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.
Gay rights activists argue that reproduction is a nonessential, disposable feature of marriage. At the same time many if not most of them strenuously deny being in favor of multi-partner marriage (polygamy, polygyny). When they make this claim I immediately come back and ask them, "Why only one two persons per marriage unit?" They hem and haw and try to change the subject.
Their insistence on limiting marriage to couples betrays their unacknowledged acceptance and affirmation of the heterosexual (reproductive) basis for marriage.
Gay marriage partners are pretending to be something nature has not fitted them to be: man and wife. Worse, they want the government to force the rest of us to agree with their pretense.
And in the final analysis very few of them will ever marry and even fewer will remain sexually faithful while married. It isn't the status and restrictions (including the burden of parenthood) of marriage that most of them want. It is the the coerced social acceptance of their homosexuality that they are seeking.
I hope there is room for a law suit to assure us that we can marry animals. Animals have feelings too. They consent to things. Lets see how silly this homosexual "rights" thing is. Let New Jersey pay benefits to surviving animal spouses.
So the courts can ORDER the legislature to enact laws the court wants? Something is wrong here.
Frankly I think this decision is unenforceable. The courts cannot order a legislature to pass laws since a legislature is under no obligation to pass or repeal any law, they are charged only with representing the citizens of the state. The court's order is void on its face. I think the court knows it too.
The court can declare the marriage laws of New Jersey unconstitutional, but in effect all that would do is to render every marriage in New Jersey void. They know that won't sit well with the people of New Jersey and they think they can order a legislative body to do their bidding (and on that point they are probably right, given the metrosexual-limp-wristed-girly men that seem to get elected in that state.)
If the legislature does nothing, then what are the courts going to do? Fine the state? Order the state to pay a fine to itself?
This decision is beyond outrageous. Everyone of these justices needs to be tossed out of office. In the interim the legislature should act immediately to ensure that this kind of thing never happens again. They should immediately pass a law reducing the pay of the members of the Supreme court to minimum wage (and they can pay for their own parking). They should also eliminate their offices and give them cubicles in a cold damp warehouse. Mabye then they'll learn that their job is not to legislate.
How, exactly, does the court intend to enforce this order for the legislature to enact a law? And where are the representatives howling about separation of powers?
Assuming the legislature rolls over, what can a citizen do to challenge this court?
Vote the b-st-rds out of office. Start an initiative campaign to reduce the pay of S-pr-m- Court justices to minimum wage. The problem is not that the people of New Jersey are powerless, it is just that they don't care enough about the future of their state to do anything about it. I hope I'm wrong.
Actually, it seems much more likely to me that they fear that tying the change to marriage that they desire to such a change as legalizing polyamorous marriages would destroy their ability to get public opinion in their favor. I doubt it has anything to do with a recognition of the nature of marriage overall.
I like this idea. Creative and pointed directly at the problem. Too bad the NJ legislature hasn't got the nads for it.
thanks
Technically, the State of New Jersey violated the Equal Protection Clause when they created financial and social benefits and privileges for heterosexual married couples. But, since the state had an obvious compelling interest in doing so, the Equal Protection Clause gives way.
There is no compelling state interest in extending financial and social benefits and privileges to married homosexual couples. The court is wrong.
This legal status allows the homosexual lobby to demand that gay marriage be represented in public school textbooks and teachings as equal to heterosexual marriage.
This legal status allows the homosexual lobby to demand that gay marriage be represented in public school textbooks and teachings as equal to heterosexual marriage.
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.