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.
Exactly, because if you can say that the government can be in the business of deciding the sex of what TWO people can get "married" then how can they then say, "well THREE people is too much"!
What about 4 or 5. What about a "committed" adult marriage between a Father and his 25 year old daughter? AS you say, the slippery slope continues.....
Frankly, I don't have a problem with civil unions. There are far more people who could benefit from than gays. The elderly, for instance, who live together and rely on each other should be free from the state ripping them off when one or the other dies. They should be able to create community property to protect their assets.
But don't call it marriage and don't even hint that it has anything to do with sexual relations. It's purly a living and financial arrangement that has nothing to do with what happens in the bedroom. With the gays, it will mostly be what we have seen in Massachusetts and elswhere, playing house for a while until the novelty wears off and they head to separate bath houses.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Why did the courts leave out the 3rd possible option? The legislature could amend the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman!
Is the court hostile to this possibility? Why in the heck would they leave out this option? Perhaps the court is biased, and as such each member of the New Jersey Supreme Court should have recused themselves from this case!
As I understand, the process to amend the New Jersey state constitution is as follows:
A bill to amend the state constitution must pass each house in two consecutive legislative sessions - or pass each house by 60 percent in one session - before going to the voters as a ballot measure.
Why did the New Jersey SC not give the legislature this option?
What about the kids?
It was also the New Jersey Supreme Court that tried to force the Boy Scouts of America to accept gay scoutmasters.
Societal impact aside, the recognition of civil unions for the allocation of federal benefits such as social security, medicare, pensions, etc. and taxes would have enormous financial implications. The entitlement programs are going bottoms up now. This would hasten their demise or add even further to the tax burden to keep them treading water for a little longer.
Besides, that doesn't answer the question of why that option wasn't presented to the legislature in the court's ruling!
This must be used as a national rallying cry to mobilize voters to the polls.
I don't think it matters now what the citizens of NJ say. As I read the decision, the Legislature must now enable gay marriages, or something equivalent. I think this decision is similar to the decision that was made by the MA Supreme Court.
permanent residency is a federal thing. gay marriage is not recognized federally so their "marriage" is meaningless. There are articles in te globe complaining about this regularly.
Guess we all know what they like, but where's the goat?
"I think this decision is similar to the decision that was made by the MA Supreme Court."
Much more similar to that made by the VT Supreme Court, and likely to have a similar effect.
This ruling mandates that same-sex siblings who are in committed relationships must be provided benefits/healthcare coverage. So an unemployed gay man can now obtain benefits and healthcare by marrying his employed gay brother.
...Only in New Jersey can such incestuous madness be considered sanity.
Be good to dig up some crimes to prosecute them on too so they can be locked away in a prison somewhere.
some of the divorce cases are going to be hilarious
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.