IS THERE A POINT TO NEW JERSEY MARRIAGE?

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling may be more suggestive of an argument to eliminate civil marriage rather than to extend it to same-sex couples, because of the question that was NOT addressed: "What legitimate governmental purpose might there be to confer financial and social benefits and privileges to couples in the first place?" The court has been disingenuous in its order to the state legislature insofar as it forces it to effectively extend what is essentially marriage to same-sex couples. I imagine with difficulty that the state legislature will go through the trouble of creating an entirely new institution with the exact, same, identical provisions as the current civil marriage statutes just to be able to avoid the use of the word marriage.

Since the state's argument had neglected to raise this point, the ruling thus, ignores the fact that the sexual activity of heterosexual couples generally produces offspring, and it is this significant effect to society that constitutes the legitimate interest the government would have for these couples, while no similar interest would exist for same-sex couples. The court, also, applied the odd logic that since no legitimate governmental objective would be advanced by NOT giving homosexual couples the benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts, then the government must do it... a sort of "why not, what's the harm" type of reasoning. One wonders what other types of human relationships might be entitled also, to these benefits for want of a good reason to deny them this.

The NJSC has evidently accepted the premise that the personal and private "love" relationships of couples in domestic living situations is a valid basis for drawing comparisons for purposes of the law. The conclusion of the court, not having to address the above question as to what the state's interest might be in this, thus contented itself with only a formulaic, legalistic interpretation of that state's constitution. But divorcing the entitlement to state benefits from procreation vacates any substantial reason to have these entitlements at all. Without the reason of children, there is no reason for marriage.

While the NJSC did deny the "fundamental right" argument, it nonetheless, seems to have given evidence of having misunderstood the pertinent classifications in its analysis of the question concerning equal treatment. Implicitly accepting relationships based on the two sexual practices that are heterosexuality and homosexuality while not acknowledging others reveals a judicial arbitrariness that may not long withstand.