Court backs gay rights, but not marriage

The state supreme court ruled yesterday that New Jersey must grant same-sex couples "the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes," delivering a partial but important victory to gay rights supporters on campus and across the state.

The court's 4-3 decision in the case of Lewis v. Harris fell short of endorsing marriage for same-sex couples under the state constitution. Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to revise laws to include provisions for same-sex civil unions, marriage or some other "parallel statutory structure."

New Jersey is now set to become the fourth state to advance the rights of same-sex couples. Massachusetts was the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, while Vermont and Connecticut both legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. Twenty states, however, have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. (See related story.)

Princeton Justice Project (PJP) president Tom Bohnett '07 called yesterday "an encouraging day" in an email to the group –– a day of significant progress for gay couples, but one that still leaves questions unanswered about how the state will treat them.

"There's reason to be excited," Bohnett said in an interview. "Gay and lesbian couples can no longer be discriminated against by their state government."

"But on the other side," he added, "what we set out to achieve has not yet been achieved ... it is not a complete victory because the court left it up to the legislature to decide whether to call this marriage or something else."

The PJP led the campus campaign in support of gay couples, drafting an amicus curiae brief for Lewis v. Harris in the New Jersey supreme court. Last fall, PJP lobbied the USG to sign the brief. After weeks of debate and a student referendum on the case, the undergraduates supported the USG's brief with 51.6 percent voting in favor of the resolution.

Bohnett, who is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian, said that in coming months the PJP will work to urge members of the state legislature to vote in favor of the broadest possible rights for gay couples. "It's the way the democratic process works," he said.

The ruling, Bohnett said, would make the University more attractive to prospective faculty and staff who are gay. "It would certainly seem that Princeton would no longer be at a disadvantage to the extent that it was," he said. "However, we still have to recognize that there are places in this country where full marriage rights are accorded to gay couples."

Chris Lloyd '06, who led PJP's Gay Family Rights project before graduating in June, called the decision "a major victory for New Jersey and Princeton's LGBT community."

"While the court did stop short of full marriage rights, three legislators have already said they will introduce a bill in the legislature for marriage equality, so the community should be very optimistic," he said in an email. "Those who view today's ruling as a defeat are wrong."

Local lawyer and PJP adviser Bill Potter '68 coauthored the brief in support of gay couples with Linda Colligan, a politics preceptor and PJP adviser who died in March 2005. Potter said that when the decision was first released he was "initially disappointed" because he had expected the ruling to refer to gay unions as marriages. "But I'm still pleased because the court did say that equal protection applies equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"On balance, it's a significant step forward in the struggle for equality," he added.

But Anscombe Society president Sherif Girgis '08, whose group filed its own amicus brief, said that equality might be reduced to absurdity. "If the state begins to sanction what are basically emotional relationships," he said, "then there's principled basis for sanctioning relationships between three or more people or temporary relationships ... like dating."

College Republicans president Alexander Maugeri '07 also criticized the court's ruling. "The court today affirmed the common belief that they are a super-legislature and do not respect the rule of law," Maugeri, who is also an associate editor at the 'Prince,' said. "Decisions on the nature of marriage should be made by voters and by elected legislatures — not by unaccountable, unelected judges."

'We Won!'

The fact that the court failed to endorse same-sex marriage did little to dampen the enthusiasm of gay rights supporters.

Less than 10 minutes after the court released its decision at 3 p.m., LGBT Center director Debbie Bazarsky sent a celebratory email to the Pride-Net mailing list. "We Won!" the subject line read. "Free Wedding Cake at the LGBT Center NOW."

Twenty minutes later, Bazarsky added: "Just to clarify ... The choice is being left to the Legislature. What will result is either civil unions or marriage. The Court ruled the status-quo is unacceptable."

"It's a celebration in the sense that it's a victory," Bazarsky said in an interview. "I think in many ways, it was expected."

The Center preordered wedding cakes and a rainbow of balloons in anticipation of the decision.

"I'm exceptionally happy," Scott Kent GS, who attended the celebration, said. "No matter what the difference between the marriage and the civil union is, this is part of the general liberalization of society. This is a sign of the unstoppable progression of society."

Bazarsky said 35 or 40 people went to the LGBT Center to celebrate.

But not everyone in the LGBT community is enthusiastic. "I'm indifferent to the decision because I don't believe in the institution of marriage," a graduate student who calls herself Blue said. "But legally, if some people are allowed to do something, all should be allowed for the sake of equality."

Bazarsky said that despite the differing of opinions about same-sex marriage within the LGBT community, it is still pleased with the decision and anticipates a long wait until the legislature decides how to name the unions.

"There are people here who don't support marriage, but they were still here to celebrate," she said. "It's still a victory."