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.

[edsheppa]

You completely missed my point. Forget it.

[durasell]

And what the hell am I paying for in New Mexico? I say build a fence, keep the New Mexicans out!

[oceanview]

OK, I see what you mean now.

[oceanview]

I know. I expected WV to be up there because of Byrd. But NM is surprising.

[Captain Rhino]

The court in its ruling has asked the legislature to take legislative action to implement its decision and has given it 180 days to do something. IMO, if the legislature fails to act at all, the plaintiffs (the seven homosexual "couples")( along with the cabal of activist attorneys that would rush to support them) would go back to the court and inform it that the legislature had not honored its ruling. They would probably do this by filing a lawsuit alleging the state (all the defendants in the suit were members of the state executive branch) was engaged in a continuing violation of the state constitution's guarantee of equal civil rights (since such a violation was the basis of the original suit and today's court ruling).

As is his/her duty, the state attorney general would file papers explaining and defending the legislature's actions. There would probably be extended legal proceedings, but if the court stuck by today's ruling and found for the plaintiffs again, the legislature and the executive would still be staring at the same ruling only now they would be a lot lighter in the wallet due to the public monies spent on the court proceedings.

The court then has a decision to make about how to implement its decision in the face of this opposition and would likely issue a very directive ruling to do so.
IMO, the court would probably not overturn the legislation defining marriage as the union of one man with one woman. But it could levy painful fines on the executive officer defendants for each day of delay in implementing administrative changes to the various existing laws needed to create the equal civil rights effect it has directed. As I understand it, such fines would, in theory, be paid out of the affected department's budgets. They would be unable to stand this very long without either additional funding or legislative relief. When it became painful enough, the executive would have to go to the legislature and ask it either for additional money or for the needed changes in the law so that it has the legislative authority to implement the court's ruling.

Or they (legislature and executive) could try to appeal the ruling in the United States federal courts. Since this is a state consitutional matter, that's not likely to get far but start the big $ meter while the lawyers and judges figure it out.

As for impeachment, it is not such an easy matter.

You have to allege an impeachable offense and issuing a civil rights ruling you don't like is unlikely to be on the list of such acts. Assuming the accusers can get past this obstacle, executing the impeachment process might also be difficult. You would need to get separate super majorities in the legislature to impeach and to convict. Is this really likely given the present political composition of the NJ legislature?

[zwerni]

i hope u r right but ...

NJ is too liberal a state to vote in a "republican" senator.

[kabar]

True, but it will happen eventually in any event and perhaps, the sooner the better.

You must be joking. The solution may be worse than the disease. The Dems will do everything they can to keep them afloat using the same failed structure. This is what happened in 1983 when SS was "fixed" by raising the retirement age, increasing the tax rate, indexing the cap to wage increases, etc.

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.

You are generous with other people's money. Anecdotal stories are not the way to make public policy. It has nothing to do with sex or committed relationships. When you increase the eligibility pool, you increase costs. Almost half of our budget is spent now on entitlement programs. In 1950 there were 16 workers to every retiree. Today there are 3.3 and by 2030 there will be two. 48 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, including 33 million retirees, 7 million survivors, and 8 million disabled workers.

Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. Social Security faces an unfunded liability of more than $12.8 trillion.

[Eric Blair 2084]

The Tri State area and the entire NE has become way to liberal and socialist for me. This is the last straw. I can't take anymore. I'm outta here.

I'm embarassed to say I'm from NJ. It's so sad to see my home state turn into the People's Democratic Republic of Liberals.

Let Corzine and future Public Serpents find somebody else to pay $40,000 per year into the state coffers between property, sales, and income tax in order to fund the legislature and the judicial branch's socialist agenda.

I've started to shop for houses in SC, NC, FL.

Then they wonder why they're losing 32,000 citizens per year NET to other states. Last one out of NJ, please turn out the lights.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Interesting,..
it could levy painful fines on the executive officer defendants for each day of delay in implementing administrative changes to the various existing laws needed to create the equal civil rights effect it has directed.

So not only would the court be usurping the legislative power they would also be stealing from the treasury via judicial fiat. How so you suppose the yare going to collect their money if the Executive Branch decides not to play along? I suppose the Executive branch could also step over the bounds of their constitutional powers and arrest the justices.

As for impeachment, it is not such an easy matter. You have to allege an impeachable offense...

For starters they could alledge the illegal usurping of legislative & executive powers in a undemocratic tyrannical power grab.

[TeleStraightShooter]

They did it with school funding. There in no reason they will not do it with gay marriage.

Only if the executive branch plays along.

Considering the parallels, could you see a theoretical scenario where the Clintons send in the National Guard to make NJ issue homosexual marriage licenses?
[/toungeInCheek]

[VxH]

Speciation  in progress.

 

Humans reproduce Heterosexually.

 

These organisms (whatever they call themselves) are choosing to become Reproductively isolated from the heterosexually reproducing  Human population.

 

Homosexuality is a giant evolutionary step BACKWARDS.

 

 

[zendari]

The governor has input into the amendment process?

[conservative in nyc]

The governor has input into the amendment process?

Apparently not. I was wrong. See post 279.

For the record, Corzine said he'd veto any LEGISLATION banning gay marriage if the NJSC said it was legally required.

[VxH]

>>I think this will affect every race...

It's not a racial issue - it's a speciation issue.

I'm siding with the Humans.

Whatever these new things are, nature is against them.

They can not reproduce without technological assistance.

[Valpal1]

Sounds like the constitutional ammendment to pursue is one that makes NJSC justices elected as they are in many western states.

Having to stand at the polls is why this issue failed in front of the Washington State Supreme Court.

[BLS]

Tyrants in black strike again.

[newzjunkey]

Come on, it's Jersey. Do you really think they'll have a fit?

[Captain Rhino]

Yes, that is one approach. The freedom from external pressure and judicial impartiality argument used to justify lifetime appointments is, in my view, a red herring. To say so, is to claim the judges are not human beings and not only that, but also not politicians and active members of their communities. Being these things (human being, politician, activist) is exactly how they got these appointments in the first place, isn't it? There is no reason why these appointments should be permanent and the difficult impeachment process be the only remedy for public dissatisfaction with a pattern of objectionable rulings. Every other chief decision maker in the government is subject to a periodic performance review at the ballot box. Why should they be exempt?


Another remedy is for the legislature to make the laws it passes in this area exempt from judicial review. However, legislatures are very reluctant to do this because the legislature may not trust the executive to carry out the law as intended anymore than it trusts the judiciary to interpret it properly. Removing the potential for judicial review (via lawsuit) takes away the one real tool the legislature has to check the executive if it decides not to enforce the law or begins to enforce a version of the law the legislature didn't intend. True, the legislature can impeach executive officers or defund it. But both these actions are lengthy processes requiring a lot of legislative cooperation between the parties and both have the potential for a lot of unintended consequences. By contrast, individual legislators (or groups of them) can bring enforcement lawsuits to call the executive to account for itself. Where? In the courts. But if court action has been previously cut off by ill-considered legislation, what is the effective forum for checking the executive?

[Captain Rhino]

I'll post an opinion on your points later today. At the moment, got to go to work.

[xzins]

If I understand the system correctly, this decision of a court can be questioned....everything can be questioned. However, since this is the SCONJ the issue is HOW to challenge this?

I imagine a state initiative to change their constitution and to institute a gay marriage ban is the way to go.

Is there any way at all NOT to have to go that route? Is there any way to have the SCOJN decision overturned?