Necessary Roughness

I’m looking over the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court to grant same-sex couples the benefits of marriage but letting the legislature determine whether to actually call it marriage.

Thus far I am not able to determine what prevents people in other nonstandard “committed relationships,” such as polygamy, from claiming benefits.

Here is an interesting section:

New Jersey’s courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “affectional or sexual orientation.” In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2004, the Legislature added “domestic partnership status” to the categories protected by the LAD. (pp. 37-40)

If the New Jersey legislature was progressive enough to establish a “domestic partnership” status, why did they hold back from declaring civil unions?

The legislature didn’t outright allow civil unions because they are still accountable to the wishes of the people. Apparently they had decided their voters would kick them out if they had implemented civil unions. The practically unaccountable Supreme Court has given the legislators political cover. The Democrat-controlled legislature isn’t going to impeach all seven justices.