New Jersey Decision on Same Sex Marriage ... And Hillary's Evolution

By Christine Cupaiuolo — October 26, 2006

Following up on the New Jersey state Supreme Court decision that calls for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples but left the matter of marriage up to the Legislature, The New York Times has great coverage, assembled together here: News Analysis | Court Outlines Rights | A Fresh Fight | The Plaintiffs | The Justices | McGreevey’s Reaction | AUDIO: Back Story (mp3) | The Decision (pdf) | Empire Zone Blog

If you’re pressed for time, jump right to the AP’s simple Q&A about the state Supreme Court decision (via the Boston Globe). Reuters published a round-up of reactions from same-sex marriage activists, opponents and public officials.

And did you hear about Hillary Clinton? Via The Empire Zone:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of gay elected officials last night that she would support a gay marriage law in New York if a future governor and legislature chose to enact one, according to three participants at the meeting.

Mrs. Clinton listened and spoke for more than an hour with the three-dozen officials from New York, as they sat down — by coincidence — a couple of hours after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay couples were entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples.

Continue reading Patrick Healy’s post here.

Healy also points to Paul Schindler’s story at Gay City News, which offers more details about Clinton’s exchange with participants. As for Clinton’s previous stand on gay marriage and how she got to this point:

She also suggested that language she used when she first ran for the Senate in 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the institution’s moral, religious, and traditional foundations had not reflected the “many long conversations” she’s had since with “friends” and others, and that her advocacy on LGBT issues “has certainly evolved.”

On Wednesday, Clinton presented her position on marriage equality as more one of pragmatism.

“I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out,” she said. “From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment.”

Comments are closed.