Two Down, Three to Go: With CA Ruling, NY, CT, NJ May Be Next in Line :: EDGE Chicago

Two Down, Three to Go: With CA Ruling, NY, CT, NJ May Be Next in Line :: EDGE Chicago

by Kilian Melloy
EDGE Contributor
Friday May 16, 2008




The May 15 ruling by California Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional in that state to deny gay and lesbian families marriage is already having a ripple effect in states across the union.

A month from the date of the ruling, barring an injunction, the state is required to begin allowing gay and lesbian families to wed. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had twice vetoed legislation approved by state lawmakers to extend marriage equality, said that he would abide by the ruling, and also said he would not support any effort to write anti-gay-family bias into the state’s constitution.

If marriages indeed do start to take place between gay and lesbian couples in CA in June, that will make that state the second in the Union, after MA, to grant full marriage equality to its gay and lesbian citizens.

Almost exactly four years ago, the nation’s first legally upheld gay and lesbian marriages took place in MA. Since then, about 4,000 gay and lesbian families have stepped up to the altar and taken on the mantle of rights and responsibilities that marriage affords.

Marriage equality opponents in CA have vowed to take the issue to voters in November. Meantime, in several states that have been moving toward marriage equality in recent years, the decision is expected to prompt renewed momentum on similar measures.

In New Jersey, Garden State Equality chairman Steven Goldstein was quoted by NJ newspaper the Star-Ledger in a May 15 article as saying, "What happens in California does not stay in California, and that is a great thing for equality."

Garden State Equality would like to see the NJ state legislature pass a law granting marriage equality to gay and lesbian families, but openly gay NJ Assemblyman Reed Gusciora expressed reservations, saying, "I don’t see the Legislature taking it up anytime soon."

Added Gusciora, "I think the political will is still not there," reported the Star-Ledger.

The Star-Ledger article recounted that a 2006 ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court found that gay and lesbian families were entitled to marriage, but added that state government would have to put a law on the books to enable that to happen.

The state tried to address the issue by creating civil unions as a means of offering the benefits and protections of marriage without the need to step into the politically charged quagmire of actually calling such legal status by the word "marriage."

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights that marriage conveys but said only the Legislature could authorize same-sex marriage. Lawmakers responded by creating civil unions, which provide the rights and responsibilities of marriage by another name.

Joseph Roberts, the Speaker of the NJ Assembly, was quoted as saying that full fledged marriage by that name "is simply a question of when, not if."

NJ Gov. Jon Corzine has expressed a preference for the issue to be decided after the November elections, because, as Corzine’s spokesperson, Jim Gardner said, "He doesn’t want to see it become a political football," but nonetheless Corzine has said that he would sign any bill granting marriage equality that might land on his desk.

Local marriage equality opponents spoke of the issue in the same terminology that anti-marriage organizations have used from the beginning of the marriage equality struggle.

Said the president of the anti-marriage equality New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, John Tomicki, "We are confident there is not support for a statute that would redefine marriage in New Jersey," reported the Star-Ledger.

In CT, the parties involved in a case similar to the one that led to the May 15 decision in CA have been waiting for a year for their own court to move forward, reported CT newspaper The Day in a May 16 story.

Like NJ, CT sought to address the needs of gay and lesbian families without alienating religious or conservative heterosexuals by offering civil unions. But although civil unions in CT were created expressly to deliver the same state-level benefits and responsibilities as marriage, a challenge to that law sought the full and equal recognition that would come with the right to full-fledged marriage.

Said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, a marriage equality proponent and the co-chair of the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee, "To me it’s not that complicated."

Continued Lawlor, "People lose sight of the fact, and many don’t even appreciate the fact that civil union is exactly the same as marriage, no difference at all. It’s just the name."

But a name can make all the difference; calling the legal status of gay and lesbian families by the term "civil unions" while reserving the word "marriage" for the exclusive use of heterosexuals constitutes what Lawlor calls "a classic separate-but-equal situation," reported The Day.

Even anti-gay-family advocates of curtailing the rights of gay and lesbian families expressed the expectation that CT would follow CA’s lead.

Said the executive director of the anti-gay Family Institute of Connecticut, Peter Wolfgang, "I think it very likely that the... court will probably follow what the California court did and impose same-sex marriage on Connecticut by judicial fiat."

In 28 states, anti-gay groups have ushered ballot initiatives to the voters, where the rights of gay and lesbian citizens have been put to popular vote. In 27 states, this tactic has led to a rewriting of bedrock law, by inserting anti-gay language into state constitutions that locks gay and lesbian families out of equal access to marriage rights.

No such ballot initiative system exists in CT, but Wolfgang’s group seeks to create such ballot initiatives in order to put marriage equality rights to a vote and put access to marriage equality constitutionally out of reach of gay and lesbian families.

In NY, where the governor is a strong proponent of gay and lesbian family equality and the state Assembly has already approved legislation to extend marriage equality, an official of the state’s largest city has come out swinging on the side of marriage equality.

The new York Times’ "City Room" blog reported May 15 that the New York City Council’s speaker, Christine Quinn, issued a statement in which she praised the CA court’s decision, and exhorted state lawmakers to follow suit.

Said Quinn, "I applaud the California Supreme Court for lifting its ban on gay marriage and upholding the fundamental and universal rights of civil equality and equal protection," reported The Times.

Added Quinn, "While this is a tremendous victory in our fight for equal rights, we must carry on with our efforts toward making marriage equality a reality in the state of New York."

Quinn continued, "I implore every member of the New York State Legislature to place equal rights ahead of politics and end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by conferring the right to marry to same-sex couples."

Quinn said, "History has repeatedly shown that the arc of equality always bends toward justice. I know that, soon enough, LGBT New Yorkers will have the right to marry."

Pundits viewed an NY appellate court’s Feb. decision that marriages granted to gay and lesbian couples elsewhere must be recognized as marriages in the state as a de facto legalization of marriage equality.

The state’s Senate has yet to allow the marriage equality measure already approved by the NY Assembly to come to the floor for a vote.