TRENTON, N.J. — Kristen sees the news from New Jersey as a rare victory for people like her.

Kristen, who asked that her real name not be used, is homosexual. A New Jersey Appellate Court in Lewis v. Harris June 14 said that people of the same sex cannot marry.

The New Jersey court also criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision that made the Bay State the first in the nation to allow homosexuals to “marry” each other.

Kristen said society should treat people like her with respect and always keep in mind that “We can judge a person's actions, but we don'd always know what's in a person's heart.”

But she said creating an imitation “marriage” will do more harm than good.

“Sometimes it's difficult for those of us with same-sex attractions who are striving to live chastely, to see so much widespread promotion of homosexual relationships, including the legislative push for same-sex ‘marriage,’” she said. “It can play on our weaknesses and tempt us to follow the way of the world.”

Reserving marriage for members of the opposite sex does not violate New Jersey's State Constitution, a judge ruled.

The New Jersey case involved seven same-sex couples who based their argument for their right to “marry” on the right to privacy and equal protection.

Presiding Judge Stephen Skillman wrote in his opinion that Massachusetts’ 2003 Goodridge decision conflicted with “the traditional and still prevailing religious and societal view of marriage as a union between one man and one woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species and provides the ideal setting for raising children.”

Skillman added, “A Constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores. To yield to the impulse to invalidate legislation merely because members of the court disapprove of public policy is to subvert the sensitive interrelationship between the three branches of government, which is at the heart of democracy.”

In a concurring opinion, Judge Anthony Parillo wrote that to distill marriage to “a close personal relationship” would strip the institution “of any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological or sexual satisfaction that the relationship brings to the individuals involved.”

Skillman concluded that these same arguments could be made to legalize polygamy.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Donald Collester wrote, “By prohibiting them from a real right to marry, plaintiffs as well as their children suffer the real consequences of being ‘different.’”

But Kristen said that in her experience, society's acceptance of homosexuality is no help to children.

“We also have to consider the welfare of children who may be raised in such a household,” she said. “Even if such children receive lots of affection and have all their physical and material needs provided for,” she said, it's “not in the best interest of the psychological and spiritual development of those children.”

Melissa, the grown daughter of a homosexual man, agreed. She also asked that her real name not be used. She said she loves and cares for her father, but wouldn'd wish her fate on anyone else.

“Selfishness and immaturity is often a trait of people with same- sex attraction, and with not being an emotionally mature person, how can you commit sincerely to another?” she said. “I believe that the statistics show that most same-sex attraction people do not have lifelong relationships with another, but a series of partnerships.”

Appeal Likely

Groups that defend marriage applauded this decision — with caution. Though marriage is safe in New Jersey today, it could quickly change, they said.

“The New Jersey judges were an example of judicial restraint,” said Matthew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, which litigates around the nation defending marriage. “They did what judges are supposed to do — judge, rather than legislate.”

“The lower courts typically uphold marriage laws,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage — a group which has drafted an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. “Judges here are not trying to be heroes, and generally agree not to overturn state marriage laws. But at the State Supreme Court level, it may be another story. Here, judges are more likely to feel anointed to engage in social revolution.”

In New Jersey's case, the plaintiffs will appeal the decision to the state's Supreme Court. Lambda Legal's media spokesperson, Lisa Hardaway, said it would take place as soon as possible.

“It will most likely follow the way of the Massachusetts Supreme Court,” said Daniels. “The only reason it wouldn'd would be fear of a public backlash.”

“This underscores an important issue,” said Staver. “We shouldn'd have to hold our breath worrying what the New Jersey Supreme Court will do. This issue is not for a few judges to decide. It's for the people to decide. We must move forward with state constitutional amendments, and we must move forward with a constitutional amendment at the federal level.”

The effort to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguarding marriage is taking place against the backdrop of legal battles in the state's courts. Proponents of marriage would like to see such an amendment passed before a federal court decides in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

“The problem is that if we see a decision by a federal court creating a ‘constitutional’ right to gay ‘marriage’ — our ability to respond will decrease over time,” said Daniels. “This is because we will supposedly be taking away a ‘right’.”

Such has been the problem with a comparable issue: abortion.

As for now, there are no set dates as to when Congress will vote on this issue again. Both sides are watching state courts closely.

If another case is decided the way Massachusetts did — at the State Supreme Court level — public outcry could heat up significantly. Congressional supporters of marriage would be looking for that kind of moment, when public outrage is at its highest, to push for a vote.

World Implications

The driving force behind some proponents of marriage is often a sense of responsibility.

Daniels recalled a recent conversation with Cardinal Alfonso Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

“His perspective was that we are fighting not just for the U.S., but for the West as a whole. He said ‘America is the empire now.’ Our influence is so great. We know that God's plan was to use the Roman Empire to spread Christianity to the known world,” said Daniels. “I believe that the Lord has a special role for the U.S. to play. We can be the causal agent that the Lord will use to break this notion of invincibility that the other side has. We can impact the trajectory of this issue in the West.”

Sabrina Arena Ferrisi is based in Jersey City, New Jersey.