米ニュージャージー州最高裁：同性カップルに婚姻と同様の権利も、「婚姻」の名前は使えず

「同性婚」にも同等の権利　米の州最高裁
2006年10月26日12時30分　朝日

　米ニュージャージー州に住む同性カップル７組が、異性間と同様に結婚する権利の確認を求めて起こした訴訟で、州最高裁は２５日、法の下の平等を定めた州憲法により、同性同士も異性間の結婚と同等の権利を保障されるとの判決を出した。

　裁判所は判決に基づき、州議会に対し１８０日以内に法改正をして同性にも結婚を認めるか、「シビル・ユニオン」（市民契約）のような、結婚と同等の制度を設ける法整備をするよう指示した。「結婚」と呼ぶかどうかは憲法上の問題とまでは言えないとした。

　７人の判事が４対３と割れた。最高裁は、同性同士の結婚について、州憲法で保障された基本的な権利とまでは言えないとした。しかし、たとえば遺言がない場合の相続権など、異性間の結婚と同等の権利が同性間にも認められるべきだと判断した。

　米国の州で、同性婚を認めているのはマサチューセッツだけ。このところ、結婚を異性間のものと規定する州憲法の修正が各地で行われている。同性愛の団体などが憲法違反の訴訟を起こし、ジョージア、ニューヨーク州などで相次いで敗訴していた。


同性愛者の同等権利容認　米裁判所、中間選挙に影響
2006年10月26日（木）10:55

　【ニューヨーク２５日共同】米東部ニュージャージー州の最高裁は２５日、同性愛者のカップルが同性婚を認めるよう求めた訴訟で、同性のカップルに対する不平等な取り扱いは「州憲法の下で認められない」と指摘、異性間の通常の夫婦と同等の権利を持つとの判断を示した。

同性婚を容認するかどうかは、人工中絶などと並び米国内で主要な政治問題の一つ。保守派は約２週間後に迫った中間選挙で巻き返しを図るとみられ、中間選挙の争点として浮上する可能性が出てきた。

最高裁は一方で、今後全面的な同性婚を認めるか、あるいは権利のほとんどを認めながら「婚姻」とは定義しない「シビル・ユニオン（合同生活）」にとどめるかについて、州議会が６カ月以内に決めるべきだと指摘。同性婚を認めるかどうかの最終判断までは踏み込まなかった。

米ニュージャージー州地裁、同性婚カップルの権利認める
2006.10.26
Web posted at: 13:16 JST
- CNN

米ニュージャージー州トレントン（ＣＮＮ）　米ニュージャージー州地裁は２５日、同州議会が同性婚カップルに対し、結婚に伴う権利や利益を認めるべきだとする判決を下した。中間選挙が迫るなか、同性婚をめぐる論議に拍車がかかるのは必至とみられている。

地裁は同州議会に対し、６カ月内に婚姻関連の州法を改正するか、通常の結婚と同様の保護や利益が得られる市民的結合などの新制度を設けるよう求める内容。判事の投票結果は賛成４、反対３だったが、反対票を投じた判事３人は問題を同州議会に差し戻さず、同性婚カップルに全面的な権利を認めるべきだと主張していた。

米国各地の裁判所では今年、同性婚に不利な判決が相次いだため、原告を含む同性婚賛成派は今回の判決を歓迎。また、同性愛者団体の関係者は、州議会議員３人が同性婚合法化に向けた法案提出を検討していることを明らかにした。

一方、同性婚反対派は判決に反発し、同性婚禁止に向けて米連邦議会に憲法修正をはたらきかける運動を再び活発化させる意向を表明した。


New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions
POSTED: 7:43 p.m. EDT, October 25, 2006
From Rose Arce
CNN

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

Advocates of same-sex marriage hailed the decision, a respite from many defeats this year in courts nationwide.

"That is wonderful news," said Cindy Meneghin, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit by seven same-sex couples that prompted Wednesday's decision. "We can only hope that that means marriage, because that is the only way they can give us full equality." (Watch a couple say why they want to call their 32-year relationship marriage -- 2:01 )

Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, announced that three state legislators plan to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. In an e-mail to supporters, the chairman of the group, Steven Goldstein, vowed that only "over our dead bodies will we settle for less than 100 percent marriage equality."

Gay marriage opponents promise to fight

Those angered by the ruling predicted it will reinvigorate the fight in Congress for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide.

"They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey," said Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, which supports the amendment. "They are holding a gun to the head of the legislature of New Jersey and saying pick between two bullets -- one that allows civil unions and one that allows marriage."

Sen. Sam Brownback a leading social conservative in Congress, said the New Jersey decision "warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts," the Kansas Republican said in a written statement.

The federal amendment, which President Bush supports, has stalled in Congress. It has so far failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote to be submitted to the states for ratification.

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.

The gay marriage debate intensified in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first and only state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. The state does not allow nonresidents to marry there, however.

Precedent in Vermont

The decision mirrors the one made in 1999 by Vermont's highest court, which prompted its legislature to create civil unions for same-sex couples, with the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. (Opinion -- pdf)

The New Jersey high court held that state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from receiving the "financial and social benefits and privileges" of marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution and served no "legitimate governmental purpose."

Noting that New Jersey already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the high court said there was "no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships."

The justices wrote: "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."

However, they stopped short of finding that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

The ruling said the court would not "speculate" on whether legislation creating civil unions identical to marriage would pass constitutional muster "and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude."

The justices also held that the state's domestic partnership law for same-sex couples, passed in 2004, is not an adequate substitute for marriage rights because it provides gay and lesbians with fewer benefits and rights and has more stringent requirements for establishing partnerships than for marrying.

A hot button election topic

The issue of gay marriage has roiled American politics for more than a decade and on November 7 voters in eight states will decide whether to amend their constitutions to ban gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Same-sex marriage advocates have suffered five high-profile court losses since July, including decisions in the high courts of New York and Washington state upholding state laws prohibiting marriage for gay or lesbian couples.

State supreme courts in Nebraska and Georgia also upheld constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage that had been struck down by lower courts.

And earlier this month, an appellate court in California upheld the constitutionality of state laws against same-sex marriage, a decision now being appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The court said the state's existing Domestic Partnership Act, similar to one adopted in several other states, including California, doesn't go far enough in protecting the rights of gay couples.

Episcopal pastors Mark Harris and Denis Winslow, plaintiffs in the New Jersey suit, now have one dream to fulfill: to join the countless heterosexual couples they've married.

"We see it as a civil right that we're denied," Winslow said. "Even though we pay first-class taxes, we are treated as second-class citizens.

"We don't have that freedom to exercise our relationship in a practical way, dare I say, spiritual way."

New Jersey Star Ledger