I think he is absolutely right. The AG made a huge blunder in not defending those "rights" given to heterosexual marriage as being based especially for the benefit of children raised in a natural and normal relationship.
That left the court with only the argument they used...that the state had no reason to prohibit same sex couples from those benefits.
Because the state of NJ has stupidly promoted homosexuals the court was left with little choice.
You cannot really disagree that the state has no onterest in marriage: the tax deducts, the right of inheritance and the rest all develope stability.
An attorney general can't possibly stand up and make that case and keep a straight face these days, seeing how a marriage is a state-sanctioned contract that is violated and broken with such boring regularity that it is basically meaningless. Heck -- there is even an entire branch of the legal profession (divorce law) that was created specifically to deal with all of the cases in which these contracts must be "undone."
You cannot really disagree that the state has no onterest in marriage: the tax deducts, the right of inheritance and the rest all develope stability.
Yes, I can. If you need any proof of this, just realize that families were far more stable -- and homosexual marriage such a bizarre notion that nobody even thought about it -- when people got married without any formal government recognition at all.
The state really has no BUSINESS in marriage. Tax deductions are related to a state function (taxation of income) that is barely even legitimate in my eyes. Rights of inheritance can be given to anyone with the proper documentation (regardless of family relations). And as I pointed out previously, the notion that there is anything resembling "stability" in heterosexual marriage in New Jersey state law anymore is a joke.