A Stitch in Haste

"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 same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."
--Lewis v. Harris, No. A-68-05 (S. Ct. N.J., October 25, 2006) (PDF - 90 pages)

So the next question is whether the legislature (which has six months to act) will call it "marriage," "civil union," "domestic partnership," "zoop" or something else.

The questions after that will be whether out-of-state couples can, um, "whatever" in New Jersey and whether and to what extent, New Jersey same-sex "whatevers" will be recognized in other states.

And it will of course be fascinating to see the impact on the November elections.

Bravo, yet again, to the heroes of Lambda Legal.

POST SCRIPT: The vote was not "4-3" — it was 7-0 in favor of full equality of rights and privileges — The split was over whether a "marriage in everything but name only" solution comparable to Vermont's would be acceptable. The three dissenters said no and wanted an unambiguous right to same-sex marriage.