c. 2006 Religion News Service

TRENTON, N.J. _ Half of New Jersey’s 40 state senators say they would not support a bill legalizing gay marriage, dimming chances for the state to become the second to recognize homosexual partners the same way it views husbands and wives.

After the New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday (Oct. 25) directed legislators to adopt marriage or civil unions for same-sex partners, 20 of 26 state senators reached by The Star-Ledger said they would oppose a gay marriage bill; just three said they would support it.

If none change their minds, the 20 “no” votes in the Senate would be enough to prevent a bill from passing the legislature.

“They are entitled to rights,” said state Sen. Paul Sarlo, one of four Democrats who said they would not approve gay marriage. But, he added, “I don’t think this vote has a chance.”

The survey found more support for civil unions, the other option outlined by the Supreme Court in its historic decision. Of 65 senators and Assembly members contacted, 19 said they would support civil unions, and nine others said they would give it consideration. A dozen rejected either option. The rest declined to comment or were undecided. Only nine lawmakers said they favored the legalization of gay marriage.

Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized same-sex marriage.

Ruling on a case brought four years ago, New Jersey’s highest court plunged the state into the national spotlight with an opinion expanding the rights of same-sex couples but stopping short of legalizing gay marriage. In their 4-3 decision, the justices declared same-sex couples were entitled to the same benefits as married couples under the New Jersey Constitution.

Beyond the social implications, the opinion carries enormous financial impact, giving gay and lesbian partners hundreds of new rights, such as tax, insurance and survivor benefits, previously reserved for married heterosexual couples. The three dissenting justices went further, saying they would have recognized gay marriages.

But the majority instead kicked the issue back to the legislature, directing lawmakers to decide within six months whether such partnerships should be called “marriages,” civil unions or something else.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle vowed to introduce bills to legalize or ban gay marriage, guaranteeing the issue will dominate Trenton for months to come.

“These people, many of them have lived together for 20 years or more,” said one supporter of the concept, Senate Majority Leader Bernard Kenny, a Democrat. “They live very productive lives and are good citizens. The courts have now recognized their rights as couples. I think it’s time we give them full status. And I think words do matter.”

Some opponents vowed to seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Others aimed their ire at the Supreme Court.

“I’m looking at the court and telling it to go pound salt,” said Assemblyman Michael P. Carroll, a Republican who said he would support a move to impeach the court’s members. “The justices have no right to set policy. They can’t read, they can’t add, and they have no clue as to the proper role of a judge.”

Lawrence Lustberg, a Newark attorney who helped bring the landmark lawsuit, said he and his clients would consider returning to court if lawmakers failed to act within the 180-day deadline.

“Obviously they’d be in violation” of the ruling, he said.

(John P. Martin writes for The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J. Staff writers Jeff Whelan, Josh Margolin, Rick Hepp, Tom Hester, Susan K. Livio, Dunstan McNichol, Deborah Howlett, Robert Schwaneberg and Joe Donohue contributed to this report.)

KRE END MARTIN