"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing." Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.
"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no
matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society
treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" A posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the
author.
"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain
natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting
property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Article
1, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.
"The couples, declaring they were tired of paying first-class taxes
while being treated like second-class citizens, demanded the state allow
them to marry just like their heterosexual friends, family, and neighbors."
Excerpt from a Lambda news release concerning the New Jersey same-sex
marriage lawsuit. 1
"We want to say 'we're married' and have our community instantly
understand the kind of loving relationship that we have -- that we're in it
for the long haul, through thick and thin." Saundra Heath, plaintiff. 1
"We shouldn't have to jump through a million hoops to prove who we
are to each other, and even then not be treated as equal to other couples."
Alicia Toby, plaintiff and Saundra's partner. 1
Time line of the drive to same-sex marriage (SSM):
Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in several U.S. states have launched lawsuits to force
their states to expand the legal definition of marriage to include same
sex couples. Of these, the case in Massachusetts was successful. A similar movement in Canada granted
same-sex couples the right to marry across the entire country in 2005-JUL.
During early 2009, a number of New England states considered bills to create
same-sex marriage legislation; all but one enlarged the definition of marriage -- for the third redefinition in the history of the United States -- to include loving, committed same-sex couples. (The previous two cases were in the mid 19th century when African Americans were allowed to marry, and during the 1960s when interracial couples were allowed to marry.)
The next logical states to consider SSM were:
New York because it has the second highest public support for SSM. A law enabling SSM in New York was passed on 2011-JUN-24 and becomes effective on 2011-JUL-24.
Rhode Island has the highest support for SSM, but the influence of the Roman Catholic Church is also high in that state and a movement towards SSM is unlikely for a while. A bill to create civil unions there became law in mid-2011.
New Jersey because it had 49% support in 2008/2009. It currently has a margin of 10 percentage points between the number of supporters and the number of people opposing SSM. With a current margin of this size, even a large fear-based advertising campaign would be unlikely to sway voters to oppose SSM.
Five New Jersey public opinion polls by Quinnipiac University between 2006 and 2012 show a significant rise in support and drop in opposition for SSM:
Date
Support
Opposition
Don't know,
or no anwser
Margin of support in percentage points
2006-NOV
41%
50%
9%
-9%
2006-DEC
44%
50%
5%
-6%
2009-APR
49%
43%
8%
+6%
2009-NOV
46%
49%
6%
-3%
2012-JAN
52%
42%
6%
+10%
A case in which New Jersey same-sex couples petitioned for permission to marry was heard in late 2003-JUN
by the New Jersey Superior court. Same-sex couples achieved a partial victory in
2006-OCT when the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered the legislature to either:
Expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, or
Create a civil union type system that is is equivalent to marriage, without
the name "marriage."
The legislature took the second option.
In late 2007, two bills were introduced to allow all committed couples in New
Jersey to marry, whether of the same-sex or opposite-sex. They did not proceed.
Another attempt was made in late 2009 to legalize SSM in New Jersey. The
state Senate killed the bill by a vote of 14 for and 20 against.
During 2010-MAR, same-sex couples returned to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to have SSMs legalized. This was rejected; the plaintiffs were asked to restart their court battle at the superior court level.
During 2011-JUN, still another bill has been introduced to the Assembly.
Current status:
Supporters say they have the votes in both the Assembly and Senate to pass a bill authorizing SSM in the state. However, they probably do not have sufficient votes to override the expected governor's veto.
Seven same-sex couples have initiated a lawsuit in state court an attempt to prove that the civil union law has failed to give them and their children rights, privileges and protections equal to marriage, as ordered by the court back in 2006.
Page Translator: