Color me pleased by New Jersey's ruling on gay marriage, which elegantly recenters the debate away from the semantic wars that have come to define it and back on fairness and equality. Indeed, more so than San Francisco and Massachusetts, I think this ruling could be pivotal for the gay rights movement:
The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships.
It's a helpful ruling, too, because it clarifies the battle lines. Those who believe in equality but, for whatever reason, think there should be a specific label for unions including both types of genitals, can be comforted by the Court's unwillingness to demand that "marriage" is the terminology. Then there are those who insist on discrimination, on inequality, on legislated bigotry. Let them stand up in the light, and expose their prejudice for what it is. For now, they may be a majority, but it'll be a damn hard one to keep.
Update: According to the polls, majorities of Americans support "allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples." They oppose gay "marriage," but not equality. There's a danger in assuming Americans will hew to closely to their reported preferences, but it's an encouraging sign.
