"NewsWrap" for the week ending October 28, 2006 (As broadcast on "This Way Out" program #970, distributed 10-30-06) [Written by Greg Gordon, with thanks to Graham Underhill, and Rex Wockner with Bill Kelley] Reported this week by Rick Watts and Kareem Ferguson Lesbian and gay couples in the U.S. state of New Jersey celebrated a legal victory of sorts this week -- close, but no "marriage" cigars, at least not yet. By a 4-to-3 vote, the state Supreme Court ruled on October 25th that same gender couples are entitled to the same marriage rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. But the majority ruling left it to the New Jersey legislature to decide what to call those unions. "Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose," the majority opinion said. Citing the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution, the decision concluded that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes." But, it continued, "The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process." The court ordered the legislature to "either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision." The three dissenting justices said they did so because the ruling didn't go far enough, and should have specified marriage as the legal remedy to discrimination against lesbigay couples. The New Jersey ruling parallels a 1999 high court verdict in Vermont that led that state legislature to create civil unions -- which all but in name provide same gender couples with equal legal marriage rights in the state. "On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection," Steven Goldstein of New Jersey's Garden State Equality wrote in an email to supporters. "On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality." "Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts," he continued. "Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide [the same] protection[s]…TThus we do not have a win yet." And, he wrote, "it's now up to us to make it happen." He later told a post-ruling rally that he would fight for full marriage equality until there is "blood on these knuckles." On the campaign trail for his embattled Republican Party, U.S. President George W. Bush predictably condemned the New Jersey justices. "We had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage," he said. Echoing previous comments, he called marriage "a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the wellbeing of families, and it must be defended." Both conservative anti-queer religious groups and many in the Republican Party are privately celebrating the New Jersey high court ruling. They're hoping it will mobilize the same voter base in the upcoming mid-term elections that swarmed voting booths in 2004 to pass several state constitutional amendments outlawing legal recognition of same-gender couples -- and re-elect George W. Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress. New Jersey Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora is one of several lawmakers who've promised to sponsor a bill giving same-gender couples the right to marry, with no separate name or lessened privileges. Full marriage equality "merely answers the call of the Supreme Court," he said. But many Republican legislators denounced the ruling, and one vowed to try to impeach the justices -- an unlikely event. Republican Assemblyman Guy Gregg promised to introduce a bill to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. He admitted it had little chance of passage, but claimed the public, which must vote on proposed constitutional amendments approved by the legislature, would support it. Democratic State Senator Ray Lesniak told reporters that lawmakers will support the equal rights of same-gender couples ordered by the Court. But he predicted the Democratic-controlled legislature would stop short of applying the term "marriage" to lesbian and gay unions. More than 40 U.S. states have laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nearly 20 have written the definition into their constitutions, and voters in 8 more states have same-gender marriage ban amendments on their November 7th ballots. Meanwhile, The Washington state Supreme Court is standing by its ruling denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Same-gender couples had asked the justices to reconsider their July 5-to-4 decision upholding Washington's Defense of Marriage Act. The majority ruling validated that 1998 state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples in order to "promote and encourage stable families." The court's refusal to review that ruling, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander this week, is the final word in the case. Equality activists can't "make a federal case out of it" because no federal legal issues were involved. The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings, and few observers expected it to revisit a decision that took nearly 18 months to announce. Washington marriage equality supporters said the denial was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled. As Lisa Stone, director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which represented plaintiffs in the case, told reporters, "Just as the New Jersey court recognized the discrimination that gays and lesbians face and said they're entitled to be treated the same, our court essentially declined to do that." Massachusetts is, of course, the only U.S. state where full legal marriage is open to gay and lesbian couples. The U.S. federal government refuses to recognize legal same-gender marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions anywhere in the country. South Africa's Human Rights Commission has criticized the Mbeki government's Civil Union Bill, which would create a separate institution essentially identical to marriage for same-gender couples. The bill was introduced in response to a 2005 Constitutional Court ruling that gave legislators until December 1st of this year to end the Marriage Act's discrimination against lesbigay couples. The Commission called the Civil Union Bill unconstitutional, discriminatory and stigmatizing. It said the government should instead amend the Marriage Act to allow same-gender marriage. If lawmakers don't take action by December 1st, the nation's high court said the Marriage Act will automatically be interpreted to include same-gender couples. But the Court has remained silent about whether or not civil unions will satisfy its ruling. Queer activists staged a march and picket against the Civil Union Bill in Pretoria in mid-October. "Civil partnerships are not equivalent to marriage," Alex Ringelman, one of the organizers, told the "Independent" newspaper. "They entrench institutional segregation in our law and a separate, inferior status for gay relationships." Canada's "Globe and Mail" newspaper reports that groups still fighting marriage equality in the country now say they're no longer pushing for an immediate return to the traditional definition of one man and one woman. Facing almost certain defeat in a coming parliamentary vote to reopen the contentious issue, spokespeople from primarily conservative Christian groups said at a press conference this week that they'd be happy if politicians would simply study the impact of marriage by gay and lesbian couples on Canadian society. But officials representing 4 different religious denominations said at a separate news conference that repealing the law would restrict their freedom to perform same-gender ceremonies. The 2005 law creating marriage equality in Canada both opens legal marriage to same-gender couples and protects "the rights of religious communities to live their faith in the ways they see appropriate vis-Ã -vis equal marriage." It would take a major shift to convince MPs that prolonging the marriage discussion with further "study" is a good idea. Most analysts say that lawmakers want to finally end the divisive debate and move on. And some Canadian postal workers are wondering how much hate qualifies as "hate mail." Several Vancouver, British Columbia mail carriers refused this week to deliver a pamphlet described by Canadian Union of Postal Workers spokesperson Ken Mooney as "really offensive" and "hate mail." Some postal workers refused to even touch them. Produced by the Fundamentalist Baptist Mission of Waterford, Ontario, the tract rails against "The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the sin of Homosexuality (AIDS)." But Canada Post spokesperson Colleen Frick told the "Toronto Star" that "The posties don't have the right to refuse to deliver the mail. The contract between the corporation and the union requires them to deliver mail the corporation deems acceptable. And this item was deemed such." But finally, Rechtskomitee LAMBDA, or RKL, Austria's major LGBT civil rights organization, has celebrated its 15th anniversary in style. Over 500 people packed the chambers of the lower house of Parliament in early October to honor the group, in what the European branch of ILGA -- the International Lesbian and Gay Association -- called a first-ever global event. The President of Austria sent video greetings, as did the head of Austria's police forces. The Minister of Justice and the president of Austria's Judges Association were among the in-person speakers, moderated by Constitutional Court Justice Lilian Hofmeister. Openly-gay Justice Edwin Cameron of South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeals delivered the keynote speech, while "out" Australia High Court Justice Michael Kirby said in a congratulatory video that he regretted not being able to attend in person. A festive reception followed, held in the stunning Parthenon-like main hall of the Parliament building. Can any other queer advocacy group in the world top that?