New Jersey Court Rules on Gay Marriage
By Keith Boykin, in sexuality
Wednesday, October 25 2006, 3:15PM
Saundra Toby-Heath and Alicia Heath-Toby may be heading to the chapel soon. The black lesbian couple we met three years ago will be direct beneficiaries of New Jersey's historic Supreme Court decision today authorizing same-sex marriage. In a complex ruling, the highest court in New Jersey ruled that marriage discrimination violates the state's constitution and ordered the state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, or the full rights thereof, within 180 days.
The decision was immediately hailed by gay rights advocates, but it comes at an awkward time just two weeks before a major midterm election in this country. For the first time in years, the voting public is focused on the failed war in Iraq instead of divisive social issues like marriage and abortion. Now with the New Jersey case, if the Republicans are able to exploit this decision and use it to resurrect fear among their conservative base, the Democrats' hopes of taking back both houses of Congress could easily be dashed.
New Jersey now becomes the second U.S. state to outlaw marriage discrimination. Massachusetts became the first state in November 2003. Other state courts, like New York's, have rejected calls for marriage equality. And in one state, California, the legislature approved a bill allowing gay couples to marry but the legislation was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The New Jersey court did not tell the state what to call the marriages, but it did require the state to outlaw the discrimination. "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 opinion said. "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."
Although I strongly support marriage equality, this decision could not happen at a worse time. I know that justice is supposed to be blind to politics, but couldn't the justices wait a few weeks before announcing this case? Or maybe this was the Republicans' "October surprise" to win the election.
Of course I'm happy for Saundra and Alicia, the two black plaintiffs in this case. I know them and like them both, and they deserve the right to get married. They have been a loving and committed couple for 17 years. They live in Newark, New Jersey, and they attend Liberation In Truth Unity Fellowship Church.
"For us, marriage is not a political issue or an academic issue. This is a real issue about our lives. Our burdens are heavier and our expenses are greater simply because we can't get legally married," the said three years ago. "We can't get family health insurance, so we have to pay two deductibles instead of one. And in order to protect ourselves in case something happens to one of us, we have to go through the expense of hiring a lawyer to prepare legal documents. We have to go through all that just to get the same legal protection that most couples get when they say 'I do.'"
They're right. I fully support them. But I am still concerned about the election. Whatever happens now, it's going to be 13 long days to the election. After that, then I can celebrate.
(Editor's Update: Upon further reflection, I have decided to change the headline for this article. I understand that the previous headline may have given readers a misimpression about the court's decision. Accuracy is very important to this site. I'm sorry if the previous headline was misleading.)
Comments conceal
BLK_PHD
October 25 2006, 3:35PM
Congratulations to the couple! I am glad that another state has granted something that can complete the cycle for many of us. Keith, are you and Nathan "jumping the broom" anytime soon? I'll ask my partner tonite to marry me and see if he wants to fly to Jersey for a nice weekend!
John
October 25 2006, 3:36PM
Keith,
I couldn't agree with you more ... I can already hear the fear mongering Republicans screaming that if you want more of the same (as in NJ), then vote Democrat ... otherwise the GOP will save our family values and the institution of marriage as God intended!
Dayum ... thrilled that MA isn't the only progressive, fair minded state, but sure disappointed with the political timing!
ronn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 25 2006, 3:42PM
Had the current Chief Justice delayed a ruling, it would have looked like opportunism. She is mandated to retire tomorrow. Yes, she probably can continue to sit on and rule on cases already heard, but imagine the conservakooks reactions had she delayed a ruling untill after November 7th. No matter the ruling, the crazy, hate-mongering, Jesus-abusing a--sholes would be shouting and attempting to use this for political gain.
It's about time rights were upheld. And I slightly disagree with you Keith. This decision is more in-line with Conn. than Mass. because the Supremes have given the state legislature the chance to slightly weasel out with Civil Unions. That falls far short of marriage and equality.
Small simple steps on the way to justice.
Andy in Seattle
October 25 2006, 4:26PM
It's the wedding bell blues, boys and girls. Karl Rove is probably pissing himself with joy, as Christmas has come early for him.
While the ruling is the right one--same gender couples deserve the same rights and privileges--the timing is unfortunate, and while we're under attack from the Right, I'd hate to hear the Left grumbling that they lost their chance at regaining Congress because of the Queers.
Keith, your political insight and measured skepticism is, as always, spot on. Let us pray...
Derrick from Philly
October 25 2006, 4:32PM
Well, it's New Jersey, dammit...maybe nobody will notice.
The Empress
October 25 2006, 4:40PM
This is awesome! Ok world, catch on!
JD
October 25 2006, 4:46PM
Oh well, seems like we've dug another hole just in the time for the elections. I guess the conservs who people expected would stay at home will come out after all. BRAVO!
AJ
October 25 2006, 4:50PM
Although this sounds good,knowing what little i do of U.S. laws,what are the chances of this law being revoked?I understand this has happened in the past.Here in the UK we,(gay couples),can participate in Civil Partnerships already,giving us the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples from access to assets upon the death of a partner,right through to immigration.This is a law that is not likely to be revoked,thanks to the good old E.U. laws (European Union)......it has its uses.
CPAPhD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 25 2006, 5:07PM
Actions of others, especially those in the political arena, never cease to amaze me. Congrats to the couple and those who will benefit.
Maurice
October 25 2006, 5:25PM
CONGRATS! BUT BAD TIMING.
ronn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 25 2006, 5:31PM
Justice is never about timing. Again, if they announced this after the elections, the kooks would still holler. People will just have to face up to the fact that SGL/Queer people deserve equality.
Just like I don't need white people to like me, I don't need straights to like me. Give me my equality and leave me the hell alone. I pay taxes and breath just like anyone else. And I'm not afraid of a backlast. It's not like the Dems do anything for our votes anyway. Hell, they are just as likely to go along with discrimination against SGL/Queer folk as the Republicans. It's all just degrees of discrimination.
Deacon
October 25 2006, 5:31PM
Great!!! Now I can get married in my home town should I ever choose to get married......as far as it's affect on th upcoming elections I don't see it having a major impact, sure republikkkans will try to spin it negatively but it's too late in the game to make it a major news.....besides it's New Jersey
jared
October 25 2006, 8:32PM
Great news, but, why did it have to come out during this nasty election season? The GOP is going to comandeer this and stay in office and the ads will start rolling tommorrow morning, which makes me want to vomit. I am sooooooooooo sick of thier hate mongering and sick obsession with gays is as bad as thier innate hatred of blacks I could scream, well, I actually have, but, living in an GOP stronghold, no one heard :(.
li3
October 25 2006, 9:04PM
Keith,
I would just caution readers on popping open the champagne and celebrating too soon. Technically the ruling states the N.J. legislature must go back and examine instituting measures by which ‘all’ citizens have equal application of benefits afforded under the state sanctioned term of marriage. The ruling by the court left the door open as to whether it will be termed ‘marriage’ as it is typically associated with in heterosexual unions. It could still be termed as ‘Civil Unions’ as used by the state of Vermont. Massachusetts stands as the only state where same sex couples can tie the knot in a state sanctioned ‘gay marriage’. And even in that state there are some limitations.
It’s a big start in the right direction, but we still have more marching to do!
Steve
October 25 2006, 11:57PM
I'm tired of the debate on this. We all know what is right. And the right knows what is right, but doesn't want to accept it.
Maybe we should have a "Dia Sin Faggots." Could be a real eye opener.
Cocoa Rican![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 26 2006, 1:37AM
Soon we'll look back on this battle over gay marriage and say how ridiculous it all WAS. It's insane...spending so much time and tax dollars on a non-issue...gay marriage - the marriage between two competent adults - doesn't need debating, it needs a good wedding planner and a great guest list!
One down, 46 to go!
Keep passin' the open windows...
madprofessah![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 26 2006, 2:20AM
That's an awfully misleading headline for someone who graduated from Harvard Law School, Keith! The NJ Supreme Court did not "legalize gay marriage" in New Jersey. They just said the state can not discriminate in the assignments of rights and responsibilities between opposite sex and same-sex couples.
The amazing feature of the ruling is that the three dissenters DID want to legalize gay marriage, but the four Justices in the majority favoured punting it to the Legislature. No one said "marriage is for heterosexuals, we don't care if it discriminates against y'all nasty homosexuals" like some of the judges in the unfortunate Washington and New York marriage cases.
nreeldeep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keithboykin.com/blog2/nav-commenters.gif)
October 26 2006, 9:28AM
MLK famously said: The moral arc of the universe is long, and it bends toward JUSTICE.
GaryPaul
October 26 2006, 10:49AM
The negativism concerning New Jersey's fight for LGBT lives really frightens me. Here is something very, very positive, and some of you can think of nothing but to put New Jersey down. Maybe if some of the rest of the country got off their fat asses and did a little political posturing, this fight wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. I am very proud of the fact that we already have domestic partnership laws on a statewide level, so that my partner of 17 years and I have a few of the rights afforded heterosexuals.
As for the upcoming elections, Bush won re-election off the backs of SGL people, and already gays are being blamed for the Foley incident--and not Foley himself. So don't blame New Jersey for the crap hitting the fan, it already has and will continue until after November 7th.
One of the main reasons HIV/AIDS has found an easy nest in the Black community is because it's always someone else's fight, someone else's problem. If we don't stand together for equality, then we've lost--again!
Michael-Vincent Crea
October 27 2006, 9:46PM
My 5 March 1987 M.Divinity reflection on SGL Marriage that I revised 12 July 2006 tells how the ONLY the persons
vowing "I do," are the Sacrament of Marriage ministers:
"Human-Divine rights are God-given, so-called 'inalienable
rights,' such that no other person or groups of persons, including social and or religious government, has a right to abrogate, to amend, to decide, to deny, to diminish, to
limit, to revoke, to suspend, to threaten, and or change in such wise as to assume the position of author of Life, Liberty and Love, itself, with any legal or valid authority to do so. The marriage of two persons, no matter
their sexuality, is an act of conscience, an act of identification, an act of Liberty and most of all, an act of Love, as Human-Divine Beings: not open to debate, to decision, to denial or to dissolution from any other parties or persons than those freely saying “I do! If you please, request a full free copy [owlsmvc@hotmail.com] Pastor Michael-Vincent Crea, One World Life Systems
dashawn
October 30 2006, 8:16PM
YEAH!