Writing for the 4-to-3 majority, Justice Barry Albin stated that while no "fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution."
-- "Perfect together: N.J. court OKs same-sex nups but leaves it to pols"
[The headline is a takeoff of the state's tourism motto.] As I feared, this was in the paper [NY Daily News] today without clarification ala NYT, which sounds like the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in which the minority was against judicially demanding marital equality for same sex couples. In other words, those darn activist judges, by one vote yet, legislating from the bench! The retrograde editors of the paper still whined about the activism, recognizing equal protection for homosexuals only by legislative sufferance, but the alleged narrowness of the ruling only worsens the possible backlash. Such lack of clarification is a fairly typical situation when news articles quickly discuss often complex legal rulings, but this one is a bit annoying given the basic simplicity of the split.
Again, the division was over the breadth of same sex equality, the three justices (as is their title) leaving it to the legislative to decide whether they would go the civil union or marriage route, the partial dissent holding true equal protection would demand the latter. The latter group also rejected the notion that one should explain the right at hand as "same sex marriage," (the main opinion refused to recognize a "fundamental right" of such a nature) noting the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that rejected the use of something akin to "same sex sodomy." The Supreme Court, which won't be involved since the court ruled on state constitutional grounds, noted that the liberty at hand was intimate association and privacy. And, the three here argued that "marriage" was at issue here.
The paper did note that NY (like California) would recognize the same sex marriages (according to the link below, a "civil union" might only be recognized in the state itself). The push for a statewide security of same sex civil unions (like the three, I see the second class citizenship flavor to such a label -- marriages currently are already "civil" unions when carried out by the state) hopefully will be aided by our neighbor having such a law in place. The ruling also was an example of a judicial "push." It was partially secured by the fact that NJ already had many securities in place for same sex couples. Thus, the apparent "state interest" in denying the remainder was particularly dubious.
Some might want the state to be allowed to take a sort of "halfway" approach, partially for political reasons (a little to each side), but given Lawrence et. al., homosexuals clearly have some protection that run of the mill economic regulations do not offer. Massachusetts took a somewhat similar approach, as could NY, though it might be shown NY does not have as many legislative and judicial securities of same sex couples as the other two states currently do. And, other constitutional securities are treated in this way as well -- leading to some dissents complaining that the government apparently has to have an "all or nothing" approach that seems a bit counterproductive.
Well, depends on the situation. At any rate, as more and more matters are covered, the "state interest" in depriving same sex couples their basic liberties clearly becomes harder to justify. Legitimately, that is.
For more discussion of the ruling see here and here, providing a summary and concern for due care when contemplating such rulings, something many (including conservative law professors) simply do not do often enough. For what it is worth, GG lives in NY, and is in a same sex relationship. This one would not know, I surely didn't, without him noting the fact in reply to some personal attacks as a result of the popularity of his hard hitting criticism of the administration and its fellow travelers.
Note: I emailed my concern to the writer of the piece, most articles having an email address. (Good touch.) I promptly received a nice reply admitting that the point should have been more clearly expressed. This underlines the value of feedback: it is pretty hard to write an article in which every fact is clearly expressed or 100% accurate. Good editing is essential, even if it is done after the fact. The latter might lead to online editing, serve as a message to readers, or be useful the next time the subject matter is discussed by the publication. It helps, by the way, to praise the piece as a whole. A bit of sugar helps the medicine go down.
-----
Talking about a show sorta gay friendly ...
I caught a bit of Sex in the City (basic cable version) last night. I used to watch that show a bit ... I had HBO for a short while ... but did not really care for half of the quartet -- sort of "desperate singles." Miranda and Samantha were my favorites -- Miranda is in effect the "smart one," a bit more plain and "good," a lawyer and overall the "levelheaded" sort of the bunch. I caught Cynthia Nixon in a play a couple years back -- not really good, but she did well enough. Samantha is the sexpot, but also a bit older, and wiser. Carrie is the writer/narrator, a bit too neurotic, while Charlotte is the "good girl," who overall I found rather annoying (as well as in person, or rather, on talk shows).
Anyway, one tidbit on the second episode was that Miranda felt she was in a bit of a rut, always getting the same thing at a local takeout Chinese place, so much that the woman knew what she wanted once she gave the address. I know the feeling ... one place I go for a certain item now has me down pat ... I sometimes get other things elsewhere, you know, to throw them off, but this place is really for a certain item (sesame bean curd). I went there for lunch today (note: Duane Reade's store brands are not cheap ... one more reason I hate the "Price is Right" habit of places not putting prices on items) and it is official: after three weeks, the food was cooked slightly different depending on the day I went.
Some suggest all Chinese food is alike. As a regular, I dissent strongly. This is clear by the different ways dumplings are made, another item that I often buy. Likewise, the service is clearly different depending on where you go. I ordered from a place on Sunday that we (Jews aren't the only families that favors Chinese) usually don't use. You know, give them a second chance. My bad. Took forever to come, gave us the wrong type of rice, and undercooked the bean curd.
Blah. Give me predictable. Life gives you various problems to bear; steady take out is the least one can hope for. Heck, steady food overall -- loads of options in and around NYC, quite a few not worth the price. So it goes.