The state's former Fudgepacker-In-Chief raises a s&*t-eating grin in agreement.
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.
This ought to help Kean and maybe a few other Republican Senate candidates. Points out the need for conservative judges.
The state's former Fudgepacker-In-Chief raises a s&*t-eating grin in agreement.
Actually several organization tried to take that very case to the USSC and they refused to hear it.
That was before Roberts and Alito. I hope they try again.
NOT what happened in Mass.
"Nov. 18, 2003 - The SJC rules it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, and gives the Legislature 180 days to come up with a solution to allow gays to wed. President Bush, in a visit to London, criticizes the decision and vows to work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
Note Mass SC "gives legislature 180 days to come up with solution to allow gays to wed".
Denying ANYONE the financial and social benefits and privileges given to couples of any sort bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Government has no business recognizing any sort of couple-hood, much less any business meting out different privileges and burdens based on couple-hood status or lack thereof.
what is Kean Jr.s position on gay marriage? this only helps him if he can disagree with the decision.
Sounds to me as if this isn't going to help the Dems going into the election.
I was hoping for another NY-like decision, but this is sort of what I expected from an apos-state like this.
But, with 8 states deciding bans on gay marriage, this certainly gives ammunition to our conservative brethren.
You ever notice there's never any mention of responsibilities and obligations in these statements?
it sounds like NJ will just pass civil unions then.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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."
AWESOME!!! SIMPLY AWESOME!!! This is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the D's!!!
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The court CANNOT make laws. They can only bring forth an opinion. Separation of powers is very clear in the US as well as every state constitution! Allowing them to is just as wrong.
The most certainly did not lose.
The NJ Supreme Court has discovered a constitutional right to gay civil unions, which the Legislature must pass, which must be the equivalent of the marriage statute in all but name. They won everything except the name, which is 99%.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
It is a leftist state.
Yep, if hasn't already cut the press release!
On what basis can a court order a legislature to pass a law? The judiciary is not vested with legislative powers, so they order the legislature to do their bidding? Is that the way it works?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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.