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.
Gay marriage activists use equal rights protection disingenuously. Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. It has everything to do with forced social acceptance and legitimacy of an unnatural, anomolous, self-chosen lifestyle. Period.
There is nothing "progressive" or "enlightened" about a socity that accepts such behavior. The "enlightened" citizens are the ones that understand this is just one more step toward the downfall of our society.
Gays insist their sexual orientation is not a choice yet they believe they are capable of making all other choices in life. In essense they are insisting on having it both ways. If this in not a choice then what other behavior are gays capable of without their consent or decision? They would be the first to insist they make all choices in their lives yet just this one choice is forced on them.
That's pure nonsense. They either choose their lifestyle or they are freaks of nature. One or the other. It's that simple.
"Semantics. True, words mean things, but it's virtually inconsequential, here."
No - not at all! Marriage has all sorts of interstate and federal implications, especially in New Jersey (which doesn't have a law limiting marriages by out-of-staters). Civil Unions are contained to the state. Not only that, but with civil unions, even New Jersey gays won't get tons of federal benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage.
How does this ruling affect those that want to marry multiple partners, pets, trees, or children?
I don't know I would call it "cover" for the legislature - it just put them into the hot seat.
"So why do the 'samesex' couples have to be committed? There is no similar requirement for opposite-sex couples, is there?"
lol. They are committed by signing the papers to become married. They are so committed that it takes a judge and raft of lawyers to uncommit them when it becomes necessary or desireable.
If so, they've wasted their money, because the federal government doesn't recognize Massachusetts gay marriages AND most tourists coming to America don't need to get visas.
"...so effectively, NJ has gay marriage now."
No, it does not. The words make a huge difference at the federal and interstate levels. Calling it something other than marriage will completely eliminate portability (to any states other than Vermont or Massachussetts), and entirely preclude any federal benefits or recognition.
No that still does not give them authority to do it. Simply put they have no authority to order the legislature to pass any legislation.
Do you know why the court instructed the legislature to draft a new law?
Because otherwise the gutless court would have had to declare the 1912 marriage law unconstitutional and if they did that, then every marriage between 1912 and today would have to be declared null and void. IOW there would be no valid marriages in the State of New Jersey!
So instead they tell the legislature to fix a problem that they don't have to guts to fix from the bench.
I suspect the New Jersey legislature will bend over on this one and pass some new law. If I were the governor I'd veto any legislation and tell the courts that if they don't have the guts to declare the existing marriage laws unconstitutional and strike them from the books and live with the consequences, then they have no business taking up a case like this one in the first place.
They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it. Ha!
they will vote for it and Corzine will sign and I hope the citizens who voted for Corzine are happy with the jerk.
Kean will vote with us maybe 40% of the time. Menendez, 4%. Take your pick.
That can't be true. We have been assured repeatedly by homosexual activists that a defense of marriage amendment is unecessary because what happens in one state does not affect the others. They will cross their hearts and promise that the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution does not apply. They wouldn't lie, would they?
(Of course, you are right: what these arrangements are called may matter outside New Jersey. If one state recognizes "gay marriage," the other states might be forced to do so under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. Within that state, however, the name is relatively unimportant.)
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
Good luck to the NJ Supreme Court.
For later.
Ever hear of a tourist visa?
Most tourists to the U.S. come from countries with visa waiver programs. They don't need to have a visa before they come to visit - their passport is good enough.
So, is this going to be appealed to the USSC or what?
"Within that state, however, the name is relatively unimportant."
Not really. Within that state, gays will still be filing federal income tax separately, they won't be eligible for spousal social security benefits, they won't be permitted to sponsor partners for immigration purposes, etc... The GAO has recorded over 1000 federal benefits that do NOT apply to any partnership other than marriage.
Well and good for state benefits, but the DOMA controls, for now, federal benefits, which uses the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Eventually, I see the need for a constitutional amendment either in NJ and every other state and/or federally.
Can't be appealed to the SCOTUS. It was based on the state constitution.
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.