When the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that gay couples had to be offered the legal equivalent of marriage, the majority decided that the Legislature could call it whatever it wished; out of timidity (or, perhaps, bias), lawmakers coined the court-mandated arrangements "civil unions," a distinctly clinical and inherently degrading appellation. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court presented its Legislature a choice as well: they could call state-sanctioned gay unions whatever they wished, as long as the designation applied to all couples, gay or straight. In short they recognized that before the law, separate is never equal. In New Jersey, there is pending legislation, "The Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act" (Senate bill S-112/Assembly bill A-818), that would rectify our shameful situation by recognizing that marriage is not only a religious and cultural institution, but a legal one as well, conferring certain rights, privileges, and obligations. While the state should not foist its interpretations onto religion, denying same-sex couples access to the legal institution of marriage is officially discriminatory and demeaning; S-112/A-818 neatly splits the difference by rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and rendering unto God what is God's. Now where have I heard that before?
