![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yesthattomThe town meeting on Wednesday night, February 26 at 7 pm at Grace Church Van Vorst, 39 Erie Street, Jersey City, will now feature an important update on the lawsuit in New Jersey to achieve marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples. Late yesterday, Monday, the State of New Jersey responded to the lawsuit. Please see below in this e-mail for the complete article from today's Bergen Record.
Public-transportation and driving directions to Wednesday night's Jersey City town meeting follow the Bergen Record article below; please make sure you scroll to the end of this e-mail for the directions.
Now more than ever, it's so, so important for you to attend Wednesday night's town meeting, "SUPPORTING ALL ROADS TO JUSTICE: Marriage Equality in the Courts, Domestic Partnership in the Legislature." At least five public officials will be there, and other offices are sending senior staffers. Turnout is the first thing they notice. Please attend, bring your friends, and make your voices heard with passion! Together, we progressives are going to make history.
Wednesday night's town meeting, sponsored by 65 organizations across the state, will take place regardless of inclement weather. As always, these organizing e-mails are meant to be read and spread to those you know.
See you Wednesday night!
All best, Steven Goldstein with Lambda Legal, cell (917) 449-8918, Goldstein@AttentionAmerica.com
State responds to marriage equality lawsuit
Bergen Record, Tuesday, February 25, 2003
By Ruth Padawer
The state attorney general said Monday that the courts have no business deciding whether to recognize same-sex marriages, and instead tried to punt the hotly debated issue to the State House.
In its first response to a closely watched lawsuit that seeks a legal right to same-sex marriages, the state filed a 42-page motion to dismiss the case.
Acting Attorney General Peter C. Harvey wrote that the seven couples suing the state were not seeking "equal access to marriage, but a fundamental change in the meaning of marriage itself." He added that it is inappropriate for the judiciary to change the traditional notion of marriage as a union of one woman and one man.
"Instead," he wrote, "the power to define marriage rests with the Legislature, the branch of government best equipped to express the judgment of the people on controversial social questions such as the recognition of same-sex marriage."
Nonsense, responded Lambda Legal, the group that filed the lawsuit in June on behalf of the seven same-sex couples, who live all across the state.
"The plaintiff couples argue they have a constitutional right to marry, a constitutional right to equal treatment, and it's the courts, not the Legislature, that determines what the constitution means," said Michael Adams, a Lambda attorney. "The AG says gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex, but that's not equal treatment. Gay people don't fall in love with people of the opposite sex; they fall in love with people of the same sex. Other citizens in this state have the right to marry the people they love and that's what plaintiffs in this case want, too."
Lambda is expected to file papers in opposition to the motion within a month. Oral arguments will then follow. The case is being heard in state Superior Court, Trenton.
Same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in the United States. For that reason, New Jersey's case is one of two appeals for same-sex marital rights being closely followed nationwide. A similar case is scheduled to go before the Massachusetts Supreme Court next week.
Gay activists began filing lawsuits in the mid-1990s, seeking the right to marriage.
Courts in Hawaii and Alaska were poised to hand gay-rights advocates a victory for same-sex marriage, but in each case, voters approved amendments to state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and woman.
In Vermont, the state Supreme Court likewise ruled that excluding same-sex couples from the protections and rights of marriage was unconstitutional. But in that case, the Vermont Legislature let stand its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, while creating "civil unions" that granted same-sex couples some benefits of marriage.
The suit in New Jersey argues that the state's failure to permit same-sex couples to marry deprives them of an array of protections and benefits, including those involved in taxation, health insurance, family medical leave, and property, alimony, and parenting matters if the relationship ends.
Each of the plaintiff couples in the case has been together for at least 10 years; four of them have children.
Nowhere does the state constitution expressly define marriage as a union between a woman and a man. Neither do the statutes forbid marrying someone of the same gender. But Harvey argued that those absences are proof that the framers of the 1947 constitution never conceived that marriage could involve same-sex couples.
Harvey wrote that the state has already taken many steps to protect the rights of gay men and lesbians, involving such things as adoption and parental rights. He suggested that gay-rights activists - if they want more protections - can lobby the Legislature.
Though Harvey made no mention of it, Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, is promoting a bill providing some marital benefits to adults living in an "emotionally and economically committed relationship." Gay-rights leaders, however, point out that the plan is far from equal to marriage, and would not change responsibilities toward children or confer joint-property status.
Harvey carefully avoided directing the Legislature on how to respond to the demand for same-sex marriage. He wrote that while the state has a "substantial" interest in preserving the long-accepted definition of marriage, "it is not unreasonable for the Legislature to conclude that a fundamental change in the centuries-old meaning of marriage is necessary to protect same-sex couples."
He added, "It is no small matter for the New Jersey Legislature to sanction a form of marriage that is expressly prohibited in either the statutes or constitutions of [other states], as well as the laws enacted by Congress. While New Jersey may well take the role of national trailblazer when the circumstances for such a bold move are right, the decision to stand alone among the States in recognizing a right belongs to the Legislature" and not the judiciary.
------------------------------------------------------------
