex couples. Only Massachusetts allows properly-named marriage to same-sex couples.
But, hey, there’s always Canada, right?
Lost in the COMA attention to this story is this news: N.J. lawmakers also spent the week working on bills to amend existing laws as to be transgender inclusive. Gov. Corzine will sign this bill, too. T.P.S.M. would have missed this, if not for Transcending Gender.
Read The Pagan Science Monitor, your skeptical daily look at law, policy, & satire.
