Congratulations to all the gay couples in New Jersey who are finally able to get married today!

(And wow – my family’s rabbi helped officiate the first ceremony just after midnight.)

What’s that, you say? It’s not actually marriage, but just a civil union, grumble grumble spineless New Jersey legislators grumble grumble?

Well actually, it is marriage – state marriage, not federal marriage, but marriage nonetheless – no matter what the statutes and the licenses say. Gay couples in New Jersey, as of today, are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that straight couples can have. All the exact same ones. You can take your spouse’s name, you can adopt your spouse’s biological children, your children are “legitimate,” you can’t be forced to testify against your spouse in court, you can leave your property to your spouse, you have automatic hospital visitation rights, and so on. It’s marriage.

While the technical term is “civil union,” gay couples who are civil-unioned need to begin referring to themselves as married – which they are legally allowed to do. (The New Jersey Supreme Court stated in its opinion last fall that after the new law goes into effect, “same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose” no matter what name the legislators give to the unions.) Only by referring to themselves as married – only by referring to their relationships as marriages – will gay couples help their fellow New Jerseyans realize that civil unions and marriages must be treated the same way legally. And it will help those relationships become more accepted socially as well.

I’m tired of hearing people complain that all they can get is this civil union thing and it’s not really marriage. If you keep up that attitude, other people are going to start believing it. So stop it.

Yes, the legislature stopped short of using the word marriage. So what? You’re married. Make sure everyone knows what that means.

Congratulations!

Great post on the New Jersey case:

Either the New Jersey State Constitution — as defined by the governing precedents applying it — compels the legal conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court or it does not. That is the only relevant issue. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing which issues we think it would be nice for a court to resolve and which ones we’d sort of prefer — given our subjective druthers — the court leave to the will of the majority.

…

Courts have no right to “stay out of” debates over laws if those laws violate constitutional guarantees.

…

It is impossible — at least without falling into total recklessness — to simply look at the result of a court case, decide whether or not you like it, and then pronounce it as either judicially sound or judicially irresponsible. Yet that is what virtually all of these commenters are doing who are condemning the New Jersey Supreme Court for “judicial activism.”

Read the whole thing – it’s really good.