Local couples see ruling as an incomplete victory Area legislators say they'll consult public on what to do next BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer FILE PHOTO Karen (l) and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden sit with their children, Maya and Kasey, at their family table in Aberdeen. The couple is one of seven in New Jersey who have been fighting to have same-sex marriages legalized. NEWARK - In a historic decision, plaintiffs from Aberdeen and South Brunswick were among seven same-sex couples who won the same legal rights and responsibilities that any heterosexual married couple in the state has. On Oct. 25, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the rights of seven same-sex couples were violated when they each asked their respective communities to grant them a marriage license and were subsequently denied. The court ordered the Legislature to give the same-sex couples all the rights that heterosexual couples have within six months, either through opening the option of marriage to them, or by creating a parallel legal structure that would be pragmatically identical to marriage, just called something different. The plaintiffs gathered in Newark on Oct. 25 for a press conference held by Lambda Legal, the attorneys who handled their case. While all were overjoyed at the greatly expanded number of rights that they would be entitled to, it was said that, ideally, they would like to see the Legislature take the full plunge and simply declare same-sex marriage legal. "Anything less than marriage isn't marriage. ... I know we deserve full equality," said Suyin Lael, who lives in the Dayton section of South Brunswick with her partner, Sarah Lael, and their children Zenzali, Tanaj and Danica. People discussing the difference between same-sex marriage and some other mechanism, such as civil unions, said that the very fact that society would not call their relationship "marriage" implies a lack of full acceptance of who they are. Those speaking on why a civil union would not be enough said that they just want to be like everyone else, and relegating them to a parallel legal entity stands in the way of that. "My daughter did not ask us if you're getting civil-unioned. She asked us if we're getting married! ... Marriage means something," said Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, who lives in Aberdeen with her partner, Karen Nicholson-McFadden, and their children Kasey and Maya. With the question of whether to allow marriages or civil unions turned over to the Legislature, some local lawmakers feel they need to use the six months to speak to people and get a feel for what the community thinks. "We have to ask, Would society want this to be called marriage? Does society want to reserve that for a man and a woman? Are they willing to go further? And exactly what do we want to call it and where do we want to put it? And I think that, in a way, is a community decision and we in the Legislature are the voice in the community, so I think I need to talk to as many people as possible," said Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex/Mercer), who said she is currently undecided whether she would support same-sex marriage. Assemblywoman Amy Handlin (R-Monmouth/Middlesex) said she plans to throw her support behind civil unions. "I come down on the side of preserving the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman," said Handlin. Some legislators have decided to support opening up marriage to same-sex couples. Assemblymen Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex/Union), Brian Stack (D-Hudson) and Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) plan to introduce a bill that will enable same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, others in the Legislature strongly oppose such a concept. "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Assemblyman Sam Thompson (R-Monmouth/ Middlesex). "I definitely disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. ... I don't know why these people don't resign and just run for the Legislature. They like to create the laws rather than interpret them."