Separate But Unequal

On October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court (Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al. (A-68-05)) ruled that "every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples."

The Court held:

"Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes.

A victory for justice, right?! Well ...

The Court dropped the ball on the issue of whether gays or lesbians should be allowed to be "married". Instead the Court deferred the issue to the state legislature.

"The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

So, equal rights, but not necessarily the same rights. Protection, but not Equal Protection. Hmmm... equal but separate, separate but equal. Where have I heard that before ...

You'll pardon me if this victory feels a little hollow.