MAPLEWOOD/SOUTH ORANGE/WEST ORANGE, NJ — Brown v. Board of Education. Loving v. Virginia. Roe v. Wade. And now Obergefell v. Hodges.
Joining those other landmark Supreme Court decisions, which drastically changed how the laws of this country were administered, is Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide. The Supreme Court ruled Friday, June 26, that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to any people in this country who are two consenting adults. Additionally, all U.S. states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The decision came in 5-4, with justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan voting in favor of marriage equality, and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who serves as chief justice, dissenting.
The majority ruled that the right to marry is secured for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which assures due process and equal protection to all citizens.
In the case, 16 couples, as well as two men whose partners had died, who lived in four different states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — argued that the states had no right to impinge on their freedom to enjoy the cultural, legal and financial benefits of marriage and that their rights should be recognized nationally, as they are for heterosexual couples.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that, by not having their marriages recognized, gay and lesbian couples lost their rights every time they crossed a state border, causing harm; for example, in the event of a sudden hospitalization in a state that does not recognize a marriage performed elsewhere, spouses lose certain rights. They argued that this causes harm to the couples and their children.
Lawyers for the four states argued that the decision should not be decided by the Supreme Court at all, but should remain with the states to be resolved democratically through public referenda and in state legislatures.
Prior to this decision, 37 states and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriage. The states that did not allow or recognize same-sex marriage, but now must, are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.
Same-sex marriage became legal in New Jersey in 2013 after Gov. Chris Christie dropped an appeal of a court ruling allowing gay marriage. Nevertheless, this ruling impacts New Jersey residents because same-sex marriage marriages performed within the state will now be recognized as legal in all other U.S. states.
To celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, Garden State Equality, a nonprofit organization that supports the LGBT community in New Jersey, held a celebratory rally, with citizens from throughout Essex County and beyond arriving in Maplewood on the evening of June 26 to express their pleasure at the court’s ruling on the steps of Maplewood Town Hall.
“There are hardly words to describe how excited we are,” Garden State Equality Executive Director Andrea Bowen said in a statement. “Marriage equality is a Constitutional right. We’re honored that New Jersey was a leader in the marriage-equality movement, and we’re simply elated to see the rest of the country join us in celebrating love and justice.”
North Jersey Pride, a Maplewood-based nonprofit group that promotes human rights for the LGBT community and works closely with Garden State Equality, was also pleased with the court’s decision.
“Friday’s Supreme Court ruling was a huge win for LGBT families and an extremely gratifying affirmation of all the work we and other organizations have done to advocate for full marriage equality for all loving couples,” North Jersey Pride Executive Director C.J. Prince told the News-Record in an email earlier this week. “It was a day many of us, who came out decades ago, frankly never expected to see in our lifetimes, so we are thrilled. Those of us who married in New Jersey no longer need to fear our marriages will not be recognized when we cross state lines.
“Today, there is no ‘gay marriage,’ there is no ‘straight marriage.’ There is only ‘marriage’ and its definition is the same in all 50 states,” Prince continued.
Maplewood Mayor Vic DeLuca, who spoke at the rally in Maplewood, told the News-Record that he sees this as a “great ruling for civil and human rights.”
“Now same-sex couples will be treated equally across America and their right to legally marry will not matter based on the zip code in which they live,” DeLuca said in an email earlier this week. “What does matter is who you love and who you want to spend the rest of your life with. We now can truly say we live in the land of the free, the land of the freedom to marry from coast to coast.”
South Orange Village President Sheena Collum felt the same way.
“The fight for marriage equality was a long one and Friday’s Supreme Court ruling was a big step in the right direction,” Collum said in an email interview earlier this week. “Both South Orange and Maplewood have a long history of fighting for equal rights for all our residents and it was nothing short of amazing to stand together at a rally and be a part of history together.”
West Orange officials also saw the court’s ruling as a positive step in the right direction.
“I have always been a supporter of same-sex marriage; though I am a big believer in states’ rights, I am glad the Court finally addressed this once and for all,” West Orange Mayor Robert Parisi told the News-Record last week via email. “Though there will always be debate, this ruling allows many people to formalize their lives’ personal relationships. We only get one go-around in life, and people should have the right to spend that time with whomever it is they want in the pursuit of their happiness.”
West Orange Township Council President Jerry Guarino sees the decision as a way of bringing the community closer, in mutual love and respect.
“It’s about time, because everyone is entitled to equal justice under the law. It’s a long time coming,” Guarino told the News-Record in a phone interview earlier this week, adding that this will help the community grow. “We are all one community, all one family.”
“I am thrilled that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry,” U.S. Rep. Donald Payne Jr., who represents the New Jersey’s 10th Legislative District, said in a statement. “Every person should receive equal treatment and protection no matter whom they love, and the Court’s decision is a critical step toward fulfilling our promise of fairness and equality.”
While many people are celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision, not everyone in New Jersey is happy. The New Jersey Family Policy Council has lamented the decision, arguing that it strips U.S. citizens of their right to choose.
“The majority opinion of five justices is a blow to federalism and a usurpation of power not afforded to them in the U.S. Constitution,” NJFPC President Len Deo said in a statement. “The Court has added to its past bad decisions, such as Dred Scott, which deemed slaves as 3/5 human, which denied those human beings who were made in God’s image the same rights as other citizens. This is the Roe v. Wade of marriage, which will have consequences beyond this decision today.
“No one can argue about the natural complementarity of male and female in what has been known for millennia as marriage. It won’t be long before polygamists and polyamorists demand their day in court and to further distort the definition of marriage to have full recognition afforded to them as well,” Deo continued. “Throughout human history, it has always been understood that children are created by, and do best when raised by, a mother and a father. No Supreme Court ruling can alter this truth.”
The majority voters on the Supreme Court disagree.
In the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court holds that just because marriage has historically been between a man and a woman does not mean it must always remain so.
“That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world,” Kennedy wrote, arguing that it is the “tradition” of marriage in which all citizens wish to be able to partake.
“Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect — and need — for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”
Kennedy argues that, as with many other laws, this must be reinterpreted as time passes and as society changes.
“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” Kennedy wrote. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”
Kennedy called on the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia as a prime example of the court ruling to allow citizens their right to marry. The 1967 case struck down a Virginia ban on interracial marriage and made it illegal in the United States to deny marriage licenses to couples due to a difference in race.
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,” Kennedy wrote. “This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”
Kennedy also attacked the notion that gay and lesbian couples make sub-par parents. He argued that there is no proof to support the claim that being raised by gay or lesbian parents damages children — quite the contrary.
“Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” Kennedy argues.
While Kennedy supports debate and urges opponents of same-sex marriage to continue the debate, he attempted to strike down some of their top arguments, such as the claim that allowing same-sex marriage will damage marriage between heterosexual couples.
“The respondents also argue allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution by leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages,” Kennedy wrote. “This may occur, the respondents contend, because licensing same-sex marriage severs the connection between natural procreation and marriage. That argument, however, rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decision making processes regarding marriage and parenthood. Decisions about whether to marry and raise children are based on many personal, romantic, and practical considerations; and it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.”
Kennedy ends his dissertation by emphasizing the high regard in which same-sex couples hold marriage.
“Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Kennedy wrote. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
In a dissent penned by Chief Justice Roberts, it is argued that it is not the Supreme Court’s place to make this decision and that the definition of marriage should be left to the states and their residents. Roberts lambastes the majority for acting as legislators rather than judges.
“But this court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us,” Roberts wrote. “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
Roberts argued that marriage belongs between a man and a woman as the main purpose of marriage is to produce children.
“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence,” he wrote. “Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history — and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”
According to Roberts, Loving v. Virginia has no bearing on Obergefell v. Hodges, as the former dictated who could enter a marriage while the latter dictates what marriage is. He questions whether this decision will pave the way for plural marriage in the future.
Roberts states that the majority’s ruling is based on their own whims and moral opinions rather than the law, and impinges on people’s right to practice their religion.
Despite Roberts’ opinion, he is in the minority and the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision has granted marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Even with this recent and monumental step, community members still caution that there is more work to do, as some members of the LGBT community still do not have equal rights in all matters.
“As a member of Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, who signed on to a supportive legal brief in this case, I am very pleased about the Supreme Court’s ruling,” DeLuca said. “I also know the struggle for full equality is not yet over. There are already more than 100 proposed laws in statehouses across America that will erode the rights of same-sex couples. It is time to celebrate and recommit ourselves to continue the fight for full LGBT rights.”
Prince of North Jersey Pride agreed that, while proponents should certainly celebrate now, the work is far from over.
“The work is not done,” Prince said. “Most states also lack critical protections for transgender people. Most states do not prohibit workplace and housing discrimination against LGBT people, which means you can get married, but still be fired from your job or denied housing on the basis of your sexual orientation or gender identity. Gay and transgender youth are still bullied at exponentially higher numbers than their straight peers. So while, of course, we celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, there is much work left to do and we plan to keep at it until we truly have full equality for all.”