I'm sure there are a number of positions amongst GWH bloggers and readers about the events this week in New Jersey. I'd like to outline my position.

To begin, what the courts did was relatively minor. New Jersey already had legislation in place to recognize same-sex unions. The trick was that this recognition was somewhat different from the recognition of marriage, and it accorded fewer rights and privileges to the unions as compared to marriage. The court's actions didn't create civil unions or gay marriage, they just said that the two existing forms of state-recognized partnership need to be equal.

The court left it to the legislative branch to determine whether the equal partnerships would have the same name--whether they might both be called marriage. The New York Times took the position that the court acted reasonably and appropriately in leaving this issue to the elected representatives, so that whatever decision is made would seem to be the will of the people who elected the decision makers (although the NYT did also encourage those legislators to go with marriage as the uniform category).

I'm not sure I agree with the Times on this. I think this is really a judicial issue. If the lawmakers decide to have two separate but equal forms of intimate partnership, the issue will land back in the courts pretty quickly, forcing them to determine whether separate but equal is possible or defensible. In other words, the court has essentially suggested that separate but equal might be possible, and I'm convinced they were wrong to suggest that.

That aside, for a moment, I think their ruling was important, appropriate, and overdue, and I hope that either legislators or the courts eventually determine that same sex partnerships should be recognized as marriage.

I also think this is good for Christians. Here's a list of reasons why.

1. Many Christians are involved in same-sex relationships and would like to receive the benefits and the recognition that is accorded to marriage.

2. The ruling is an affirmation that marriage is important, that it matters. As a single man, I'm not convinced this is true, but I think the church has generally taken this position and needs to be consistent by recognizing that this is a step towards encouraging marriage in our society.

3. The ruling is also good for families. A lot of families have had a hard time holding together under the current laws. We have large numbers of families in this country that are not recognized legally because of the lack of protections and recognition accorded to same-sex couples.

4. It is a move towards kind-heartedness. All families should have full hospital visitation rights. All couples should be able to plan for their own futures, and the futures of their spouses and children, without fear that their benefits or insurance will be unavailable to those they love because they were in a same-sex relationship.

There's probably many more reasons why this is good for Christians, but I'll stop there. New Jersey is demonstrating that the states are doing a better job of handling the tough issues than the federal government. What state is next?