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.
"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
So what was that everyone was saying about a Federal constitutional marriage amendment not being necessary?
Are you going to vote for Kean?
I am, though I'll have to pinch my nose harder that I've ever had to pinch it. Kean's idiotic press release slamming Rush Limbaugh was ALMOST the last straw.
What political difference is there, after all, between Menendez and Kean --except that a Kean victory will help keep the odious Joe Biden from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the even more odious Ted Kennedy from being able to control whether the president's future SCOTUS nominees even make it to a floor vote.
So what happens if the legislature doesn't act?
How difficult is it to get rid of NJ Justices, are they elected or appointed by the gov and confirmed by the legislature like in Mass?
The people of NJ better get off their butts and ammend their constitution or they will join MA in being forced to accept judicial fiat followed by executive and legislative compliance (The judges told us we have too.......)
"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
"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
No, the court instructed the legislature what laws it must pass.
That is how it appears to me too. It annoys me greatly that the court would tell the people's representatives that they must pass this or that law. And it annoys me even more that the legislature is likely to acquiesce.
Naaaaaaaaaahhhhh!
I am DEFINITELY going to vote for Kean.
The thought of Leahy, Reid, and assorted other dem senators being in charge of any committee is sickening.
Since when was taking a ride down Cadbury Alley a constitutionally protected activity?
For full faith and credit purposes outside of New Jersey, it very well might matter if they called it marriage.
Since judges are not (normally) elected, and not subject to being defeated (never in partisan elections, if any), they should NOT make policy judgments like this.
Courts have no power to force a legislature to pass a particular text of a law. Unfortunately, some courts have taken upon themselves the "power" to "instruct" a legislature that it has a "duty to act" in a certain area. The legislature then acts, and the court then weighs the resulting law in another case.
Notice that the Supreme Court, also by a one-judge margin, "instructed" Congress that it had to act in the area of military tribunals for illegal combatants. In that case, Congress did act, and its resulting law will survive any subsequent challenge -- which is sure to come from the ACLU.
I don't agree with this latter point, but unfortunately there are ample prior cases in which both state and federal courts have done exactly this.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Recess at Salisbury State"
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
>>How about "Perversion." We get to pick the name; I nominate that one.<<
You have my vote as well.
"Marriage" is hardly just a word. Take away all the government-granted benefits, and married people will still be married. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can't distinguish between marriage and government benefits must have a pretty crappy marriage.
Alternatively, they can begin the process of amending the state constitution to correct the ruling.
"Gay 'Unions' Required".....don't they already do this????
Actually, it's Aged Chump. Will be out of NJ within the year, and frankly, that's not soon enough.
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.