The New York Times has an article today on the financial impact of the New Jersey same-sex union/marriage ruling to couples in the state. (Registration required.) Featured in the article are partners Cynthia and Lucy Vandenberg, who ennumerate the thousands they have spent to secure rights and benefits that married couples rarely have to pay to receive. Although in my opinion, the New Jersey ruling stops short of full equality, it will ease financial burdens on same-sex couples—and their children—and should be praised as far as that goes. The article is a good one to share with acquaintances who may not have thought through the financial issues surrounding same-sex unions.
The Vandenbergs’ story is also interesting because they are raising their son in conjunction with a gay male couple. One of the men is the boy’s biological father, and the other will father a second child for the Vandenbergs. Yet another example to show how ridiculous it is to rule (as New York did) that children should be raised by a mother and a father. I’m sure this isn’t what the justices had in mind. Point is, children thrive in many different types of families, and to legislate that one is best flies in the face of current examples, history, and cultural variation.