UPDATE TO: Another one of those things I just don't get ...

posted by The Vidiot @ 6:55 PM Permalink

UPDATE: The article also said:the court, in its 4-3 ruling
That isn't true. The court was unanimous in saying (warning link to PDF): "denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. "

ORIGINAL POST:

New Jersey Court Backs Rights for Same-Sex Unions

In this case the NJ Supremes got it close to right:

"At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples," the court wrote.

"Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."

Good decision, but it doesn't go far enough.

Why doesn't the state (every State) get out of the marriage business? They can stay in the contract business, and issue contracts that meet their laws to any parties that ask, but just like any other contract, they don't get to decide who enters into the contract, just whether it is legal.

Churches can then decide to marry anyone they feel is fit under their religious guidelines.

That's a true separation of church and state.