new news

Homemade salad dressings in a minit.

The New Jersey Supreme Court authorized Vermont-style same-sex unions, but didn't insist that they be called "marriages." Judging from the article's quotations of the court's opinion and the gay rights advocates, the distinction is not that they don't have the financial and social privileges of marriage, but that they don't have a right to a state-sanctioned civil marriage. New Jersey has had domestic partnership laws that do not require partners to be straight, but the laws seem not to have encompassed the full rights of the married, seeing as the Court ordered the legislature to come up with legislation that provided gay couples the same rights as married straight couples. Gay rights advocates weren't thrilled with this opinion. One, the chairman of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, was quoted in the article, saying, “Those who would view today’s ruling as a victory for same sex couples are dead wrong,” he said. “Half-steps short of marriage — like New Jersey’s domestic-partnership law and also civil union laws — don’t work in the real world.” Still, I'm happy about it. Perhaps "victory" is too strong, but "step in the right direction" seems about right.
. . .