New Jersey is taking the plunge.

[truepenny]

Okay, I like the Supreme Court of New Jersey: "Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose."

bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose

That's got a beat, and I can dance to it.

Comments

[aries-jordan.livejournal.com]

Hm, that's the language the courts use when they decide a case under the Equal Protection clause, although it sounds like they're tweaking the standard in this case. Usually the question is whether a law (denying the benefits and privilges of marriage to same-sex couples) bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose where a group is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

The "legitimate governmental purpose" would be protecting the sanctity of marriage. Denying benefits to gays certainly has no rational relationship to THAT vague concept. And it's questionable whether government should have anything to do with "sanctity."

Way to go, NJSC!

[amayaxellia.livejournal.com]

At least one state has their heads screwed on correctly.

*mental cheer for progress*

[lauramcewan.livejournal.com]

Hi! I've never commented to you before (reading the books, though! :) ) and have to say, I agree. That's the important line there - and I hope every other state picks it up and runs with it. Even Blue Oregon over here on the west coast has a ban and that just saddens me to no end.

Marriage and governmental purpose

[karielf.livejournal.com]

Over the past few years, like everyone else, I’ve given this topic considerable thought. I came to the conclusion that what we need is not more governmental definitions of marriage, but less. A secular democratic government should not interfere with the personal lives or choices of its citizens at all. Ideally, we would all pay our fair share of taxes that in turn, would provide health care, retirement, even stipends for people who decide to have children (I consider parenting a national stewardship, since children are, in truth, a precious national resource). Marriage should not fall under any government legislation; it should fall under the personal morals and beliefs of the individuals involved. It always struck me as odd that it was against the law to have more than one spouse, and that a married couple got tax breaks even though they were using twice the resources as a single person. I’m finding there are always alternatives, even though our two party system would have us believe there is only our way and the one other guy’s way.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

i was thrilled

[allaboutm-e.livejournal.com]

Here in AZ we're just keeping our fingers crossed that the supernegative "protection of marriage" crap proposal on the ballot has shot itself in the foot by denying rights to unmarried couples of all types...

think good thoughts for voting day

Assholes....

[gyafaun.livejournal.com]

I was thrilled when they started sanctioning marriage here in oregon, and i know my friends mums were some of the first to get married, but the senses of the people in charge seem to have, unfortunatly, been assasinated as of late, because the ban is back.