Late last week, a New Jersey judge ruled in favor of marriage equality, arguing that civil unions are insufficient. Mark Joseph Stern reacts:
The New Jersey ruling is one of several to cite the Supreme Court’s momentous DOMA decision in questioning or overturning gay marriage bans. But this case is unique: Judge Jacobson relies exclusively on the state’s constitution, allowing the issue to avoid federal courts and, more importantly, the Supreme Court. At most, the case will rise to the state’s own Supreme Court. And, given that institution’s liberal bent, it’s quite likely that this new chapter of gay rights in New Jersey will also be the last.
In response to the ruling, Nathaniel Frank spells out why the word “marriage” is so important:
Being married is not just a contractual status among two people but a collective identity. Its power lies in its symbolic authority to reinforce individuals’ commitments because the wider community around them knows what you should and shouldn’t be doing. Marriage functions in this regard as a collective superego by establishing widely shared norms and expectations that strengthen obligations to spouses and children.
But none of this works if you’re just “civil-unioned.” Indeed, marriage is such contested terrain precisely because opponents of gay marriage know the word matters—notwithstanding New Jersey’s incoherent effort to argue that gays should just calm down since labels don’t make a whit of difference.
The Dish 