Connect with us

Politics

New Jersey court rules in favor of marriage equality

Garden State ordered to issue licenses to gay couples starting Oct. 21

Published

on

National LGBT Bar Association, Gay News, Washington Blade

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry (image via wikimedia).

A New Jersey court ruled on Friday in favor of marriage equality on the basis that the state’s current system of civil unions precludes gay couples from receiving the federal benefits of marriage.

In the 53-page decision, Judge Mary Jacobson of the New Jersey Superior Court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, saying same-sex couples must be able to marry under the equal protection guarantee provided under the state constitution. The ruling cites Lewis v. Harris, an earlier decision that led to the creation of civil unions in New Jersey to bring equality to gay couples.

“The equality demanded by Lewis v. Harris now requires that same-sex couples in New Jersey be allowed to marry,” the decision states. “As a result, this court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and will order the state to permit any and all same-sex couples, who otherwise satisfy the requirements for civil marriage, to marry in New Jersey.”

If the state doesn’t appeal the ruling, the decision states New Jersey has until Oct. 21 to start distributing marriage licenses to gay couples. The office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who opposes same-sex marriage. didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether an appeal would happen.

But according to the Associated Press, Michael Drewniak, a Christie spokesperson, suggested on Friday the governor intends to appeal the ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

“Gov. Christie has always maintained that he would abide by the will of the voters on the issue of marriage equality and called for it to be on the ballot this Election Day,” Drewniak was quoted as saying. “Since the legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination.”

The court makes heavy use of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the federal benefits marriage are beginning to flow to married gay couples as the result of that decision, the New Jersey court reasons that civil unions are insufficient because the DOMA decision doesn’t apply to them.

“The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts: civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for martial rights with regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy,” the decision states.

The decision reached in the case, known as Garden State Equality et al. v. Dow et al, means New Jersey is set to become the 14th state in the country to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The court reaches the decision as a result of a lawsuit filed in 2011 by Lambda Legal on behalf of Garden State Equality and six plaintiffs couples following a veto of marriage bill by Christie. The lawsuit alleged that civil unions — established in 2007 as a result of the decision in Lewis v. Harris — provided inadequate protections to gay couples.

Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda Legal’s deputy legal director, said the court decision is “thrilling” because it enables gay couples to receive the federal benefits of marriage following the Supreme Court decision against DOMA.

“The end of DOMA made the freedom to marry even more urgent than before because the state stood between these families and a host of federal protections, benefits, rights and responsibilities,” Gorenberg said. “With this ruling, our clients and all of New Jersey’s same-sex couples are at the threshold of the freedom to marry.”

LGBT advocates had been moving forward with plans to override Christie’s veto of same-sex marriage legislation as litigation was proceeding in state court.

Earlier this month, according to the group New Jersey United for Marriage, supporters of same-sex marriage picked up three new votes in favor of same-sex marriage: Assembly members Wayne DeAngelo, Gabriela Mosquera and Holly Schepesi, a Republican, bringing them closer to the two-thirds vote needed in both chambers of the legislature to override Christie’s veto.

Troy Stevenson, executive director for Garden State Equality, said the court decision represents an incredible victory and marriage equality will come to New Jersey one way or the other.

“We have been saying it for months and it stands true today: through litigation or legislation, we will win the dignity of marriage this year,” Stevenson said. “We just won the first round through litigation and we will continue to fight until we guarantee marriage for all New Jersey couples.”

The decision from the New Jersey court wasn’t the only victory on Friday for supporters of same-sex marriage. On the same day in Illinois, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, allowed another consolidated lawsuit known as Darby v. Orr to proceed in state court. That litigation was filed by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union in May 2012.

Assembly member Reed Gusciora, a Democrat and gay lawmaker, commended the court for its decision and said it affirms civil unions are inadequate for same-sex couples.

“The federal government has recognized this,” Gusciora said. “The New Jersey Legislature recognized this. The courts now recognize this. It’s time for the Governor to stop standing in the way of justice and allow this order to be upheld.”

Judge Sophia Hall allowed the case to proceed on the basis of claims that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Illinois denies gay couples equal protection and due process under the state constitution. However, she dismissed claims the same-sex marriage ban violates the state’s constitution’s equal protection on account of sex, the right to privacy and special legislation clause.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said her organization is “pleased” the couples represented in the case will have their day in court.

“Illinois’ marriage ban not only brands these couples and their children as inferior under state law, but now that the federal law known as DOMA has been struck down by the Supreme Court, Illinois is the only thing standing between these families and full federal respect for their relationships,” Taylor said. “Loving same-sex couples in Illinois can’t wait any longer for the freedom to marry. We’re excited to get to the next step and make the case for equality.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”

Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.

Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.

To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.

A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Popular