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.

[muawiyah]

Does anyone know Whitman's preferences? Was she the first lesbian governor?

[jude24]

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.

[onyx]

I hope what happens in NJ, stays in NJ!

[muawiyah]

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.

[firewalk]

I felt that way about vermont & mass...

[onyx]

Add those two, too.

[Polybius]

............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."

[Torie]

Further resistance is futile.

[FreedomCalls]

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?

[firewalk]

I don't think it's constitutional for the judiciary to order the legislative to enact certain legislation.

I agree

[conservative in nyc]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

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?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

All we need now is Rita Cosby to translate the opinion - any number of ways. ;-)

Can she do it scantily clad?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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!

[muawiyah]

Yeah, they split their vote ~ for the idea, against the name.

Anyway, nothing stops lesbians from having kids.

[RDTF]

well now McGreevey can marry his new boyfriend

[conservative in nyc]

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.

[red meat conservative]

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.

[Jim Noble]

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?