New Jersey Gay Marriage Opinion - Gay Unions Required

NJ Supreme Court ^ | 10/25/06 | NJ Supreme Court

[conservative in nyc]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" Good luck to the NJ Supreme Court.

Unfortunately NJ has a limp-wristed-girly-man legislature, so the Supreme Court may be able to have its way with those guys (and with the New Jersey people).

[MaestroLC]

What arrogance!! This is what you get when you have an activist liberal court. THEY are telling the legislator what to do. These legislators should tell the NJSC to STFU and stop trying to write laws! It is not their jobs. 180 days or what? Hold the legislator in contempt?? Ridiculous. They found a law that does not exist. They admitted it in their decision. This is BS! Talk about an October surprise. Conservatives get reminded why we voted Bush and the GOP in office. We need to get these unelected lawyers in black robes off the bench. Damn, this riles me up....

[Kozak]

So please explain how the court held a gun to the head of the legislature in Mass and said "you will do this". Not the only time this has happpened. Courts have commandered school systems, prisons, taxing authority, ad nauseum.

[Halls]

this is why I think this needs to go in front of the UNited States Supreme COurt. The supreme court of NJ just told the NJ legislature what to do and they don't have the right to do that!

[MaineVoter2002]

Most tourists to the U.S. come from countries with visa waiver programs

Most tourist to the US who can afford to come to the USA normally come from countries with visa waiver programs, yes.

[Pirate21]

Government can only weaken and destroy marriage...

For instance, by giving incentive to marry for the sole purpose of escaping the singles penalty:



I realize this is a tangent to the homosexual content, but it does relate to government getting its hands into "couple-hood" (to use GovernmentShrinker's term).

[kabar]

All depends on the Gov and their Congress. Just as was the case in MA, the judges can only state their opinion. They cannot make law. The Gov's and the Congress are the ones who allow them to impose law. All they have to do is say no.

That's not the way it works. The NJ Supreme court can declare any law unconstitutional if it violates their ruling. Unless the state constitution is amended, the court rules. Many states have already amended their constitution to ban gay marriage. It is on the ballot here in Virginia. This should help Allen.

[Halls]

for real? WOW, this sucks!

[Logophile]

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.

Yes, just after I posted that, I realized that it was not only state benefits that matter, but federal ones as well. You are right: what the relationship is called does matter.

That said, I believe we should not budge on the issue of "gay marriages" or civil unions, whatever they are called. Once such arrangements are established, it would be too easy for a federal court to declare that civil unions are essentially the same as marriage and should be recognized as such.

[firewalk]

Can it be appealed in the United States Supreme Court?

[Steve Van Doorn]

”Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental. Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure ”

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

This is made up out of thin air.

[tobyhill]

There is a call right now for the impeachment of all NJ Supreme Court Justices. The Rats maybe just about done in NJ.

[tobyhill]

It looks like NJ union members will have to share their benefits with every gay Tom, Dick and Harry.

[kabar]

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.

True as long as DOMA stands. However, it will have a major impact on state benefits such as pensions, survivor benefits, welfare payments, taxes, etc.

[Kahonek]

"True as long as DOMA stands."

DOMA would have to be overturned by the SCOTUS, which now includes justices Roberts and Alito.

[kabar]

DOMA would have to be overturned by the SCOTUS, which now includes justices Roberts and Alito.

Kennedy will make the deciding vote. If SCOTUS overturns DOMA, then a constitutional amendment is the only course of action.

[apillar]

Don't know if this ruling is the only reason, but in the last couple hours the traders on tradesport have run up the republicans odds of holding the senate by 10% and the house by 5%. Which is the most it has moved in such a short period since the Folley story broke.

I think the analysts are viewing this as the kick in the pants to motivate the conservative / christian voters needed going into the final couple weeks. If republican candidates were wise they would have a batch of commercials blasting this decision ready to his the airwaves ASAP...