Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled to allow legislators a 180-day window to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, leaving the door open for civil unions or same-sex marriages to become legal in New Jersey.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court stated that “Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in the state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution.” This type of rational interpretation of the constitution should be an example to follow for state supreme courts around the nation.
There are many people in this nation who are staunch supporters of the notion that marriage can only technically be between a man and a woman, as an institution of the church. This may never change entirely. The church, however, does not affect the legal and civil rights of married couples; the state does. Our government requires couples to have a marriage license in order to apply for a different status.
We applaud the New Jersey Supreme Court’s rationale in reaching this ruling. The court’s decision shows that it used rationale based on fairness rather than on social morals, which is how supreme court decisions should be reached.
By pointing out the distinction between same-sex couples’ right to be married and their right to enjoy the same legal and civil liberties as heterosexual couples, the court has – without creating new legislation – extended necessary rights to people who deserve them.
In Oregon, committed same-sex couples are unable to enjoy the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. They have to pay higher premiums for car insurance and health insurance. They have to spend significantly more to secure joint property ownership and the custody of their children. They are essentially treated as second class citizens and denied the privileges that others enjoy.
In 2004, Oregon Ballot Measure 36 amended the state constitution to include this clause: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
Although this amendment effectively outlaws same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling highlights an important omission in it. While same-sex couples may not be allowed to marry, nothing in the law suggests that the state shouldn’t provide them with the same legal and civil rights as committed partners by means of a civil union.
When a case regarding this precedent is inevitably raised in Oregon, it will important for Oregon’s courts to see that marriage and civil unions are two separate things. Oregon’s Supreme Court should keep in mind the same unbiased, rational consideration exhibited in New Jersey when formulating its ruling.