maybe i was overzealous before

i've skimmed up to page 71 of the 90-page decision, and it seems like poritz's true swan song has been muffled by the majority. poritz basically said that the majority should not have stopped short of giving the title of marriage to nj same sex couples.

"I concur with the determination of the majority that "denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1[,]" of the New Jersey Constitution.1 Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). I can find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage, and therefore dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it declines to recognize that right among all of the other rights and benefits that will be available to samesex couples in the future.

I dissent also from the majority’s conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage "encompassed within the concept of liberty guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1." Ante at ___ (slip op. at 5-6). The majority
acknowledges, as it must, that there is a universally accepted fundamental right to marriage “deeply rooted” in the "traditions, history, and conscience of the people." Ante at ___ (slip op. at 6). Yet, by asking whether there is a right to same-sex marriage, the Court avoids the more difficult questions of personal dignity and autonomy raised by this case. Under the majority opinion, it appears that persons who exercise their individual liberty interest to choose same-sex partners can be denied the fundamental right to participate in a statesanctioned civil marriage. I would hold that plaintiffs' due process rights are violated when the State so burdens their liberty interests."

Then later...

On this day, the majority parses plaintiffs’ rights to hold that plaintiffs must have access to the tangible benefits of state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage. I would extend the Court’s mandate to require that same-sex couples have access to the "status" of marriage and all that the status of marriage entails.

can you imagine if this opinion had been the majority opinion?

okay, i'll settle for full rights and benefits, but i feel sad for debbie wan kenobi. her "swan song" was buried in page 71. :(

and it was so close. 4 justices decided to conferr the same rights and benefits to same sex couples as heterosexual couples but stopped short of insisting that it should be called "marriage" and punted to the legislature. 3 justices, led by chief justice poritz, said that they should have conferred the title of marriage and attached it to those benefits as well.

one more justice and this would have been a massachusetts style decision rather than a vermont-style decision.

let's hope the legislature decides to go the full mile on this one.