SAN FRANCISCO — New Jersey's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions is likely to make California's top court less receptive to authorizing gay marriage, legal experts said Thursday.
On a 4-3 vote, the New Jersey high court refused Wednesday to declare that same-sex couples should be permitted to wed. The jurists instead said the Legislature must provide same-sex couples with the same rights as spouses, possibly under a civil union law.
Santa Clara University professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on California's Supreme Court, said New Jersey's ruling would incline the California court to be more "restrained" on same-sex marriage.
"I don't think this will push them in the direction" of approving same-sex marriage, Uelmen said.
New Jersey's Supreme Court is one of the most liberal in the country, while California's top court is considered cautious and moderately conservative. Although a split ruling like New Jersey's has less weight than a unanimous decision, "the impact it has seems more likely to be negative than favorable toward a right of gay marriage," said Stephen Barnett, professor emeritus of law at UC Berkeley.
Unlike New Jersey's, California's top court will not be able to issue a compromise ruling, law professors said.
In New Jersey, the jurists ruled that same-sex couples must be given the rights and privileges of marriage, but left it to the Legislature to say whether the resulting unions should be labeled "marriages." Same-sex couples in California already have most of those rights under a strong domestic-partners law.
"New Jersey was able to split the baby in half," Barnett said. "In California, that has already been done."
UCLA law professor Brad Sears agreed.
"Unlike in New Jersey, the California Supreme Court is not going to be able to avoid the marriage question," Sears said.
The California Legislature passed a bill in favor of same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. A state appeals court earlier this month rejected same-sex marriage, and the California Supreme Court will decide whether to review the ruling by the end of the year.
"The hot potato is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, and they don't have anywhere to toss it, " Sears said.
The New Jersey decision is not binding on California, but it could be cited in arguments to the court and thus sway deliberations by indicating a legal trend.
