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]
And what happens if the legislature refuses?
marbury vs madison isn't going to be revoked anytime soon.
What is the process to amend the state constitution in New Jersey?
This exercise of judicial arrogance and usurpation is breathtaking. A court directs that the legislature pass a law that specifically provides what the court wants it to do?
We are losing our country, folks!
that would only be needed if the federal DOMA fell in the SCOTUS.
Federal law will never ban gay marriage in the states - it will ban the inter-state recognition of it, but that's all. the states that want gay marriage, or that have a political system that denies the people the right to decide it, will have gay marriage.
like NJ does now.
Drudge's headline should have read "Jersey Court Opens Back Door to Gay Marriage."
This could be a very good thing for tom kean.
A few obvious questions:
Does the New Jersey Constitution define "Heterosexual" or "Heterosexual Married Couple" anywhere? Is a homosexual man married to a heterosexual woman considered a heterosexual married couple?
Are heterosexual married couples assumed to be "committed" by the NJ Constitution or any NJ Law? If not, then why are same-sex couples required to be committed?
On what basis would a same-sex couple that is not committed be denied equal protection under Article I, Paragraph I of the NJ Constitution?
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.
Wait a minute! What happened to the requirement that the same-sex couple be committed? If the statute is amended, will a new requirement that opposite-sex couples be committed be introduced? Or is there to be no requirement that the same-sex couple be committed, after all?
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.
Well, if the State is not permitted to make entry into same-sex civil union any more difficult, then there can be no "committed" test. So I guess that puts that one to rest. All that is to be required is that they not be polygamous or directly related.
By the way, what would be the reason to deny a consanguinous same-sex couple equal protection under Article I Section I of the NJ Constitution? Heck, I'll even allow as to how that couple might be "committed". It certainly is not in order to prevent genetic disease, is it? Why are the Supremos getting all judgemental, all of a sudden?
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.
And if the Legislature does not pass the law, will the NJ State Supreme Court command a remedy? If so, the cooperation of the Legislature is not required for implementation, is it?
I hope Kean doesn't mess this up, and comes out with an intelligent response to this.
He must disagree with this decision, as it strips the rights of the people/legislature to decide what accomodations they would include in a gay civil union. It must include EVERYTHING according to this ruling, everything that traditional marriage has, gay marriage must have, with the exception of the "name" marriage.
This is a load of crap. Does anyone think for a moment that the founding fathers would approve of this? And is this good for our society?
My pleasure.
I'm thinking this might turn a potential Dem majority in the House and Senate into a near filibuster-proof GOP majority...
There is very lttle Kean has to say. A slap at "unelected judges" would be the best short-term tactic.
New Jersey holds its gubernatorial and legislative elections in odd-numbered years. In 2007, the legislature is up for grabs, and the governorship comes up in 2009. This issue will have no immediate effect on state government because state government is not up for grabs.
Seats in Congress are up for grabs this November, but this state decision will have little effect on House races and the Kean-Menendez race unless it's a purely emotional effect.
The state Supreme Court's ultimatum to the legislature, however, puts the Democrats in a lose-lose situation for 2007. If they create "gay marriage" or "gay civil unions", a lot of people are going to be steamed, mostly conservative. If they balk, they are going to piss off liberals. If the state Supreme Court takes over because the legislature cannot, then you have an even larger backlash from voters in general because unelected judges have redefined how the people shall live.
This is one of those decisions that will have greater effects in a year than in a month.
They will be back - they are not giving up - they will go to the gutless legislature and they will get one. The decision stated that it is unequal not to have marriage for members of the same sex - it gave the legislature cover.
U.S. immiration does not recognize gay marriage so foregners cannot immigrate here that way.
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.