Tweet
Basically, the court leaves the question of whether or not civil unions (or whatever New Jersey decides to call them) are equal to marriage for another day. They punted on the issue.
Are you actually reading what you posted? Let me post it again:
We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples.
It is quite, quite clear that they are saying that the SC of NJ will not presume that a civil union scheme that has the same rights and benefits of marriage violates equal protection. They are saying a civil union with the same rights as marriage is fine under the state's equal protection clause.
In the words of someone better aquainted with the issue than myself...
which said the Supreme Court refused to declare a right to gay marriage, because they were uncomfortable with calling it marriage. Which seems to indicate that any challenge will get struck down as long as the same rights are given to civil unions. Basically the court wanted the same rights to gay couples, but did NOT want to go as far as to say they should have the right to marry and there is no indication that they would, under the current composition of judges.The Volokh page also states:
(3) Rights-forcing decisions: Mandate the rights of marriage, but not the status, for gay couples. This was the route taken by the Vermont supreme court, and now by the New Jersey supreme court.
And I haven't seen Vermont's court getting a challenge where it said, yeah, we were wrong, you get gay marriage.
Also the Volokh article indicates that Volokh is pro gay marriage. Of course he'd try to put a positive spin on it for gay marriage in a subsequent decision. However, it is misplaced. It won't happen. You can bank on that. The only way it'll change is if the composition of the court does.
Comment