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.
If same-sex couples are to be provided the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples, how can the Legislature be permitted to pass a civil union statute that does not confer the explicit status of "married" upon the couple? After all, being married is a definite benefit, because it entitles one to protections under the full faith and credit provisions of the US Constitution when dealing with other states. It defies the NJ Supreme Court's own decision to allow the Legislature to deny this status to these people.
Thanks.
True, but it will happen eventually in any event and perhaps, the sooner the better.
The reason I posted my observation was from a number of experiences. A particular one was with a set of brothers. They were both born with an heredity skin decease that frankly made their faces "difficult" to look at. The younger brother was far worse than the older, but both would make children want to run away. It was sad, very sad. Both worked, the older brother having a far better job and social/coping skills. Thee younger brother was pretty much shunned by society and responded psychologically accordingly. He is a nice guy when you talk to him, but psychologically, a total basket case.
To make a long story short, for obvious reasons neither ever married, their parents died when they were relatively young, and the brothers lived together as the only family either ever had. The older brother who was the major bread winner for the 'family' died suddenly a few years ago. For all intents and purposes, it was a "husband" dying and leaving a widow. The younger brother was completely decimated. Those two were all alone together and were the only family either had and now he was alone.
Enter the tax man.
And then there was all of the money the older brother had paid into social security of which he never collected a dime. I guess it all goes to some grandmother imported from Mexico or Bangladesh who managed to get papers, or whatever, but it would only seem logical, (and a word I hate to use, FAIR) that the only family the man ever had, should be able to have some benefit from his brother's years of involuntary investment in social security.
I see no reason that a pair of brothers in that situation, (or elderly couples even if unrelated (MM/ MF/ or FF) should not be able to declare they are a civil union and have both the rights and the responsibilities for each other as a typical married couple. In our oversexed society, we seem to forget that their are strong and very commited relationships that have nothing to do with sex.
Civil unions should have nothing to do with sex. If the Federal and state governments are going to tax assets after death while giving or withholding benefits based on marital status, those who aren't married but have accepted the same legal and financial responsibilities and obligations for another person should also be eligible for those same benefits.
I honestly don't think that many gays will ever fit into those kind of committed relationships. Their push for gay marriage has nothing to do with commitment to other individuals, but only with seeking societal validation for their perversions. That will pass when we all learn to just shrug our shoulders when they attempt to outrage us.
Exactly! But for many countries (most countries) a visa is required and getting a visa to come to visit or travel to the USA is very difficult. That's the whole reason why we have so many illegal border crossers. It's not because they are too lazy to apply for a visa. They already know their chances of getting a visa is almost 0.
I dont mean to turn this into an immigration thread but I can guarantee you that this gay marriage issue is supported by many groups who are also for an open border policy.
I was listening to a local am radio talk station and they had on an opponent to gay marriage who went through sites such as MySpace browsing profiles of alterntive lifestyle users in other nations (mostly 3rd world where visas are reuired to enter the usa) such as Thailand, Mexico, Malaysia and he commented on how many of them had sticker like political messages with rainbow colors "Legalize Gay Marriage" and messages in text referring to the "unfair" anti-gay marriage policy in the United States. Ironically, in their own country gay marriage was not only illegal but the lifestyle itself was not even tolerated. In the Favorite Places section of their profiles were listed American cities such as NYC, San Francisco and Los Angeles and in their goals section were "live in the United States".
If you live in Thailand, your chances of getting a VISA to come to the USA is almost zero. If you live in Vietnam it's a well known fact that those who apply for a visa to come to the USA have less than a 5% chance of being accepted.
It's bad enough to see that there are Americans in this country who are fighting to legalise gay marriage merely for the sake of gay marriage. However, we should not forget about other consequences of this when it comes to immigration, fiance visas and marriage visas.
Those outside the country already know these consequences and it's why they are involved in the activism of gay marriage in America.
We should also understand the motives of those people as well.
We need more R's in the senate to pass the federal marriage amendment.
It's a start.
You realize, as a fellow New Yorker, 20% of our Federal tax dollars never return to the state. On the other hand, some states rake in the money -- getting 20% or even 40% more from the Fed than they kick into the kitty.
Actually they invented an equal protection clause where none exists. This is from the opinion:
"The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes."Here is Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution in full:
"1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."And here is Article 1, Paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution which does address equal protection for certain groups and explicitly does not include sexual orientation as a protected category.
"5. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin."
NJ is dead last - 50th - in that stat by the way.
ROVE YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!
OCTOBER SURPRISE BAYBEEE!
If the legislature had any guts they would enact a constitutional amendment specifying marriage as being between a man and woman. But that'll never happen. The cowardly legislators will use the court decision as political cover to do what they want to do.
I thought it was CT -- which gets back only 60 cents on the dollar. Alabama, by the way, makes out like a bandit.
very true - I tell people who live/vote in carolyn's mccarthy's district - YOU ARE THE RICH.
When you're right, you're right.
well, that was 2004 data however.
Lately I've been coming around to the idea of "tax parity" in which a state gets as much back from the Fed as they put in.
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.