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 4 Version 5
New Jersey Judge Rules State Must Allow Gay Marriage New Jersey Judge Rules State Must Allow Gay Marriage
(about 3 hours later)
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. A New Jersey judge ruled on Friday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, saying that not doing so deprives them of rights that were guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in June.
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. Mr. Christie’s office said it would appeal but declined to say whether it would also seek to prevent same-sex weddings from beginning on Oct. 21, as the judge ordered. It is the first time a court has struck down a state’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling, and with lawsuits pending in other states, it could presage other successful challenges across the country.
The decision was a rebuff to Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature last year that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. His office said it would appeal to the state’s highest court. And he is likely to seek a stay preventing same-sex marriages from beginning on Oct. 21, as the judge ordered.
New Jersey was particularly ripe for challenge after the Supreme Court ruling, because of a previous ruling by the state’s highest court in 2006. In that decision, the case Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage. But the court stopped short of saying they had a fundamental right to marry, and in an unusual step instructed the Legislature to define how to confer equal protection.
“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,” 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.”
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. Legislators responded by passing a bill to allow civil unions, but same-sex couples sued again, arguing that civil unions denied them of many benefits, particularly in health care decisions and financial matters.
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. The United States Supreme Court’s ruling in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act meant that the federal government must provide the same benefits to gay married couples as it does to heterosexual married couples. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that the ruling was “confined” to legal marriages, and several federal agencies have since said that partners in civil unions would not be extended benefits, including those having to do with immigration, tax status and health care. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow gay couples to marry.
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. The same-sex couples in New Jersey pressed for a fast judgment after the Supreme Court’s decision. Judge Jacobson agreed with the plaintiffs that the federal case demanded a change in New Jersey, to abide by the state’s earlier ruling recognizing equal protection for gay couples.
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. “Under these circumstances, the current inequality visited upon same-sex civil union couples offends the New Jersey Constitution, creates an incomplete set of rights that Lewis sought to prevent, and is not compatible with ‘a reasonable conception of basic human dignity,’ ” she wrote, quoting from the earlier State Supreme Court decision.
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. While the decision is limited to New Jersey, gay rights advocates said that it would help fuel the argument that marriage is a fundamental right for gay couples.
In his veto, he urged the Legislature to put the issue before voters to decide. The Democratic-led Legislature declined, saying that questions of civil rights should not be subject to referendum. Legislative leaders have said they will try to override Mr. Christie’s veto, which they have until January to do. “Other states may not have a Lewis decision that says that not giving same-sex couples an equal footing violates the Constitution, but I think that argument is available, and a vibrant argument to make,” said Hayley Gorenberg of Lambda Legal, who argued the New Jersey case on behalf of Garden State Equality and six gay and lesbian couples and their children.
The governor’s office, in a statement on Friday, reiterated his call for the question to be decided by voters. “Since the legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination,” the statement said. The federal decision, she said, “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 hailed Judge Jacobson’s ruling as “thrilling.”
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. The ruling heightens the political drama for Mr. Christie, who is up for re-election in November, and is considered a leading candidate for his party’s nomination for president in 2016.
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. His Democratic opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono, called the ruling “a stark reminder that Governor Christie stands on the wrong side of history.”
Rather, she interpreted the ruling to “condemn only federal action that does not recognize civil union as equivalent to marriage.” “The courts have spoken and the people have spoken,” Ms. Buono added. “It is time for Chris Christie to stop blocking equal rights for all New Jerseyans.”
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. But the court ruling might not work against him in a presidential race as he courts conservative voters in key primary states. He frequently rails against the New Jersey Supreme Court as too liberal, and has tried to fill it with judges who would rule more conservatively on issues like affordable housing and school financing.
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. If the appellate court rules against him on same-sex marriage, and even opponents believe there is a strong chance it will, Mr. Christie could simply campaign against activist judges. He could even ask the appellate court to push the case immediately to the State Supreme Court for quick resolution.
Judge Jacobson found that the state was responsible for not treating same-sex couples equally. When Mr. Christie vetoed the same-sex marriage bill, he urged lawmakers to put the issue before voters. The Democratic-led Legislature declined, saying that questions of civil rights should not be subject to a referendum.
In practical terms, her decision means that the state must now recognize same-sex marriage. The governor’s office, in a statement on Friday, signaled that he intended to make the Legislature, if not the courts, his boogeyman. “Since the Legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination,” the statement said.
Same-sex couples are able to marry in 13 states and the District of Columbia. At least six other states offer some form of protection for same-sex couples, including allowing civil unions like the ones in New Jersey. Legislative leaders, working with state and national gay rights groups, are pushing to override Mr. Christie’s veto, which they have until January to do.
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 the article also misstated the legal status of gay unions in the District of Columbia.  The district has same-sex marriage, not only another form of protection for same-sex couples.

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 the article also misstated the legal status of gay unions in the District of Columbia.  The district has same-sex marriage, not only another form of protection for same-sex couples.