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.
Well put.
Check articles from Stanley Kurtz early last year on NRO. The fact is that "civil unions" have the overwhelming effect of homosexual marriage.
"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!"
No they don't, and I sympathize with the conservative citizens there. Perhaps now MA and NJ conservatives can join forces and go to the SC.
Sounds like you answered your own question.
If so, will 2 heterosexuals who don't want to get "married" be able to create a "civil union"? What about just two friends, either of the same or different sexes - one of whom has a job with nice benefits be able to create a "civil union"? What about three people?
What will children of "civil unions" be called? And what laws will be need to be made to dissolve such "unions"?
The complexities are staggering.
I'm not in favor or calling anything other than a union between a man and a woman marriage. But I'm just envisioning the Pandora's box the NJSC just opened.
"But I'm just envisioning the Pandora's box the NJSC just opened."
It's not a new box. It's the exact same thing that's been happening in Vermont for years.
CAN a gov. veto an amendment? I know they can any legislation, but an amendment, that the citizens have petitioned for?
No government entity should have been ever granted the right to join people in marriage (matrimony), that's a right that belongs to the Church. Civil magistrates should only be able to preside over civil unions (contracts).
The only way to stop same sex marriages, is to get the government out of the marriage business.
"or else" what? they going to impeach the legislature or sumfin?
I'd like to see the legislature dig in its heels to test this little power play.
Wait, I really really don't get that.
You mean to tell me NJ has already got domestic partnership? Then what is this case or ruling even about?
Not necessarily. There's a respectable position opposing the Court making policy, as is has here, but supporting the policy itself if passed by the Legislature or the people or even the Executive is if has been granted the power to do so.
A same sex pair of bachelors or spinsters could shamelessly perjure themselves to do this and the state will not know nor will it attempt to find out.
Did you even read this nonsense before postng it?
Marriage is a civil union (contract). That why this New Jersey decision is so preposterous. It's a clintonian word game.
If marriage is purely an ecclesiastical "thing" without any civil consequence, gays already have that.
So, why you're really saying is that we should have civil contracts of any kind or shape or composition that "adults" (I use the term loosely) decide. All of these contracts would be subject to the coercive power of the state.
You're not for limiting government power. You want to increase it exponentially. You're even loonier and farther left than the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Did you even read this nonsense before postng it?
Marriage is a civil union (contract). That why this New Jersey decision is so preposterous. It's a clintonian word game.
If marriage is purely an ecclesiastical "thing" without any civil consequence, gays already have that.
So, what you're really saying is that we should have civil contracts of any kind or shape or composition that "adults" (I use the term loosely) decide. All of these contracts would be subject to the coercive power of the state.
You're not for limiting government power. You want to increase it exponentially. You're even loonier and farther left than the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
I looked up the amendment process in the NJ Constitution and the governor has no role. He cannot veto it.
ARTICLE IX, AMENDMENTS
- Any specific amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or General Assembly. At least twenty calendar days prior to the first vote thereon in the house in which such amendment or amendments are first introduced, the same shall be printed and placed on the desks of the members of each house. Thereafter and prior to such vote a public hearing shall be held thereon. If the proposed amendment or amendments or any of them shall be agreed to by three-fifths of all the members of each of the respective houses, the same shall be submitted to the people. If the same or any of them shall be agreed to by less than three-fifths but nevertheless by a majority of all the members of each of the respective houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be referred to the Legislature in the next legislative year; and if in that year the same or any of them shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members of each of the respective houses, then such amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the people.
- The proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on the journal of each house with the yeas and nays of the members voting thereon.
- The Legislature shall cause the proposed amendment or amendments to be published at least once in one or more newspapers of each county, if any be published therein, not less than three months prior to submission to the people.
- The proposed amendment or amendments shall then be submitted to the people at the next general election in the manner and form provided by the Legislature.
- If more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner and form that the people may vote for or against each amendment separately and distinctly.
- If the proposed amendment or amendments or any of them shall be approved by a majority of the legally qualified voters of the State voting thereon, the same shall become part of the Constitution on the thirtieth day after the election, unless otherwise provided in the amendment or amendments.
- If at the election a proposed amendment shall not be approved, neither such proposed amendment nor one to effect the same or substantially the same change in the Constitution shall be submitted to the people before the third general election thereafter.
Which brings up an interesting question: what authority does a court -- any court -- have, to order a legislature what it must do?
I am not a lawyer, but my basic understanding is that this would be a violation of the separation of powers. Can anyone shed any (constitutional) light on this?
And more important, fellow New Jersey FReepers -- what can we do to get the ball moving, to put a stop to this thing? Ideas! Suggestions! Let's roll!
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.