アメリカのニュージャージー州最高裁は２５日、同性カップルが同性婚を認めるよう求めた訴訟で、同性のカップルに対する不平等な取り扱いは「州憲法の下で認められない」と指摘、異性愛のカップルと同等の権利を持つとの判断を示した。
ただしゲイ・カップルの法的権利を、現憲法上、そのまま「結婚」（marriage）とは言えないとの判断を示したことから、同性婚賛成派・反対派双方で議論が巻き起こっている。
米ニュージャージー州に住む同性カップル７組が、異性間と同様に結婚する権利の確認を求めて起こした訴訟で、州最高裁は２５日、法の下の平等を定めた州憲法により、同性同士も異性間の結婚と同等の権利を保障されるとの判決を出した。
裁判所は判決に基づき、州議会に対し１８０日以内に法改正をして同性にも結婚を認めるか、「シビル・ユニオン」（市民契約）のような、結婚と同等の制度を設ける法整備をするよう指示した。「結婚」と呼ぶかどうかは憲法上の問題とまでは言えないとした。
７人の判事が４対３と割れた。最高裁は、同性同士の結婚について、州憲法で保障された基本的な権利とまでは言えないとした。しかし、たとえば遺言がない場合の相続権など、異性間の結婚と同等の権利が同性間にも認められるべきだと判断した。
米ニュージャージー州地裁、同性婚カップルの権利認める [CNN]
判事の投票結果は賛成４、反対３だったが、反対票を投じた判事３人は問題を同州議会に差し戻さず、同性婚カップルに全面的な権利を認めるべきだと主張していた。
米国各地の裁判所では今年、同性婚に不利な判決が相次いだため、原告を含む同性婚賛成派は今回の判決を歓迎。また、同性愛者団体の関係者は、州議会議員３人が同性婚合法化に向けた法案提出を検討していることを明らかにした。
一方、同性婚反対派は判決に反発し、同性婚禁止に向けて米連邦議会に憲法修正をはたらきかける運動を再び活発化させる意向を表明した。
New Jersey court backs gay rights [BBC NEWS]
The US state of New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.
But the court says it is for the legislature to decide whether the state will honour gay marriage or some other form of civil union.
Lawmakers have been given six months to decide whether to change marriage laws.
It follows a case brought by seven gay couples, who claimed that the state's constitution entitled them to marry.
"Times and attitudes have changed," the New Jersey State Supreme Court said in its 90-page ruling.
But it concluded that it "cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution".
New Jersey's opportunity [Boston Globe]
AS NEW JERSEY legislators take up the task handed to them by their state's highest court of legalizing civil unions or marriages for gay couples, they might look at the experience of this state, so far the only one to approve gay marriage. A barometer of how little effect 29 months of gay marriage here have had on straight marriages, religion, and society in general is that the issue has played virtually no role in this year's gubernatorial campaign.
This is the case even though there may be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the 2008 ballot, and even though the main candidates disagree on the issue: Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey favors civil unions and Democrat Deval Patrick supports gay marriage.
This is not to say that the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples has been without controversy. The campaign to ban it is evidence of how deeply felt much opposition to the ruling has been. On Nov. 9, the Legislature is scheduled to meet in constitutional convention. If the proposed amendment receives at least 25 percent approval from this constitutional convention and the next, the ban will be on the 2008 ballot.
THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Mixed decision for gay couples in New Jersey State's top court says they deserve same rights as heterosexuals -- but splits on including marriage [SF gate]
Gay rights activists at national organizations and in California characterized the New Jersey decision as a success for their movement.
It was an "important victory" that the full court said committed same-sex couples deserve the same rights as married couples, said Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal organization that argued the case.
"We now turn to the Legislature to say there's really no reason to try to set up some other scheme to exclude same-sex couples from marriage," Davidson said of New Jersey.
"In a climate where courts are very concerned about legitimacy, the New Jersey Supreme Court said, 'We stand for full equality, but we want you, Legislature, to stand with us,' " said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a legal organization based in San Francisco that is arguing the marriage case in California.
New Jersey Supreme Court Says No Fundamental Right to Same-Sex Marriage [Townhall DC]
In a decision that came dangerously close to authorizing same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded in the case of Lewis v. Harris that there was, in fact, no constitutional right under the New Jersey Constitution for same-sex marriage. This aspect of the opinion is very important. If advocates for same-sex marriage were successful in obtaining a decision mandating a marriage designation, they could have then challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act and brought future challenges mandating that other states authorize same-sex marriages as well. In light of the court’s decision, that avenue is foreclosed.
The court noted that both the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions in New Jersey “fall far short of establishing” that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right. Advocates for same-sex marriage often rely on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, where a prohibition on interracial marriage was deemed to be unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage advocates have utilized the Loving case to draw an analogy to their ongoing fight for marriage recognition.
No Dissent on Equal Rights [Washington Post]
I'm sure that most people, when they saw that the case came down to a 4-3 vote, figured that the four-Justice majority represented the Court's more liberal or progressive wing. I also suspect that most folks figured that the three dissenting justices were against the idea of same-sex marriage in general and against the idea of equal rights for same-sex couples in particular. Wrong. Those three dissenters weren't the Scalia, the Thomas and the Alito of this story. Turns out they were the ones who would have immediately conferred upon same-sex couples in New Jersey the right to be married.
This means that the majority ruling in Lewis and Winslow et al v. Harris represents the Court's most conservative voice -- and it also means that every single one of the seven justices believes today that New Jersey may not discriminate against same-sex couples when they decide to commit their lives to one another. For same-sex advocates, that is progress by any measure, especially when compared with the way similar arguments have been received by high court justices in other states. Wednesday's ruling isn't perfect. But it could have been a whole lot worse.
Part of the reason for the result here was the difference in tone of the legal debate. New Jersey's long and distinguished record of recognizing civil rights seeped into the arguments offered by the Attorney General's office. For example, tucked away on Page 48 of the 90-page ruling, the Court's majority noted that the "State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children." New Jersey's decision not to make these arguments made seem like common sense to you. But it is an astonishingly different argument from the one made, say, by New York state attorneys when they fought their battle over this soil earlier this year.
”ゲイのアメリカ人”前ニュージャージー州知事ジェイムズ・マクリーヴィ氏も「結婚」を待望。お相手はオーストラリアのビジネスマン、マーク・オドネル氏。
NJ's gay ex-governor says he would marry [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
TRENTON, N.J. -- Former Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after acknowledging a gay affair, said he would tie the knot with his partner if state lawmakers decide to allow gay marriage.
"Marriage would offer the ability to bless our relationship in a committed way," McGreevey, 49, told The New York Times.
McGreevey's comments followed a state Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that same-sex couples must be given the same rights as married people. The court left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to extend those rights under the structure of marriage or something else.
＊snip＊
The former governor stepped down in 2004 after announcing he was gay.
McGreevey now lives with Mark O'Donnell, a 43-year-old Australian businessman. Before they could marry, the former governor would have to finalize his divorce from his second wife.
- 作者: James E. McGreevey
- 出版社/メーカー: William Morrow
- 発売日: 2006/09/19
- メディア: ハードカバー
- クリック: 2回
- この商品を含むブログ (1件) を見る
Sounding off on New Jersey's same-sex marriage ruling [Advocate]
“So help us God, New Jersey’s LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100% marriage equality.” —Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair
BREAKING: New Jersey Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Same-Sex Unions [Think Progress]
PERFECT TIMING! This puts the gay marriage agenda front and center again….
Iraq will fade, gay marriage moves forward, and Ohio will fall back in line.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 25, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
