This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
New Jersey Judge Rules State Must Allow Gay Marriage New Jersey Judge Rules State Must Allow Gay Marriage
(35 minutes later)
A New Jersey judge ruled Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, since failing to do so would deprive them of rights that are now guaranteed by the federal government. A New Jersey judge ruled on Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, finding that failing to do so deprives them of rights that are now guaranteed by the federal government following a ruling by the Supreme Court in June.
The decision will most likely be challenged by Gov. Chris Christie, who has publicly opposed gay marriage. It is the first time a court has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and it comes as Gov. Chris Christie continues to oppose allowing gay marriage in the state. His administration may appeal.
The judge, Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court, ruled that under its Constitution, New Jersey must allow marriage in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. “The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts,” wrote the judge, Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County. “Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.”
“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New jersey in a wide range of contexts,” she wrote. For instance, Judge Jacobson wrote, civil union partners who are federal employees living in the state are not eligible for benefits stipulated in the federal pension system.
For instance, civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are not eligible for rights in regard to the federal pension system. Couples in civil unions also may not enjoy the same federal tax benefits as married couples or the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act, she wrote.
It is the first time a court has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2006 that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage, but the court split 4 to 3 on the question of whether they had a fundamental right to marry under the State Constitution. The majority found that no such right existed.
Judge Jacobson’s opinion, which the state may move to appeal, said that same-sex marriages would be allowed starting next month. The State Legislature responded by passing a bill to allow civil unions, but same-sex couples sued again, in Superior Court in Mercer County, arguing that civil unions denied them many benefits, particularly in health care decisions and financial matters.
The opinion was provided in a summary judgment in a case brought by Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group. Lawmakers passed legislation in 2012 to allow same-sex marriage, but it was vetoed by Mr. Christie, a Republican who is considered a leading candidate for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination.
“Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution,” she wrote. In June, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. The court’s 5-to-4 decision meant that the federal government must provide the same benefits to gay couples as to heterosexual couples.
In her ruling, Judge Jacobson found that the Supreme Court decision itself did not render New Jersey’s parallel marriage and civil union structures invalid.
Rather, she interpreted the ruling to “condemn only federal action that does not recognize civil union as equivalent to marriage.”
The state argued in court that it was the federal government that denied benefits to couples in a civil union, not the state, so therefore the state could not be found to be violating the rights of the couples.
The plaintiffs argued that by creating separate structures for opposite-sex and same-sex couples, the state created two separate labels that now matter on a federal level and could therefore be held responsible for depriving same-sex couples equal treatment.
Judge Jacobson found that the state was responsible for not treating same-sex couples equally.
In practical terms, her decision means that the state must now recognize same-sex marriage.
Judge Jacobson’s opinion said same-sex marriages would be allowed starting Oct. 21.
Same-sex couples are able to marry in 13 states. Seven other states offer some form of protection to same-sex couples, several through civil unions like in New Jersey.
Judge Jacobson’s opinion was provided in a summary judgment in a case brought by Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group.
Hayley Gorenberg of Lambda Legal, which argued the case on behalf of same-sex couples, called the order “thrilling.”
“The end of DOMA made the freedom to marry even more urgent than before because the state stood between these families and a host of federal protections, benefits, rights and responsibilities,” she said. “With this ruling, our clients and all of New Jersey’s same-sex couples are at the threshold of the freedom to marry.”
Cindy Meneghin, who along with her high school sweetheart, Maureen Kilian, was among the couples who sued more than a decade ago to force the state to allow same-sex marriage, said “we couldn’t be happier.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA was historic for the nation but out of reach for us here in New Jersey,” she added. “Today, with this ruling, the full benefits of that historic Supreme Court decision are within our reach.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 27, 2013Correction: September 27, 2013

An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of the judge who ruled in the same-sex marriage case.  She is Mary C. Jacobson, not Jacobsen.

An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of the judge who ruled in the same-sex marriage case.  She is Mary C. Jacobson, not Jacobsen.