The California courts have weighed in on the side of equality.
There is no other way to view the decision handed down today granting same-sex couples the right to marry — not just to join in civil unions or some other form of domestic partnership.
This quote from a story on The New York Times’ Web site sums the issue up:
“It’s just amazing to feel like I am a full citizen — I am not a second-class citizen,” said Christmas Laubrile, a nurse, who was with her partner, Alice Heimsoth. “I don’t have to sit in the back of the bus, and I don’t have to take second best.”
Civil rights groups have balked at connecting the struggles of black Americans to gays and lesbians or even to undocumented immigrants, but the parallel is apt. Gays and lesbians across the country are prohibited from entering into state-sanctioned marriages because of what essentially amounts to a religious objection.
The court today minced few words in its 4-3 decision. The San Francisco Chronicle offered this report:
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.
“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry “will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage,” George said.
In addition, he said, the current state law, enacted in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation – discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.
The ruling affects the entire state, but also shines a spotlight on New Jersey, where the courts forced the state Legislature to address the issue in 2006. The Legislature, however, crafted a civil-union law that provided to gays and lesbians most of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, but refused to go all the way and call it marriage.
But words matter, as retired state Supreme Court Chief Justice Deborah Poritz said, and the civil union law has failed to meet the court’s requirements. Same-sex couples
Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, D-Camden, thinks that could change soon:
“As I have said before, the granting of full marriage equality to New Jersey’s same-sex couples is simply a question of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’
“In the year since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect the sky has
not fallen in and the meaning of marriage for opposite-sex couples has not been
eroded.“Those realizations make it all the more likely that New Jersey will
ultimately be the first state to legislatively reach the inevitable conclusion
that marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all residents.”
Could it come this year? Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality hopes so. His group has been pushing for a same-sex marriage bill by the end of the year and he sees the California ruling as an important prod, according to The Star-Ledger. He said
“What happens in California does not stay in California, and that is a great thing for equality.”
I hope he’s right, though I think this comment from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, the only openly gay member of the state Legislature, maybe the most instructive — especially since Senate Bill 112, sponsored by Sens. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, and Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex, is languishing in the Senate without being assigned to a committee:
“I don’t see the Legislature taking it up anytime soon,” Gusciora said. “I think the political will is still not there.”
It is time for the governor to show some leadership on this and for the handful of Republicans who say they support equality — Bill Baroni, for one — to step up and add their name to the sponsor list, taking partisan politics out of the mix.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me clicking here.
Hank Kalet 
Well, unfortunately, it makes me more of a serf. The gooferment will now tell me — and 61% of the voters in California — what I and they have to believe.See, in addition to being robbed of a huge portion of my earnings, I am now forced to subsidize a lifestyle I believe is immoral.And, I\’ll ask one simple question: Where does the gooferment get the right to legislate about what marriage is?Never mind: My freedom of religion! My freedom of association! And just my freedom to be left alone.Wait til the powers that be decide that your belief is no longer acceptable. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller!
Wow, the \”gooferment.\” So original, so biting, so mindnumbingly jerkoffy. Is \”gooferment\” supposed to be original and funny? Get a new script Mr. Right wing Neanderthal. Again, where is this libertarian utopia? Where is the current example of a successful, rich libertarian country in the world today?
The republic of the united states from 1776 to 1860 is my example. Republics have a hard time surviving the crass stupid people and politicans. And since you worship the gooferment sooo much, perhaps you might point out what is a \”successful government program\”? Bear in mind, my standard is not how much it does for the politicians, but how we benefit. Oh and don\’t forget, spending 500$ for a 50$ hammer is one negative in the criteria for success. So, let\’s look at the great programs and see what\’s successful: Social Security, Medicare, Federal Reserve, NASA, FDA, Amtrak, IRS, BATF, DEA. Ooh, I know, the Post Office!So, I may not meet your standard of wittiness. But, I\’m not afraid to put an opinion out there and sign my name to it, Mister or Ms. Anonymous. And, I\’ll even extend to you all the freedom and liberty I want for myself. You see I don\’t have to force you to my mold. I want everyone to be free from the force of government.If an idea is so good, then why do we have to hold a gun to people\’s heads to get them to go along?Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Libertarianism may work for very small homogeneous communities where every one is on the same socio-economic and philosophical page. I guess I am a civil libertarian but that is a quantum leap from full blown libertarianism. Social Security is a very successful 72 year old program. Seniors love SS and the overwhelming majority of seniors and even non-seniors were opposed to Bush\’s privatization (personal accounts) snake-oil bull crap. That said, I will never be able to convince a libertarian that SS is a great program. If not for Medicare, millions of seniors would have no health insurance whatsoever. The GI bill was a great program that made a positive difference to millions of veterans. One wag has quipped that libertarianism is anarchy for rich people. I don\’t worship the government but libertarians seem to worship business and laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism and business can do no wrong in their eyes. You would think that libertarians would be pro union but most libertarians I have encountered are vehemently anti-union. When you give businesses and corporations free rein to do whatever they want, you have anarchy and the great mass of people lose so that a few can amass great amounts of wealth. I am pro business, pro free enterprise and entrepreneurship but there do have to be rules and regulations otherwise capitalism goes hog wild and devours itself and anyone else in its path to profits. It\’s a delicate balance between encouraging entrepreneurship and regulating the worst aspects of predatory capitalism.