Skip to comments.
New Jersey Gay Marriage Opinion - Gay Unions Required
NJ Supreme Court ^
| 10/25/06
| NJ Supreme Court
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]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-414 next last
To: conservative in nyc
Does anyone know Whitman's preferences? Was she the first lesbian governor?
To: P-Marlowe; xzins; blue-duncan
Recall how I said it is inevitable that gay marriage will become the law in the United States under
Loving v. Virginia?
Today's case simply proves my point. Whether I support gay marriage is immaterial. This is the trend in American jurisprudence.
Not cool.
242
posted on
10/25/2006 3:09:44 PM PDT
by
jude24
("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
To: Southack
I hope what happens in NJ, stays in NJ!
243
posted on
10/25/2006 3:09:48 PM PDT
by
onyx
(We have two political parties: the American Party and the Anti-American Party.)
To: oceanview
Sorry, this is a state court, not a federal court, and that particular cite doesn't work. In fact, within memory of the MMdecision some states have actually had the State Senate serve as the Supreme Court.
To: onyx
I felt that way about vermont & mass...
To: BeforeISleep
246
posted on
10/25/2006 3:12:47 PM PDT
by
onyx
(We have two political parties: the American Party and the Anti-American Party.)
To: conservative in nyc
............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. TRANSLATION: "If you two break up, he takes half your stuff and you owe him alimony."
To: jwalsh07
Further resistance is futile.
248
posted on
10/25/2006 3:14:11 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: conservative in nyc
How can one co-equal branch of government order another what to do? I don't think it's constitutional for the judiciary to order the legislative to enact certain legislation. What if they don't? Will it fine them? Put them in jail for contempt of court?
249
posted on
10/25/2006 3:14:37 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: FreedomCalls
I don't think it's constitutional for the judiciary to order the legislative to enact certain legislation.
I agree
To: muawiyah
Whitman is married with two kids. I don't think she is a "gay American", like McGreevey.
It's ironic that the "gay American"'s three appointees to the court voted against requiring the legislature to call the gay unions marriage, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure the NJSC has a Republican/Democrat quota system.
To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan; Congressman Billybob
Recall how I said it is inevitable that gay marriage will become the law in the United States under Loving v. Virginia?And, IIRC, you stated that a slippery slope argument was a logical fallacy. :-)
Not cool.
Well maybe I'll reconsider you for that appeals court vacancy now. :-)
BTW isn't it interesting that the court did not strike down the existing law, knowing that the consequences of such a ruling would have a devastating effect (and probably result in their lynching)? Instead they unconstitutionally ordered the legislature to pass a new law to fix the law that they didn't have the guts to overturn?
252
posted on
10/25/2006 3:21:02 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
(LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
To: conservative in nyc
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.Gay marrriage by any other name...
253
posted on
10/25/2006 3:21:26 PM PDT
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(In a world where both of our cars were totally underwater...)
To: Quilla
All we need now is Rita Cosby to translate the opinion - any number of ways. ;-)Can she do it scantily clad?
To: conservative in nyc
It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.Sheesh, a court that splits between liberal and wacko!
To: conservative in nyc
Yeah, they split their vote ~ for the idea, against the name.
Anyway, nothing stops lesbians from having kids.
To: conservative in nyc
well now McGreevey can marry his new boyfriend
257
posted on
10/25/2006 3:32:42 PM PDT
by
RDTF
(Iraq: terrorist flypaper)
To: RDTF
Not exactly. McGreevey can civil union his new boyfriend in 180 days - or whatever the legislature wants to call it. He could currently be his domestic partner under New Jersey law, but that doesn't give him all of the same benefits and burdens of marriage, according to the New Jersey Supreme Court of Second Guessers. So the court substituted their judgment for that of the people's elected representatives on the issue.
If McGreevey and his boyfriend are still living in New York state, his civil union should be fairly meaningless here. To its credit, our Court of Appeals didn't just make law when faced with a similar case. The NJSC is notorious for doing just that.
To: conservative in nyc
Does anyone know where Tom Kean is on this?? He should be out in front of this issue immediately! There is no bigger winner than marriage.
To: dcnd9
What is absurd about this decision is that all men in New Jersey already have the right to marry a woman, and all women in New Jersey already have the right to marry a man.
The fact that some men and some women choose not to exercise that right does not call for a remedy, constitutional or otherwise.
Let's say I'm an alcoholic. Let's even say God made me that way.
Laws that say the bars close at 2AM don't violate my rights, just because I want to keep drinking.
Why is this not a precise analogy?
260
posted on
10/25/2006 3:47:29 PM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(Some moron brought a cougar to a party, and it went berserk.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-414 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson