The New Jersey Supreme Court:
Posted on 10/25/2006 12:10:14 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
Edited on 10/25/2006 12:51:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme, it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships.
The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the cooperation of the Legislature. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision.
For the reasons explained, we affirm in part and modify in part the judgment of the Appellate Division.
JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.
bttt
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
No surprise there. We'll see what the good citizens of NJ have to say about this.
that'll help galvanize the conservative voters
its a real " statutory scheme " alright
Welcome to Bendover Acres.
All we need now is Rita Cosby to translate the opinion - any number of ways. ;-)
Massachusetts has become the number one state to which gay foreignors travel on tourist visas. I've heard they meet an American gay, marry him or her and become a legal permanent resident of the state
Interesting.
Any idea how much this will affect the Kean/Menendez race?
Let's just say I think Foley won't be on the news tonight ...
There's a shock. The same leftist court that said Democrats could disregard New Jersey election law and replace the damaged Bob Torrecelli on the ballot in 2002.
This one is fortunate enough to be moving to the mountains of PA in a few months. I've lived in NJ for only 3 years, but I can't for the life of me figure out the politics in this state.
This is good news for Kean Jr. I see a backlash against the Dummies as a result of this being forced on NJ by the courts.
What say you FF?
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.
My reaction to these BS decisions is: How is it we didn't know our Constitution was intended to require gay marriage all these years? Obviously, it wasn't.
How generous of them to allow the legislature to call it what they want. I'm sick of living under a judicial oligarchy. And last I checked, I didn't get to vote for any of these bozos in black!
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.