NY Times Editorial: A Ruling for Equality in New Jersey

The New York Times
Editorial
A Ruling for Equality in New Jersey
Published: October 26, 2006

The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state’s Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples. It stopped short, however, of ruling that same-sex couples have a right to “marry,” leaving the question of what to call same-sex unions up to the State Legislature.

That omission will disappoint some gay-rights advocates, but there is no reason for lawmakers not to apply the term marriage to these committed relationships, and they should do so swiftly. Meanwhile, the court decision is an important step forward.

New Jersey already has a civil-unions law, but it gives same-sex couples fewer rights than married couples. Same-sex couples are penalized financially, in areas like employer-provided health benefits and inheritance taxes. They are also disadvantaged socially and in practical, day-to-day ways. One of the plaintiffs in the case had trouble getting her partner into a hospital emergency room with her when she was sick.

The court required the Legislature to level the playing field in every respect but one. It said lawmakers can call relationships between partners of the same sex marriage, or something else. This page supports gay marriage, but we also know it will not be recognized instantly. New Jersey’s delay is unfortunate, but at least it makes it hard for anti-gay forces in the state to mobilize against the decision. The court ruling secures important rights, and paves the way for the full equality that will no doubt come.