DISPATCHES by Hank Kalet: Half a loaf is still half a loaf

What’s in a name? A whole lot.

By: Hank Kalet
   "What we ‘name’ things matters, language matters." — Deborah Poritz, chief justice of the state Supreme Court in her dissenting opinion in Lewis v. Harris
   Gays and lesbians in New Jersey won a major battle in New Jersey, but they have yet to win the war.


Read Hank Kalet’s blog
CHANNEL SURFING


   That’s because the state Supreme Court punted on the issue, granting them all the rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy but refusing to completely overturn the legally enforced second-class status that gays and lesbians have been forced to live under.
   Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, in her dissent, put it pretty bluntly. The majority, she wrote, missed the boat in its decision. The opinion allows same-sex couples to "be denied the fundamental right to participate in a state-sanctioned civil marriage" — an unnecessary and unfair "burden" on the couples’ "liberty interests."
   The couples, she wrote, "speak of the deep and symbolic significance to them of the institution of marriage. They ask to participate, not simply in the tangible benefits that civil marriage provides — although certainly those benefits are of enormous importance — but in the intangible benefits that flow from being civilly married."
   By failing to endorse gay marriage, she writes, we endorse second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians, she writes.
   "Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities," she wrote. "Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message 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."
   Sarah and Suyin Lael, Dayton residents who were plaintiffs in Lewis v. Harris, agreed with Chief Justice Poritz and are hoping that the Legislature will "do the right thing" and expand the state’s marriage statute to cover same-sex couples.
   "Calling it anything else would not make us equal," Suyin Lael told our reporter, Joseph Harvie this week.
   The Legislature, however, appears unlikely to enter the fray. State Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) said Monday the Legislature likely would move on civil union legislation by the end of the year and could have a new statute on the books by early 2007.
   This is not good enough.
   There are courageous legislators ready to, in the Laels’ words, "do the right thing," but too many too many legislators are willing to follow in the court’s steps and split the difference.
   Then there is the experience of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2004 that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. In response, Massachusetts politicians were called for a state constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling and public opinion polls seemed to support a ban.
   But as an editorial in The Boston Globe pointed out last week, Massachusetts legislators ultimately followed the court’s ruling and "not one has been turned out of office for favoring gay marriage."
   New Jersey legislators should take note of this recent history, especially because the state’s residents — at least according to polls — are more receptive to gay marriage than their New England neighbors were.
   A Rutgers-Eagleton Poll conducted by the Eagleton Institute of Politics in New Brunswick, said that New Jersey residents supported by a 50-44 margin giving gays and lesbians the right to marry — that’s represents a 7 percentage point increase in support since 2003.
   From my perspective, the Legislature has two options — neither of which appears on their current radar screen.
   The can expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, granting them full equality under the law and removing the stigma of being classified differently under the law.
   Or it could eliminate the word marriage from the law altogether and enact civil union legislation that would cover a variety of family arrangements and leave it up to the individual couples (and their families, religious institutions, etc.) to determine what each relationship should be called. The benefit of this would be that it would take the government out of the personal relationship business while creating legal structures that would support and protect all New Jersey residents.
   The latter is far more radical a step than most would be willing to take. The fact is that marriage has been woven into the fabric of our society. It defines for others our personal relationships and our level of commitment.
   It is disgraceful that an entire class of Americans continues to be excluded from participating.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of the South Brunswick Post and The Cranbury Press. He can be reached via e-mail, or through his weblog, Channel Surfing.