The short update is that the six couples challenging the Garden State’s civil union law will need to file a case in Superior Court, but this ruling was a disappointment.
In a split decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.“This matter cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record,” wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who added that “We reach no conclusion on the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the constitutionality of the Civil Union Act.”
The couples filed the case in the aftermath of the failure of same-sex legislation in the state Senate, arguing that the state’s 2006 civil union law had failed to grant them the full rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples that the court mandated the Legislature provide them with four years ago.
Lambda Legal Deputy Legal Director, Hayley Gorenberg, who is handling this case, issued the following statement:
“We are terribly disappointed about today’s ruling. Our plaintiffs and the New Jersey legislature’s own Civil Union Review Commission documented the rampant discrimination same-sex couples face as a consequence of civil union status, and this ruling now relegates our plaintiffs to second-class citizenship for even longer.“The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of equality in 2006, and this ruling is a saddening setback for our plaintiffs and their families, who have been denied the rights and responsibilities of marriage for years, and now continue to be denied.
“Separating out one group and relegating the people in it to a lesser status, in this case to civil unions in New Jersey, invites discrimination from all quarters-the government, businesses, schools, medical providers, individuals.
“It is heartbreaking that these families must wait longer for equality. As the son of one of our plaintiff couples pointed out when we launched our new motion, he has waited for half his life for his family to be treated equally and it still hasn’t happened. He is now almost college-aged.
“We are now assessing possible next steps in Superior Court.”
The reaction from Garden State Equality’s Steven Goldstein:
“Because of the legislature’s inability to act and the Supreme Court’s decision today, New Jersey continues in a caste system where an entire people are thrown aside into a profoundly inferior status, spit on, dumped on, utterly degraded, by hospitals and employers who mock the term “civil union.” Children will continue to live with an imprimatur of inferiority, psychologically devastated because they can’t marry or because their same-sex parents cannot marry. Same-sex couples will continue to be denied the consistent right to visit one another in the hospital, to make medical decisions for one another, and to receive equal health benefits from employers, all because of the deprivation of the equality and dignity that uniquely comes with the word ‘marriage.’“We at Garden State Equality will never give up – not until our dying breath. Since our founding in 2004, New Jersey has enacted 211 laws at the state, county and local levels advancing the civil rights of LGBT community, a record matched in few other places in the world. It’s because we and our allies, including so many predominantly straight organizations across New Jersey, never gave up and never gave in. And we never will give up or give in, so help us God.
“Cesar Chavez said it best. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the people who feel pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.
“We have seen the future, and the future is ours.”




16 Comments


how bad really?maybe i understand this wrong…if so, i apologize. but, is this really that bad? from what i can tell, they said “not ready”…please develop a TRIAL record. They didn’t dismiss the case on the merits. this is what judge walker did in perry v schwarzennegger (did i spell that right?)…right??? he wanted a fully-developed trial record.
yes, it will take more time. but isn’t it in our benefit to HAVE a trial record and have it favor us?
i’m not sure this is as bad as it seems. any legal people out there have any thoughts??
Not bad…It just means bouncing back to file case in superior court.
goodand if i researched right, the 3 who wanted to take it now were in the majority in Lewis or in the dissent calling for full equality, and 2 of the 3 who wanted to wait, were also in the majoirty in Lewis (1 of them is new since the Lewis decision). so that 5 of 6 who were pro-equality to some extent anyway…and asking for a trial record might be a good move for cases in other places down the road if this goes our way eventually.
Meanwhile in AZhttp://www.azcentral.com/news/…
Rescinding public/state DP benefits was the FIRST thing Gov Brewer did after replacing Gov Napalitino.
JudgesThis case was decided in a 3-3 decision where the new GOP Gov of NJ has failed to reappoint a judge — leaving a vacancy on the seven member court.
Did I mention that the judge the GOP Governor did not reappoint — unprecedented in modern NJ history — was the only African-American judge on the court?
Setting aside veto power, governors matter in states where they appoint judges.
In state where judges are elected (like North Carolina), your vote matters that much more.
Get educated on how judges are elected or appointed in your state, and spread the word.
ErrI thought it was the law that the Supreme Court only took on cases that had already been ruled on in the lower courts. Maybe I’m just mistaken, but this seems pretty standard to me.
This has been ruled uponThis case is a continuation of the original Lewis v Harris case (see the plaintiffs names on the decision image). There the Court gave specific requirements and gave the legislature the chance to fix them (180 days), potentially with civil unions. The NJ Lege chose to create civil unions and now, four years later, they are not living up to the requirements in Lewis v Harris according to a study authorized by the Legislature in the law that created civil unions. The Legislature tried to fix the civil unions law this past session by upgrading the civil unions to marriage, and it failed leaving the court as the only avenue for redress in a timely fashion. Otherwise, we have to wait until Christie’s term is over because he’s vowed to veto any attempt to achieve marriage equality legislatively.
While I can see Rabner’s point about building a lower court record, I don’t think that is necessary here as there is a very viable, extensive record and findings of fact they can rely upon in the place of the study the legislature authorized that I mentioned above. See my diary on this from Dec 2008 that was front paged here:
NJ Commission: Civil Unions ‘encourage unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children’. No trial is going to get testimony from 150 different people or get to utilize the extensive resources the commission had at its disposal in studying and writing the report.
So this mainly meansthat it will just take longer to get to the supreme court.
UsuallyBut you can petition to have a case heard immediately by the Supreme Court. They declined in this case.
If I understand correctly, that’s usually tried in a case where it is known that the Supreme Court is likely to hear it, and the case doesn’t really involve the need for extensive evidence or trial record – basically, when both sides agree on the “what” part, but the disagreement is in the “what to do about it” part. There’s no “he said, she said” to sort through, just a judicial interpretation required.
Since the Supreme Court already ruled that LGBT people have to have the same rights and benefits as straight people, civil unions are only acceptable if they grant all the same benefits as marriage. It could be considered a slam-dunk not requiring lower court involvement if there is clear, undisputed documentation that they don’t – since the question of whether the government should or must grant those rights has already been settled.
Apparently, that wasn’t enough for the court.
Which may work to our benefit in the long runAs much as this sucks, right now, there is a ruling out of Massachusetts that says that if a state says you are married, you have to get Federal benefits.
Unless it is appealed, it only applies to Massachusetts. The first level of appeal would apply the ruling (whichever way it goes) also to RI, NH, Maine, and, oddly, Puerto Rico.
If it does get appealed and keeps winning up the chain, there’s a point where it would apply to more states. If that ruling applies to New Jersey, then it will be transparently clear that civil unions don’t grant the same rights as marriage, because civil unions don’t give any federal benefits. Since New Jersey has already declared that all benefits must be equal, it would pretty much guarantee marriage equality. But that doesn’t apply yet.
If we get a Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey that says civil unions are good enough under things as they are now, we might have to start completely over if the Federal DOMA is struck down.
The problem with this is……in addition to losing Justice Wallace this year, Justice Long reaches mandatory retirement age next year meaning Christie will have a second pick on the Court. By the time the case gets to the New Jersey Supreme Court, all three justices that dissented from the majority in favor of immediate full marriage equality (Poritz, Zazzali and Long) will have retired. We’ll have not less than two Christie appointees along with Democrat-appointed Republicans Rivera-Soto (who joined the civil unions is OK majority in Lewis) and Hoens (appointed after Lewis) being able to form a 4-3 majority against Rabner and Lewis veterans Albin and LaVecchia (who’d have to switch from their prior “civil unions are OK” to “marriage equality is necessary” positions in Lewis). Strategically, having the Court reopen Lewis and rule now was far more likely to result in marriage equality than climb back up through the court system slowly.
I remember that…And it’s nice to see some good news come out of Arizona for a change!
Granted.Certainly, a current ruling that marriage is required would be best. But it might be that if the only choices are a current ruling that civil unions are sufficient or a later ruling with different precedents in place, the later might be better.
Of course, Congress repealing DOMA and opening federal benefits to all would be even better, but, well….
sidebar: elderly couple’s case in Sonoma CountyClay Greene settled on Friday for $653,000 in damages on Friday. FYI here because the Blend did cover this story back when Nat’l Center for Lesbian Rights publicized it.
Local news story, with past-events hyperlinks, at
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/a…
NCLR press release at
http://www.nclrights.org/site/…
FYI. No case law, just a settlement, though the original NCLR complaint is a litany of how wrong a family emergency can get if officials are careless with a couple’s rights.
Ugh, this is frustrating…I guess this isn’t the end of the world, but at the very least it means even further delay of full marriage equality in New Jersey. It’s pretty damned obvious that civil unions have NOT solved the discrimination that was ruled illegal in the 2006 ruling, but I guess the high court just wants this case to toil its way through the lower courts before they finally get it (again).
Congress repealing DOMA won’t make marriage available in NJDOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing valid s-s marriages, and gives states permission to ignore s-s marriages conducted in other states. however, it doesn’t prevent any state from marrying s-s couples, so its repeal won’t affect the ability of s-s couples to marry in NJ.