Skip to comments.New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed to Marry
Posted on 09/27/2013 11:58:26 AM PDT by Olog-hai
A state court judge said in a ruling Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in New Jersey, and that the rights given to them under the states civil unions law are not equal to federal benefits now granted to married gay couples.
Judge Mary Jacobson granted a summary judgment requested by Garden State Equality, which had claimed that the U.S. Supreme Courts rejection of the federal Defense of Marriage Act meant that same-sex couples in civil unions in New Jersey were being denied equal protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnewyork.com ...
When will she marry her partner?
Am I the last remaining hetero female on Earth? I sure feel that way. So SICK AND TIRED Of gay, gay, gay 24/7. *SPIT*
Had lunch at the Botanical Gardens (DC) today. 2 old homos were married by a priest. ‘Twas very sweet, with the ring exchange and the bouquet. I almost cried, but I puked instead.
RE: New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed to Marry
Next question — Should those who object to their “marriage’ be forced to patronize, endorse or pay for it?
Not by a Catholic priest, I trust.
I’m still confused by this “equal protection” argument. A Gay man where I live can’t marry another man, and neither can I. That sure seems like the law treats us equally.
> Next question Should those who object to their marriage
> be forced to patronize, endorse or pay for it?
You know the answer.
Of course you will be compelled by threat of force and financial ruin to patronize, endorse, and pay for it.
Full Faith and Credit coming to a State near you.
Gov. Christie will appeal the ruling.
However, he will instruct the state’s attorneys to take a dive and lose the case.
By that there will be Gay Marriage in NJ and Christie while running in the 2016 GOP Primary can say he fought against gay marriage, but the activist judges forced gay marriage on his state.
Should have started a food fight.
This ignorant twat has no idea what she is even talking about. These Marxists act as if DOMA were abolished entirely, which is flatly false.
To where shall we escape to for republican liberty?
RE: Of course you will be compelled by threat of force and financial ruin to patronize, endorse, and pay for it.
ONE MAN HAS SO MUCH POWER TO DO THIS?
Did anybody ask the residents of NJ whether they want this or not?
The pendulum will swing.
And swing hard.
I’ll enjoy watching.
We were it, there is no other refuge.
That's what proves that we are in the last days - worldwide depravity.
Sadly, they do. Look at the vile excrement that they vote for.
And swing hard.
There is ratchet action on this pendulum. It leaves residual footholds that will never be abolished. I'm afraid the forces of darkness have attained critical mass until the Final Judgement.
RE: Sadly, they do.
Well, let’s have a referendum then and formalize it.
I’m sick of it, too.
Judge Jacobson was appointed to the bench in 2001 by then-Gov. Christine Todd Whitman,AND is a graduate of Smith College in Northampton, Mass.
Shockingly enough,she’s married to a man!
Before an unconstitutional court declares such a vote "unconstitutional."
The judge’s decision is constitutional, imo, the individual states having the 10th Amendment-protected power to allow ungodly gay marriage.
Tho only way that I see to constitutonally protect traditional, one man, one woman marriage is for the states to amend the Constitution to outlaw all other forms of marriage.
“Tho only way that I see to constitutonally protect traditional, one man, one woman marriage is for the states to amend the Constitution to outlaw all other forms of marriage.”
I fear that you are correct. This is troubling, because we don’t have the states to pass such an Amendment now.
Fifteen years ago, a slam dunk. Even ten. But now? I just don’t see how the math could possibly work in our favor. We seem to have lost our opportunity.
RE: The judges decision is constitutional
No it isn’t. A judge cannot create a law that does not exist.
The people of NJ must vote and have it passed into law. That is the proper, constitutional way to do it.
Judge mary... you will be residing in the cubical next to ted kenndy. Wear sunscreen 5000 biotch!
The libertarians kept telling us that we could always amend if and when absolutely necessary. Utter stupidity and blindness.
New Jersey has allowed domestic partnerships for almost ten years, civil unions for about seven years. In Feb 2012 the legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill, but Chris Christie vetoed it. In the 2012 Presidential election, they voted 58% for Obama, 41% for Romney. Just an FYI.
While I admit that I don't know the details of this issue, I think that the judge is just interpreting state law. Corrections welcome.
NJ does NOT have a marriage law for gays.
Their legislature DID pass it into law but it was VETOED by Gov. Chris Christie who insisted that the people of NJ should decide.
Fortunately, Indiana does not recognize “same sex marriage,” but if it did, as a part time judge, I would probably be required by law to perform the ceremony.
I think I’d come up a special dialog for the ceremony. I don’t think the moderators would allow me to post all of it here. But it would start with “OK, which one of you is the pitcher and which one is the catcher?”
These Judges need to go.
Anyone that helps perversion destroy our society is evil...
OP: ...and that the rights given to them under the states civil unions law...
Thanks for reply SeekAndFind. But I'm getting mixed messages about NJ so I don't know what to think.
Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday.
The veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate had passed it on Monday. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed very swift action once the bill reached his desk.
In returning the bill to the Legislature, Christie reaffirmed his view that voters should decide whether to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. His veto also proposed creating an ombudsman to oversee compliance with the states civil union law, which same-sex couples have said is flawed.
I am adhering to what Ive said since this bill was first introduced an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide, Christie said in a statement. I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.
Last I checked, we weren’t a rule by referendum mobocracy, where the Sheeple decided our right by majority.
RE: Last I checked, we werent a rule by referendum mobocracy, where the Sheeple decided our right by majority.
Then we’re screwed because I can’t see a better alternative. What are we to depend on, the decisions of a few elite? One judge?
Yes, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Better alternative? Are you under the mistaken impression that New Jersey voters would actually vote against gay marriage?
RE: Better alternative? Are you under the mistaken impression that New Jersey voters would actually vote against gay marriage?
Let’s say (God forbid) that NJ chooses to vote for gay marriage... It is still better than the other two alternatives:
1) ONE JUDGE sitting on the bench imposing this on the people.
2) A few legislators imposing this on the people.
If the people of NJ want it, then they’ve in effect chosen spiritual damnation on their state, but at least we know the people have chosen and NOT just a few sitting elites.
Sometimes we are not given palatable choices (e.g. Romney vs Obama) , but the least worst choice is better than the worse alternative.
I must respectfully disagree.
We are not a democracy. We do not have mob rule. Enacting gay marriage is not good, but the least-worst way is via a legislature. That’s the way laws are made in a republic.
Ballot measures might be tempting, since they seem to be the only way we can advance our agenda, but they’re anathema to a republic. Our Founders feared and hated mob rule, rightly so.
RE: I must respectfully disagree.
So be it. We disagree. But let me tell you my reasons why...
RE: We are not a democracy. We do not have mob rule. Enacting gay marriage is not good, but the least-worst way is via a legislature. Thats the way laws are made in a republic.
I’ll give you the legislature PROVIDED they openly say in their campaign what their stance on this issue is before the elections and during the campaign. Unfortunately, such was not the case in the state where I live in.
In NY State, many democratic legislators PRETEND to be pro-traditional marriage during the campaign and then turned around and voted to legalize gay marriage.
Gay marriage passed by a slight margin in the NY legislature mostly on PARTY LINE vote.
So, that doesn’t solve the problem either.
So, let’s respectfully agree to disagree here. I DISAGREE that allowing the people of a STATE ( not a national referendum on gay marriage) is mob rule.
States are laboratories of Democracy and the powers given to the states (as James Madison stated) are MANY.
A state referendum is taking the issue DIRECTLY to the people and letting them decide whether something as profoundly society changing as the redefinition of marriage should be accepted or not.
We will have to agree to disagree, then. I prefer that these issues be settled in the legislature.
Not that it matters much - we’ve lost the country on this. If we could have a nationwide referendum they’d vote for it. Popular votes used to be the way we could stop it, but those days are long gone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.