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.
By who?
Are you suggesting the plaintiffs might ask someone other than the legislature to write a law?
If such an extra-constitutional course of action was taken it's up to the legislative branch to protect their own balance of power turf and remove the unconstitutional justices.
Wow --- I despise him.
I just knew I could count on you in this matter. As we purify our party of the taint of the hated Foley-ism, we cannot afford to leave a single politician untouched from the inquisitor's review.
I think Corzine's decision was to deny the funds to the religious organizations who promote abstenance...
Very simple solution, they can raise money on their own without looking for a gubmint hand-out.
Yes, I'm sure Corzine was motivated by pious and tender concern for the taxpayers of New Jersey.
It's Federal money. But I am kinda tired of people with their hands out. I like the idea of a state saying, "No thanks" for once. Much better than taking the money and then whining about whatever strings are attached.
My question is where does this state file the appeal?
It seems to me this is cover for the weak minded legislature from the court.
What is this gay pride stuff anyway? What are they so damn proud OF? Pfffft.
We have an Andover here in NH and we call it Bendover all the time.
the Legislature is locked in - they can only pass TWO laws to satisfy the court - all rights for gay unions called marriage, or all rights for gay unions called "civil unions".
that's it. that's hardly a "choice made by the elected representatives of the people".
OK, that a fair point.
But I don't see NJ being the place to stand up against the judicial oligarchy.
portability is blocked by the federal defense of marriage act (assuming it stands). But I see your point, if what you are looking ahead to is the DOMA going down in the SCOTUS.
The problem is the state forcing you to get a marriage license. A license is defined in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the American Language as: Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission. Why do you need a license to do what is already allowed and has been done for centuries by the church? The answer is government control. Marriage is a religious institution ordained by God for a purpose, and is found in the Bible. Last time I checked the Bill of Rights as part of theConstitution for the United States Article 1 states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Noah Webster, defined marriage in his 1828 American Dictionary of the American Language as: The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage, God given right and Religious Institution or,
Privilege given to us from government, and run by government?
If we truly want to protect marriage and the family in Pennsylvania today, we must not look to government, but to God and Natures Law. We must take activist Judges who disobey the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and remove them from the bench. If our lawmakers really want to protect marriage and the family they would do their jobs and hold these judges accountable for their violations of these two documents.
We can not allow our lawmakers to amend the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to define marriage. Marriage will no longer be a God given right but a Privilege given by and controlled by government. If this marriage amendment becomes a part of the Constitution and or Law in Pennsylvania it absolutely will open up the flood gates and allow homosexual marriages because in the Constitution for Pennsylvania, Article 1 Section 28 states: Prohibition Against Denial or Abridgment of Equality of Rights Because of Sex: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.
TO PROTECT MARRIAGE WE HAVE TO STOP DIVORCE!
GOD’S PLAN FOR MARRIAGE
The Plan of God for Marriage, since the first book of the Bible, Genesis 2:24, after creating Eve, says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Marriage is to be "two persons in one flesh", and the two persons in marriage should be, the husband and the wife, with Jesus Christ, the Lord and savior in the heart of both of them.
The big problem is that many marriages in today’s environment derive from fleshly desires, feelings of obligation, government benefits and just out of irresponsibility. By entertaining the idea of making a law or changing the constitution only gives credence to same sex marriages and marriages of convenience. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman preformed by the Church, not by government. You make a vow before God and it shall not be entered into lightly. The vow usually goes something like this: Dearly beloved: We are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy matrimony; which is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate, these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter forever hold his peace. In many marriages of convenience the husband and the wife, are open to Satan… and where Satan is, there is misunderstanding, separation, adultery, and divorce. The greatest plague today is not AIDS, not drugs, and not alcohol, the greatest plague today is legal marriage separations and divorces.
Marriage is a "Sacrament", a sacred and holy thing, perceptible to the senses, which on the grounds of Divine institution possesses the power both of effecting and signifying sanctity and righteousness. It is not for getting benefits through government programs or benefits from your job or convenience.
It is one of the seven Sacraments instituted directly by Jesus, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Mark 10:6-9
It is for Life:
Marriage is indissoluble in the teachings of the Bible, for Life, because "the two of them become one body", inseparable! "I say onto you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Matthew 19:9 So, the biblical standard for Marriage is a monogamous relationship in which a man and a woman share a lifetime commitment to each other, second only to their commitment to God.
However, that exception, "illicit marriage" or "fornication", is the basis today for many legal Christian divorces and annulments blessed by the Church. Yes that is right; I said by the Church not the government. The Bible sets the standard for marriage not our Lawmakers.
There is a triple purpose of Marriage in the Bible: Generation and bringing-up children, mutual help, and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.
The first purpose, was established in the first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve just after their creation, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28.
The second, in Genesis 2:18, "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.": So the purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, man and woman, or their mutual love and unity.
The third is taught by Paul in 1Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.".
We do not need nor should we want an Amendment to the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the Constitution was established for the government, to tell it what it can and cannot do, and operate with limited power, not to tell “WE THE PEOPLE” what we can and cannot do. For if we open up the Constitution to dictate to the people instead of the government we will no longer have God-given rights through Gods Law or Natural law but civil liberties or civil rights meaning from government.
Let us get back to God and Natures Law that our Founding Fathers used to form our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Commonsense must once again prevail in our governing body and society.
God Bless,
Ronald E. Smith
www.cpbutler.com
Hope this works in favor of Kean.
Well, if you know of a large number of gay tourists from third-world countries coming to Massachusetts for marriages that won't actually grant them any residency rights, I recommend you call the Herald and have them break the news.
That's a meaningless distinction. Whatever it is called (call it a Mirage if you want), they require that it be exactly the SAME as marriage.
I'll say the decision is illogical. They used an "equal protection" clause to say that a "pairing" of people have rights, rather than individuals. Thus, they said that a pair of males have their rights violated because a male-female pair can marry and the same-sex pair cannot. No "individual" has their rights violated, every male no matter what their preference have a right now to marry a female.
However, having decided that a male-male couple needs "equal protection", they then said that other types of couplings could still be discriminated against, most notably "polygamy".
However, to do so they must have decided that a government has NO COMPELLING REASON to prevent two men from being married, but the same government HAS a compelling reason to keep a man from marrying two women, or a woman from marrying two men, or a bisexual marrying both a man and a woman.
But while I can come up with a compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage (one being they can't have children, and therefore can't contribute to society what society needs, a coherent biological family unit), I can't think of a compelling reason why we wouldn't let 3 people get married.
I hope this pushes the Virginia amendment over the top. We were getting worried here about it, but this should show every virginian that the threat is real -- after all, we have an equal protection clause in OUR constitution as well.
I believe that the trend in Vermont, Massachusetts and now New Jersey (actually the result of a many year long orchestrated campaign by gay activists and liberals in the legal field to create new law in the marriage area) shows that we cannot trust that Federal judges will not overturn DOMA some day. I certainly don't trust liberal judges not to interpret elastic constitutional provisions to impose their social agenda in the area of same sex "marriage".
And what happens if the NJ legislature simply refuses to do so?
"What about the kids?"
I don't know what kids you're referring to. What are you talking about?
They did it with school funding. There in no reason they will not do it with gay marriage.
One other question... If same-sex couples are to be guaranteed equal treatment by the NJ Constitution, how do the NJ Supremos then allow the Legislature to draft a domestic partnership law without forcing them to call it marriage. After all, if the resulting law does not result in marriage, these couples will not benefit from the full faith and credit due to them when dealing with other states. Doesn't that violate their own ruling, here?
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.