NJ Court Decision Upholds Traditional Marriage -- But Appeal On the Way
by Jody Brown
June 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - An appellate court in New Jersey has upheld the traditional definition of marriage in a lawsuit filed against the state by seven homosexual "couples." While traditionalists are cheering the ruling as an affirmation of the proper role of the judiciary, an attorney for the plaintiffs sees it as just another step toward their ultimate venue: the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The 14 plaintiffs had claimed the state of New Jersey had violated their fundamental right to marry when they were refused marriage licenses, and had denied them equal protection under the law. But in a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday (June 14), Appellate Judges Stephen Skillman and Anthony Parrillo rejected those arguments. In that ruling, the majority wrote that the right to marry "has always been understood in law and tradition to apply only to couples of different genders."
To make a change to that basic understanding, the judges wrote, would not lift a restriction on the right to marry but, instead, would "work a fundamental transformation of marriage into an arrangement that could never have been within the intent of the Framers of the 1947 [New Jersey] Constitution." In addition, they said, such a change would "contradict the established and universally accepted legal precept that marriage is the union of people of different genders."
As to the argument regarding equal protection, Skillman and Parrillo pointed out the homosexual couples are in the same position as all other New Jersey residents; that is, they may receive a marriage license -- provided they meet the statutory criteria for marriage: the intended spouse is of the opposite gender.
"Whether or not plaintiffs wish to enter into a mixed-gender marriage is not determinative of the statute's validity," the ruling continued. "It is the availability of the right on equal terms, not the equal use of the right that is central to the constitutional analysis. Plaintiffs seek not to lift a barrier to marriage, but to change its very essence."
Concluding, the majority concluded that "absent legislative action, there is no basis for construing the New Jersey Constitution to compel the State to authorize marriages between members of the same sex."
Mat Staver | |
Proper Role of Judiciary
A spokesman for Florida-based Liberty Counsel says he is "thrilled" by the decision of the New Jersey court, saying it is firmly grounded in the concept that the American government consists of three co-equal branches, with the judiciary required to give appropriate deference to legislative decisions. Echoing that opinion is an official with Focus on the Family Action, who notes the court has "affirmed the role of the legislative branch in making social policy and the role of courts in interpreting existing law."But both Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family Action agree on another point as well: the ruling underscores the need for a federal marriage amendment.
"While this decision is a good step toward protecting marriage, each day presents another opportunity for a court to pull same-sex marriage out of a hat," says Staver. "The only way to truly protect marriage is through adoption of state and federal marriage amendments that protect the name and rights of marriage."
Minnery adds: "This ruling is yet another reminder that marriage is only safe until an activist court redefines it. Congress must act to take the institution of marriage out of the courts by sending the Marriage Protection Amendment to the states for ratification."
As Minnery points out, voters in 18 states have already approved measure protecting marriage in their states. "Without question," he says, "the American people ... believe that marriage is between one man and one woman."
It's Not Over Yet
But despite passage of those state measures and Tuesday's ruling against his clients, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs -- David Buckel of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project -- remains optimistic.
"We are disappointed but not discouraged. We've always known that this case is headed for the New Jersey Supreme Court -- and now we're that much closer to the final word," Buckel says. The attorney recalls a case handled by the nation's highest court that was in a similar situation but ultimately resulted in a pro-homosexual decision almost two years ago.
"In cases of this magnitude, much like our landmark victory in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws nationwide, losses at the lower court levels are typical," he says, "and we have seen that the opinion of the dissenting judge often later becomes the law of the land."
The dissenting judge in the New Jersey ruling was Donald Collester, who wrote that the right to marry is "effectively meaningless unless it includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice." Continuing, Collester said he sees "no basis in the history of marriage to justify a definition which denies plaintiffs the right to enter into lawful marriage in this state with the person of their choice."
Buckel says Lambda Legal plans to file an appeal in the case as quickly as possible.
