TRENTON, N.J. (ABP) -- A divided New Jersey appellate court ruled June 14 against same-sex marriage, but gay-rights activists who filed the suit have promised to appeal.

A three-judge panel of the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled 2-1 against seven gay couples who had sued state officials after being denied marriage licenses. The couples claimed the action violates the New Jersey Constitution's equal-protection and privacy clauses. Among the plaintiffs are a couple who are both Episcopal priests, a chaplain for the Secaucus fire and police departments and another ordained minister.

Appellate Judge Stephen Skillman, authoring the majority opinion, said, "There is no basis for construing the New Jersey Constitution to compel the state to authorize marriages between members of the same sex." Skillman said the plaintiffs' contention that their right to marry the partner of their choosing was protected by the state's charter "has no foundation in its text, this nation's history and traditions, or contemporary standards of liberty and justice."

He also cited other state court opinions that said encouraging procreation and child-rearing are sufficient reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Skillman also noted that, during the course of the case, the state legislature had passed a domestic-partnership law. Since the law "extends many of the economic benefits and regulatory protections of marriage to persons of the same sex who enter into domestic partnerships, plaintiffs may now avoid many of the adverse consequences of being denied the opportunity to marry," such as denial of the right to make health-care decisions for an incapacitated partner.

Skillman also said the state's current marriage policies don't violate the New Jersey Constitution's equal-protection provisions because the state offers marriage to residents on equal terms, regardless of their sexuality. In other words, Skillman said, homosexual New Jerseyites have just as much right to marry as their heterosexual neighbors -- so long as they marry a person of the opposite sex. The fact that they choose not to, he said, is not the state's concern.

But Appellate Judge Donald Collester, in a dissenting opinion, said marriage as the state administers it is a fundamental right. "The right to marry is effectively meaningless unless it includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice," he wrote.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they would appeal the ruling. The case is Lewis vs. Harris, No. A-2244-03T5.

---

No comments for this article yet...

Subscribe to this comment's feed