New Jersey judge orders state to allow gay marriage. Christie vows appeal.

The judge said New Jersey must allow gay marriage because the federal government isn't extending full and equal benefits to same-sex couples under the state's civil union law.

Julio Cortez/AP
Alex Nikazmerad of North Plainfield, N.J., shouts at a vehicle passing by while holding a sign in front of First Congregational Church before a rally hosted by Garden State Equality in Montclair, N.J., hours after same-sex marriages were made legal by a state judge, Friday.

New Jersey’s system of civil unions for same-sex couples is unconstitutional, a state judge ruled on Friday.

The judge said the state must allow same-sex couples in civil unions to enter into marriages just like opposite-sex couples because the federal government is not extending full and equal benefits to gay couples under New Jersey’s civil union law.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that in order to rectify the unequal treatment, New Jersey was required to jettison the system of same-sex civil unions enacted in 2006 by the state Legislature in favor of judicially-mandated same-sex marriages.

Judge Jacobson ordered state officials to start allowing same-sex marriages in New Jersey on Oct. 21.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to appeal the decision.

The Republican chief executive, who is waging a reelection campaign and is considered a possible presidential contender, has opposed same-sex marriages in the state and says the issue should be determined by a statewide vote.

In her ruling, Judge Jacobson said her marriage order was necessary to comply with a mandate of the New Jersey Constitution – as interpreted by the state Supreme Court – that same-sex couples in civil unions must be afforded all of the same rights and benefits as are available to opposite-sex married couples in New Jersey.

Lawyers for the state had argued that the actual denial of federal benefits had come as a result of decisions by the Obama administration (which strongly supports same-sex marriage) and various federal agencies – not by the state of New Jersey and its agencies.

They said it was the US government, not the state government, that was denying equal access to federal benefits.

Judge Jacobson rejected the argument.

“The court cannot ignore that the State’s current system of classification assigns to same-sex couples a label distinct from marriage – a label that now directly affects the availability of federal marriage benefits to those couples,” the judge wrote in a 53-page opinion.

The underlying issue arose last June when the US Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court struck down DOMA because it sought to impose a federal definition of marriage on states that had decided to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples under state law.

The 1996 federal law had restricted receipt of some 1,200 federal benefits to married couples comprised of a man and a woman. Same-sex couples legally married under state law were denied the same benefits available to opposite-sex couples married in those same states.

In their ruling in June, the majority justices said DOMA violated equal protection principles by failing to defer to the decisions of the states in deciding for themselves who should be recognized as “married.”

Although it was clear from the decision that same-sex married couples must be afforded equal benefits by the federal government, the decision left unresolved whether those same benefits should also be afforded to same-sex couples who had entered into civil unions.

The federal government and federal agencies have been seeking to answer that question since June. At least so far, the answer has been no, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government as marriages for purposes of federal marriage benefits.

Judge Jacobson noted that gay rights activists might have filed suit against the federal government to force it to adopt a broader definition of marriage.

But she said they were also entitled to sue in New Jersey to overturn a state legislative roadblock that was now preventing same-sex civil union couples from being treated equally with married couples in New Jersey.

A coalition of same-sex rights groups called Garden State Equality and six same-sex couples and their children filed their motion within days of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision.

They argued that the New Jersey Constitution guarantees that they be treated equally with married couples in the state. Their plight could be resolved by exchanging two words for one word – civil union for marriage.

The judge agreed.

“Following the [US Supreme Court’s DOMA decision] and the subsequent implementation of that decision by several federal agencies, same-sex couples are only afforded the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples if they are married,” the judge said in her decision.

“Since New Jersey currently denies marriage to same-sex couples, same-sex civil union partners in New Jersey are ineligible for many federal marital benefits,” she said. “The parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same-sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.”

Judge Jacobson said that the current inequality “offends” the New Jersey Constitution, violates equal treatment mandated by the state high court, “and is not compatible with a reasonable conception of basic human dignity.”

She added: “Any doctrine urging caution in constitutional adjudication is overcome but such a clear denial of equal treatment.”

State officials are expected to appeal and seek a stay of the judge’s Oct. 21 marriage order.

Gay rights groups hailed the decision as an important step forward.

“We’ve won a great victory today, and there’s no turning back,” said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality.

“This news is thrilling,” added Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit.

“We argued that limiting lesbians and gay men to civil union is unfair and unconstitutional, and now the Court has agreed,” she said in a statement.

Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, praised the ruling. “Today’s court decision affirms what loving and committed couples in New Jersey have known all along: civil union is no substitute for the protections and dignity of marriage,” he said.

“Now that civil unions have been proven unconstitutional in the court of law, it’s time for the Legislature to act quickly,” he said.

He said his group and others would be working to assemble the votes needed to override Governor Christie’s veto of same-sex marriage legislation.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.