Gay Marriage And New Jersey

The NJ Supremes have re-opened the gay marriage debate; here is Times coverage, and here is a .pdf of the 90 page opinion (with a thank-you to Prof. Althouse).

Eugene Volokh is especially cogent with his slippery slope observation:

I did want to note one thing -- this decision, whether you like it or not, seems to be an illustration that the slippery slope is a real phenomenon. Even when there are conceptually quite clear distinctions that could be used to distinguish the first step A from the final step B, A may nonetheless help bring B about. Consider how the decision relies on the enactment of past gay rights laws. The backers of such laws often argue that these laws do not create a slippery slope towards same-sex marriage or civil unions. Thus, for instance, an editorial in the Boston Globe, Oct. 15, 1989, at A30, said "[A proposed antidiscrimination law barring sexual orientation discrimination in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing] does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights."

...

Yet the New Jersey Supreme Court's equal protection argument begins by citing such non-same-sex-marriage, non-civil-union gay rights laws (citations omitted):

In addressing plaintiffs’ claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

Just off hand, I would note that slippery slope arguments are frequently offered by both sides in the gun control and abortion debates.

Meanwhile, back on gay marriage, Scott Lemieux of TAPPED is the opposite of cogent:

THE MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY.   Glenn Greenwald makes a very important point about yesterday's judicial decision in New Jersey:

The decision today is entirely consistent with the democratic will of New Jersey residents. The New Jersey legislature already enacted a domestic partnership bill two years ago which recognizes, and grants a whole array of marital rights to, same-sex couples. But the way the laws were written, some rights were still assigned only to "married" couples. The court decision today simply requires that those same-sex partnerships have all of the rights which are given to married couples. But New Jersey voters, through their representatives, already approved of recognition of same-sex relationships two years ago.

Huh?  Let me try for a Slightly Shorter Greenwald: Two years ago the NJ State Legislature approved gay domestic partnerships with many but not all of the rights of hetero marriage, thereby demonstrating majority support for recognition of gay domestic partnerships with all of the rights of hetero marriage.  Sure, that makes sense.

It may well be the case that a majority of the good people of the great state of New Jersey support civil unions with rights equal to hetero marriage, but that recent legislation is not supporting evidence.

Mr. Lemieux shoots and misses again:

Whether the decision is right or wrong, it cannot be wrong because it's inconsistent with majority opinion in the state. 

Groan.  My personal opinion is that gay marriage or civil unions is fine if enacted by the state legislature but wrong if crammed down by judicial fiat.  How would pollsters, or Mr. Lemieux, score that?  Surely I am not alone in believing that process counts.

Mr. Lemieux links to this problematic poll from which I will accept this conclusion:

Regardless of the question order, about 65 percent of respondents supported civil unions, and 30 percent opposed them.

Comments

[boris]

A very excellent October surprise to motivate reluctant Republican base voters. I wonder how Rove pulled it off.

[clarice]

Instapundit notes that because the Ct kicked the can down the road a bit it may have less impact..and if you go to memeorandum and see that headlines report the ruling in opposite ways (they mandated gay marriage vs. they refused to okay them) he may be right.

[boris]

Wishful thinking on the instapundit's part. The details are not that complex. Mandate legal status equal to marriage and no matter what the law calls it, proponents can call it "marriage" and opponents can call it something else. Sort of like Amendment 2 explicitly (page1) claiming to ban cloning while discreetly legalizing (page5) the medical procedure for cloning into the constitution.

[Gary Maxwell]

I wasn't fooled but maybe I pay more attention. Seems to me like the Judges said, "we just decided but we will give you guys 6 months to come up with a name for it." Why? Maybe they thought they were being sly.

[Bob]

NJ's Gay Ex-Governor Says He Would Marry

Hey maybe the Dems will drop Menendez for McGreevy... now that his love life is in order!

<blockquote> "I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey told the AP. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."

Wow he really sounds like a new man... or whatever!

[Jane]

Serious question:

What do opponants of gay rights want to see happen? Do you want same sex couples to have to contract for all the same rights as het couples, or do you want to place limits on who people can sleep with or is there some other solution?

It seems unlikely anyone is going to un-gay, gay people.

One interesting thing that is often missed in any of these gay rights discussions. Assuming that 10% of people are gay, and assuming the trend in the gay community is toward marrying, any legalization of gay marriage will deplete the treasury a bit as most marriage benefits are in the form of tax relief. One could certainly argue that an increase in marrieds would hurt tax collection. Of course since hetero marriages are on the decline that is probably not a compelling argument.

But I'm serious about wanting to know the objection. Is it simply because of the way it has been arrived at? If the legislature voted to adopt gay marriage in a particular state (in a fair and unfettered way) would you lose your objection? Or is it because you don't know any gay people and don't want to, or because you find them morally reprehensible and want them to stay in the closet, or what?

[Sue]

What do opponants of gay rights want to see happen?

What are 'gay rights'? And who is opposing 'gay rights'?

[Gary Maxwell]

assuming the trend in the gay community is toward marrying,

Kinda of big assumption. Are you an economist by any chance?

My objection is simple. The Dutch have already performed the experiment for us and the impact on society of not holding marriage in high regard is quite evident. I would like my children to enjoy an America as vibrant as possible. That means to me staying as far away from the European model on most things as is possible.

Not sure why that domestic partners should be granted health benefits or tax benefits etc by right. How about live in opposite sex or just two same sex people who have no relationship but they have separate rooms in an apartment but one has a better health plan than the other? I have no objection to a business choosing to offer such benefits as a cost of doing business ( as opposed to being forced into the cost structure by edict). No objection to a government deciding to extend a tax break to someone. A court doing it seems wrong to me.

[Kman]

"Two years ago the NJ State Legislature approved gay domestic partnerships with many but not all of the rights of hetero marriage, thereby demonstrating majority support for recognition of gay domestic partnerships with all of the rights of hetero marriage. Sure, that makes sense."

It makes sense when you ALSO consider that NJ voters, through the democratic process, adopted a state constitution which provides equal protection guarantees.

When people decry this decision as "judicial fiat" which thwarts the "will of the people", they constantly ignore that the Equal Protection clause of the NJ Constitution IS the "will of the people". That's how it got there in the first place.

[Sue]

A court doing it seems wrong to me.

Do a man on the street in NJ. Ask them to name the 7 SC justices. I bet you will be hard pressed to find 1 person who can name even 1 justice, unless it is a practicing attorney in the NJSC, a clerk, family member, or fellow justice. Yet 7, unelected, unaccountable, lawyers turned justices, have demanded the legislatures write the law the way they decide it should be written. We don't need legislatures. We don't need voters. We need SC justices. Obviously.

[Sue]

When people decry this decision as "judicial fiat" which thwarts the "will of the people", they constantly ignore that the Equal Protection clause of the NJ Constitution IS the "will of the people". That's how it got there in the first place.

Oh please. Even the justices understand it is a judicial fiat. That is why they gave them 6 months to write a law that reflects their ruling.

[SunnyDay]

Anyone want the pdf in richtext format?

[Kman]

"Yet 7, unelected, unaccountable, lawyers turned justices, have demanded the legislatures write the law the way they decide it should be written."

This is sophistry at best. The NJ Constitution -- not the judges themselves -- require equal protection be given to everyone under the laws.

If you are going to recognize domestic partnerships (as NJ did), then under the Equal Protection clause of the NJ Constitution (which was ratified by the duly-elected representatives of the majority), you can't give those "unions" SOME of the legal benefits and protections of traditional hterosexual marriage.

[K Ashford]

"Even the justices understand it is a judicial fiat. That is why they gave them 6 months to write a law that reflects their ruling."

No, that's not why. In fact, that's usually the result when a court finds a law to be unconstitution -- kick it back to the legislature to rewrite a law that comports to the Constitution. That happens with "conservative-leaning" courts AND "liberal-leaning" courts.

[Gary Maxwell]

There is an equal protection clause in the US Constitution. So why did Democrats ( and a few Republicans ) argue we did not need a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a institution reserved for a man and a woman. Were they lying then or are you seeing something that was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution?

[Jane]

The Dutch have already performed the experiment for us and the impact on society of not holding marriage in high regard is quite evident.

Gary,

So is your objection that you don't think gays take marriage seriously?

[Forbes]

Jane: Here's a partial answer.

What "rights" are gays denied?

Enumerate them, and ask the public to enact legislation sufficient to grant such "rights".

Will you accept the democratic outcome, or will you resort to legislation from the bench, as in the case of MA, and now NJ?

Here's a hint: the "rights" most mentioned are actually "benefits" specified in tax laws and regulations limiting eligibility to married couples.

If so-called gay rights activists were honest, they wouldn't cloak a demand for government benefits under the cover of redefining the meaning of marriage, IMO.

Cheers.

[Jane]

Kman,

That was my read of the NJ decision as well.

[Sue]

This is sophistry at best. The NJ Constitution -- not the judges themselves -- require equal protection be given to everyone under the laws.

The same way they 'found' abortion rights in the constitution?

[Jane]

Forbes,

What "rights" are gays denied?

It seems to me they are denied benefits not rights. The whole issue gets cloaked in a rights discussion and I think your objection to that is valid.

Will you accept the democratic outcome, or will you resort to legislation from the bench, as in the case of MA, and now NJ?

WEll as you know I am pro-gay marriage, but when the MA decision came out, I thought it was wrongly decided. I think it is important to pass legislation. I don't agree with you on the NJ case, at least so far, (I have not finished reading the whole thing) because I think the language in the NJ Constitution is clear, and any objection you have should be with the framers.)

If so-called gay rights activists were honest, they wouldn't cloak a demand for government benefits under the cover of redefining the meaning of marriage, IMO.

I'm not at all convinced that marriage has been defined as succinctly as you choose to say it has. If it were there would not be all these referendums to ratify the consitution in many states.

What I'm trying to understand is if people are really against the integration of gays in society or something else. Are you saying that if the legislators in your state voted to allow gays to marry, the issue would go away for you?

[Jane]

The same way they 'found' abortion rights in the constitution?

Sue,

Could you point me to the language in the decision that leads you to this comment, because I don't see it.

[Sue]

I'm not at all convinced that marriage has been defined as succinctly as you choose to say it has.

Well don't look the definition up in the dictionary then.

What I'm trying to understand is if people are really against the integration of gays in society or something else.

Something else. My godson is gay and I love him dearly.

Are you saying that if the legislators in your state voted to allow gays to marry, the issue would go away for you?

No. Marriage is a religious ceremony. It is not recognized by the government. All married people have a 'civil union', i.e., a marriage license issued by the state where they reside. The government does not recognize a strictly religious ceremonies without the license. Grant civil unions for all, including two elderly sisters who live together and let them enjoy the same tax benefits, etc.

But are you also willing to allow polygamy? They also have 'rights'.

[SunnyDay]

gaypatriot has some interesting thoughts on this.

[Barney Frank]

What do opponants of gay rights want to see happen?

By gay rights presumably you mean equal rights and/or priveledges regarding interpersonal relationships as married heterosexuals, correct?
Certainly tax regulations and such hardly come under the rubric of "rights" but lets leave that aside for now.

The short answer is that I would like to see gay people left alone to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes. I would also like to see a few thousand years of traditional moral standards, traditional marriage and the nuclear family protected to the extent possible in our public policy.

The idea that moral standards thousands of years old are merely vestiges of primitive prejudices and can be cast off with impunity is very tempting and usually quite destructive and, most importantly, nearly impossible to put back in the bottle. The slippery slope does indeed exist as we now see calls for marriage to be extended to polyamourus relationships or simply to be abolished all together. While the concern with the slippery slope always seems to be how far down it we will slide the real propblm is that it is nearly impossible to climb back up it when things turn out somewhat less wonderful than what was promised.
Societies that become self indulgent, never suffer a good end. The "gay rights" agenda is merely one front in the broad war between the traditional virtues which strengthen societies and those which send them into a spiral of decadence and lassitude.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. I'm a fiscal conservative.

2. I oppose gay marriage.

3. I live in New Jersey.

4. There isn't that much difference between Republicans and Democrats in New Jersey.

5. It's a mistake to think you can discern how New Jersey think based on any single thing. New Jersey isn't a single state. Officially it is, but in reality it's divided between Philadelphia and New York.

For instance there really isn't a New Jersey media market. There's a Philadelphia or a New York media, but nothing that is solely New Jersey. That's one reason why corruption and party politics has lasted so long here. Because the media tends to concentrate on issues that affect the big media markets, not necessarily those that affect New Jersey alone.

6. The New Jersey legislature tends to do whatever the hell it wants. This is an aspect of #5, which means it's tough to get a state-wide concensus view on anything, particularly corruption, because the same story has to operate within multiple major media markets.

*shrug* what the hell do you want? It's frigging New Jersey for chrissakes!

:)

[boris]

Law does not create marriage, it channels, guides, structures and constrains it. In that sense marriage is not a "right" created by law or constitution. It would be far more accurate to claim that the concept of civil contracts are in some ways similar to the "marriage contract" than to make the reverse claim that marriage is a type of civil contract. Marriage existed long before any concept of legal contracts. Marriage may in fact be one of the ancient reasons law was invented.

IOW it would probably be more accurate to claim that law was inspired and created by marriage that the other way around.

I don't object to gay marriage, I just don't think it exists. Marriage is a specific thing and people know what it is because it's part of human nature, like language. Calling Fortran a "computer language" does not elevate it to the same status as English or Russian. This kind of symbolic nonsense is like judges deciding that cattle are actually plants instead of animals and expecting vegetarians to start eating beef.

[Sue]

I should have been a little more clear. You can have a religious ceremony and marry your partner, if you can find a church that allows same-sex marriages. The idea that same sex couples can't marry is an illusion. What they don't have is the civil union.

In NJ, will Catholic priests be forced to 'marry' same-sex couples? Of course not.

[coolpapa]

Sue-

"In NJ, will Catholic priests be forced to 'marry' same-sex couples? Of course not."

Give it time.

[Jane]

Well don't look the definition up in the dictionary then.

Sue

I think the place to look it up is in the NJ Constitution. And as I mentioned before, a lot of states currently seeking ratification think maybe your dictionary is not the proper source either.

Something else.

So what is that something else?

No. Marriage is a religious ceremony. It is not recognized by the government. All married people have a 'civil union', i.e., a marriage license issued by the state where they reside. The government does not recognize a strictly religious ceremonies without the license. Grant civil unions for all, including two elderly sisters who live together and let them enjoy the same tax benefits, etc.

Oh sorry, I thought you lived in the US. My mistake.

[Bob]

Absorbing Gay Pain & Praise, Clinton Says She's Evolved

It was at this point that the senator stated her support for "full equality of benefits, nothing left out," before saying that civil unions offered the more certain route to that goal.

"If you go the next step and say, 'But I want what is called marriage,' you're going to have a problem."

Possibly the only thing I'll ever agree with her on!

[Sue]

Jane,

I was being snarky. The NJ constitution doesn't work very well as a resource either, since the justices couldn't find it in there either.

[Jane]

The short answer is that I would like to see gay people left alone to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes. I would also like to see a few thousand years of traditional moral standards, traditional marriage and the nuclear family protected to the extent possible in our public policy.

Barney,

What about gay people with high moral standards and a committment to a nuclear family, like yours?

Societies that become self indulgent, never suffer a good end. The "gay rights" agenda is merely one front in the broad war between the traditional virtues which strengthen societies and those which send them into a spiral of decadence and lassitude.

Boy you know very different gay people than I do. Which isn't to say there isn't a long history of decadence and lassiture (altho I'm not sure I know what "lassiture" means) in the gay community - but hell, wasn't that same trend in the male community one of the reasons this country decided to start rewarding people for getting married?

Is it safe to assume you think the same remedy would not work in the gay community?

[Sue]

Oh sorry, I thought you lived in the US. My mistake.

I missed this. You can be snarky too. ::grin::

[Sue]

What about gay people with high moral standards and a committment to a nuclear family, like yours?

Civil unions. Not marriage. Why the need to have it called marriage? If what they want is the benefits that heterosexual couples are afforded, why would they care what it is called? Unless they want the blessing of a society by having their union recognized as a marriage. If that is the case, they need to change the views of society the same way women changed the views of society to break through a male dominated society. Not with judicial fiat, but with a campaign to change the minds of enough voters that it was enacted through the process called amending the constitution.

[BC]

In response to the question of whether opponents of gay marriage are against the integration of gays into society: not to be flippant, Jane, but do you really, honestly believe that the integration of gays into society is going to be achieved by favorable court rulings? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm happy to tolerate individuals' private sexual procilivities. I'm not happy to lend the state's official sanction to deviant (in the non-normative sense of the term, not the perjorative sense of the term) sexual relationships that bear no resemblance to traditional family units in the hope that this will encourage the benighted to accept or celebrate lavender fabulousness.

[Jane]

In response to the question of whether opponents of gay marriage are against the integration of gays into society: not to be flippant, Jane, but do you really, honestly believe that the integration of gays into society is going to be achieved by favorable court rulings?

BC,

Before I waste another minute talking with you, could you please show where ever in the history of my participation here I have ever said this. Thanks.

[Jane]

Civil unions. Not marriage. Why the need to have it called marriage?

Sue,

So you advocate separate but equal? Is that to preserve tradition, or to emphasize morality, or for what purpose? That idea doesn't offend me but I'm not sure I get the point of it, unless it is to make sure we keep gays separate in some way so as not to freak out the hets.

deviant (in the non-normative sense of the term, not the perjorative sense of the term)

Since fewer than 50% of all adults are currently married, it seems that institution is headed toward the non-normative sense of the term too.

[Kman]

"If that is the case, they need to change the views of society the same way women changed the views of society to break through a male dominated society. Not with judicial fiat, but with a campaign to change the minds of enough voters that it was enacted through the process called amending the constitution."

ERA passed? I missed that little bit of news.

But you raise an interesting analogy. The reason why conservatives fought against ERA was because (according to them) it wasn't necessary. "The Constitution already provides equal protection to women" they said. "You don't need a 'special amendment' for women."

Funny. Now when "equal protection' is used to give equal benefits and protections to gays, conservatives cry "They need to go get an amendment for that."

I don't know. Perhaps some of you have not thought about what "equal protection" means, or to whom it applies. But (to state the obvious) it means "equal" and it applies to everyone -- yes, even gays.

[BC]

Jane, in your comment at 12:01pm, you wrote:

What I'm trying to understand is if people are really against the integration of gays in society or something else. Are you saying that if the legislators in your state voted to allow gays to marry, the issue would go away for you?

I thought it was fair to infer from that you feel state sanctioned same-sex marriage will encourage the integration of gays into society. I'm asking you if you seriously believe that this is so regardless of whether we arrive at said state sanction via judicial fiat or political consensus.

If I have not made a fair inference, I apologize. Feel free to correct me where I've misunderstood your views.

[BC]

Ack. Stupid HTML. TM, help?

[Sue]

Kman,

I was referring to the 19th amendment.

Gays already have the full benefit of the 14th amendment.

[BC]

Since fewer than 50% of all adults are currently married, it seems that institution is headed toward the non-normative sense of the term too.

This would be a fine point if I had been applying the term to marriage rather than sexual relationships, Jane. Please read for comprehension.

[K Ashford]

BC:

"I'm happy to tolerate individuals' private sexual procilivities. I'm not happy to lend the state's official sanction to deviant (in the non-normative sense of the term, not the perjorative sense of the term) sexual relationships that bear no resemblance to traditional family units in the hope that this will encourage the benighted to accept or celebrate lavender fabulousness."

But NJ already DID sanction "deviant" (in the non-normative sense of the term, not the perjorative sense of the term) relationships. As the court noted, NJ passed a "Domestic Partnership Act", which gave SOME benefits to non-traditional marriages.

And under your definition of "deviant" (a commendable one), there are plenty of marriages (besides gay marriages) which don't fit the "traditional family" mold. Interracial marriages. Marriages between octogenarians. Marriages between a 70 year old and a 16 year old (the latter having parents approval).

In all those situations, the state doesn't take stock to see if the people are in love, or if they can have kids, or if they fit into some nebulous definition of "traditional". Nor, I hope, would we want the state to get into the business of doing that -- talk about social engineering.

[Sue]

So you advocate separate but equal?

Why not? Men and women are separate but equal. A man doesn't have abortions, can't prevent a woman from aborting his child, but they are equal, correct? There is separate but equal in law all the time.

[Kman]

Sue writes:

"I was referring to the 19th amendment.

Gays already have the full benefit of the 14th amendment."

The Fourteenth Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) contains the Equal Protection Clause, which is the federal counterpart to the equal protection clause in N.J. -- the heart of this case.

Gays do NOT have equal protection of the laws if they are denied the benefits of marriage (or whatever you want to call it). That was the whole thrust of the opinion in this case.

[Sue]

Gays do NOT have equal protection of the laws if they are denied the benefits of marriage (or whatever you want to call it). That was the whole thrust of the opinion in this case.

Really? It was? Holy Moley! I did not understand that. In the same amendment they found the right to abort a child? Lordy, mercy...

/sarcasm off/

[BC]

But NJ already DID sanction "deviant" (in the non-normative sense of the term, not the perjorative sense of the term) relationships. As the court noted, NJ passed a "Domestic Partnership Act", which gave SOME benefits to non-traditional marriages.

I'm comfortable with, though not completely thrilled about, this to the extent that it is achieved through political consensus (and thus is the result of changing social mores). Yet some seem to think it's okay to effect farther-reaching social change with the bang of a judge's gavel.

And under your definition of "deviant" (a commendable one), there are plenty of marriages (besides gay marriages) which don't fit the "traditional family" mold. Interracial marriages. Marriages between octogenarians. Marriages between a 70 year old and a 16 year old (the latter having parents approval).

Do interracial marriages constitute deviant sexual relationships? Do marriages between octogenarians? Do marriages between an elderly man and a young woman, assuming that all concerned have consented? I think you can make an argument that the last example qualifies, but it's fairly thin gruel. Beyond that, I'll just note that it's generally helpful if you respond to what I wrote, rather than attacking straw men.

[Barney Frank]

Jane,

I believe you are conflating personal integrity with the broad scope of public virtue and morals.
Of course many gays are personally very decent people. But that says nothing about the effect on society as a whole of the normalization of homosexuality. Many adulterers are otherwise very upright citizens but that does not mean adultery should be normalized. A society has a right to defend itself from those behaviors which as a whole tend to disintegrate that society. And gay marriage is one of those behaviors. Alone, each brick taken out of the wall of traditional virtue is unimportant, until one stands back eventually and realizes there isn't a wall any longer. You might call it the myopia of the present, which in every age thinks it is uniquely suited to succeed at what every other civilization has failed at in the past.
Obviously it is a balancing act, but I think it is at least debatable that the forces which would dissolve our societal bonds have the upper hand when we look at the social chaos we now consider not only acceptable but normal. The most extreme pornography, drug use, language, violence and selfishness are now not just extant, as they always are, they are openly challenging for equal or superior status with their opposites, if not superceding them in many parts of the culture.

Show me one society, especially a democracy, that has survived in such a state for very long.
They are either weakened to the point of succumbing to ascendant outside forces (Islam)or they implode and internal authoritarianism takes over.

[Florence Schmieg]

Marriage as an institution exists for children. All the arguments I hear here on either side do not mention that. Decades of early childhood research has documented the importance of a father and a mother in the home when raising children. Big Brother and Big Sister organizations were begun to replace that absence in children whose homes could not provide it. So, the gay marriage issue truly confuses me. Do we discard all of the academic studies as irrelevant now? Do we say the needs of children are less than the needs of gays? The biological realities are FACTS, not prejudices. How do we deal with them?

[Kashford]

B.C.:

"Do interracial marriages constitute deviant sexual relationships? Do marriages between octogenarians? Do marriages between an elderly man and a young woman, assuming that all concerned have consented?"

Well, if you want a clearer example, what about married (heterosexual) couples who engage in, say, S&M? Only S&M?

Certainly, that is a "non-normative" (aka "deviant") sexual relationship. Certainly, that practice "bears no resemblance to traditional family units". Yet the state of NJ sanctions those relationships.

You say that "happy to tolerate individuals' private sexual procilivities" (how big of you) -- but why do you think the state should draw the line at homosexuality... while allowing other "deviant" sexual relationships in marriage to receive the benefits and protections of law?

[P.S. I am Kman. For some reason -- distraction, I guess -- I've been commenting here under two names].