In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the NJ legislature must give same-sex couples all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples, but did not demand that the state amend its marriage laws. The legislature responded by creating civil unions that had identical benefits to marriage.
Fast forward seven years, and Judge Mary C. Jacobson of the State Superior Court ruled on September 27, 2013 that this is not enough – the state must call same-sex unions marriage as well starting Monday, October 21, 2013. Governor Christie vowed to appeal the decision to the NJ Supreme Court, but when that court refused to block the law while Christie challenged it, and made it clear that they would not rule in his favor, he decided to withdraw his appeal, meaning NJ is now the 14th state to offer same-sex marriage.
Thinking to Believe 
October 25, 2013 at 10:12 am
Love that word, “foisted”. It means imposing an unwelcome, unnecessary thing. People fail to understand that imposing necessary changes is part of the job of any Supreme Court. It’s supposed to be irrelevant to a judge if a necessary change is “welcome” or not.
LikeLike
October 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm
And the civilizing of the human race continues exponentially, as it must, when it reaches critical mass because LIFE FORCES!
LikeLike
October 28, 2013 at 6:33 am
It does seem odd that this ruling occurs. I mean, there was no discrimination under law and they had the same rights so to legislate that the word “marriage” must be used seems heavy-handed.
This kind of behaviour does little favour for both sides: The anti-SSM group doesn’t like it for obvious reasons, and I do not think the SSM group (those wishing to use it) welcomes this as all it does is harden the anti-SSM group and can turn those neutral into disapproving.
LikeLike
October 29, 2013 at 8:10 am
The term “marriage” does give benefits that couples cannot have, especially Federal benefits. Do the research why the term “Marriage” is necessary for Federal benefits.
LikeLike
November 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Invisible Mikey,
The job of any court is to interpret their state’s constitution, not to make new policies.
Jason
LikeLike
November 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm
SonofMan,
Yes, that’s true, but ignores the larger question of whether same-sex couples should be entitled to such benefits in the first place. The reason married couples receive certain benefits from the government is because the government is interested in helping families (including children) form and continue intact. Given the fact that same-sex couples cannot have children, there is no more reason for them to receive government benefits than friends.
Jason
LikeLike
November 4, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Jason:
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Only a small percentage of those benefits involve children…
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
LikeLike
November 4, 2013 at 1:52 pm
The issue is not how many benefits are directly related to children, but why the government privileges the marital relationship in the first place. Apart from their concern for children, there would be no need to regulate or privilege marriage.
Jason
LikeLike