BURLINGTON - Vermont advocates for the freedom to marry hailed the New Jersey Supreme Court's unanimous ruling affirming the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, and expressed confidence that New Jersey's legislature would open the door for same-sex couples to marry.
       In the case of Lewis and Winslow v. Gwendolyn Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to "the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples." Echoing the Vermont Supreme Court's approach in Baker v. Vermont, the New Jersey court gave that state's legislature 180 days to amend New Jersey's laws to meet the court's concerns, and left open the possibility that a Vermont-style civil union law would pass that test.
      Opining that the New Jersey legislature would opt to allow same-sex couples to marry, Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force Chair Beth Robinson explained, "It's been over six years since Vermont experimented with the 'civil union' idea; we've seen how that law helps, but also how it falls short. New Jersey can learn from that and pass a law that's genuinely fair and inclusive of all its citizens, allowing two committed adults to marry without regard to gender or sexual orientation."
      In an opinion authored by Justice Albin, all seven justices of the New Jersey Court recognized that gays and lesbians are "our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends," and that there is no "legitimate public need for an unequal legal scheme of benefits and privileges that disadvantages committed same-sex couples."
      However, a slim majority of the seven-justice court stopped short of requiring New Jersey to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; instead turning to the legislature to figure out how to implement its decision, and opening the door to a separate legal category for same-sex couples.
      Writing for the three dissenters, Chief Justice Poritz decried the possibility of such a separate legal status "Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. Ultimately, the message [of a civil-union style law] is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as 'real' marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage."
      Robinson echoed the dissent's criticism. "One of the things we've learned in Vermont is that being 'married' is important to a lot of people, gay and straight" she said. "No newfangled term invented by a legislature in 2000 can carry the cultural meaning, dignity, and weight of 'marriage.'"
      Noting that Massachusetts and Canada allow same-sex couples to marry, Robinson stated, "The sky hasn't fallen in Massachusetts, nor in Canada, and it won't fall in New Jersey if the legislature follows Massachusetts' lead."
      Turning back to Vermont, she noted, "We look forward to the day when Vermont treats all families fairly, as genuine equals, and eliminates unnecessary exclusion and separation in our marriage laws."


Press release from the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. For more information, contact Beth Robinson at 803-388-6356.