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.

[conservative in nyc]

IWas anything less really expected.

It's not as bas as could be expected - civil unions or some other type of legal relationship that's required. It need not be called marriage. So yes, less was expected - that the New Jersey Supreme Court would create a right to gay marriage, instead of civil unions. Call it a partial victory.

[Toby06]

Sickening.

Unnngh.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?

[Tree of Liberty]

"The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

Ok, so the NJSC goes ahead and writes the law, but is nice enough to let the legislature name it. They then have the audacity to call it "the democratic process". Nice.

[Sandy]

This is a pretty big loss for the gay marriage advocates. Gays nationwide were hoping to be able to run off to NJ to get married and then return to their home states and claim marital status. That can't happen now.

[wireman]

Gay Unions Required

I'm getting this mental picture of Teamsters with lisps and purses...

Yikes!!!

[Tree of Liberty]

Semantics. True, words mean things, but it's virtually inconsequential, here.

[juliej]

Of course Corzine approves of gay marriage. That whole rotten crew does because they want the gay vote - at the same time that they "gay bait" Foley and others.

[OldFriend]

Both Menendez and Kean have said they are against same sex marriage. But then so has Barney Frank.

Their statements are political cover. We have no idea what Kean really thnks on any issue.

[OldFriend]

The Court punted to the legislators.

[Tanniker Smith]

Kean + 5 gay-marriage bump.

Whaddya think?

[Tree of Liberty]

Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution:

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.

[zbigreddogz]

Uhh, I don't think Frank has said that.

Anyhow, Kean can swing away at it all day long, and Menendez can't really say anything. If he says good, he'll lose the middle, if he says bad, he'll lose the left.

[LonePalm]

Kinda what I expected.

What's your legal and political take?

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

When is reality going to sink in and everyone going to see that what you call it is irrelevant. A word is just a title to the substance of something. If you change your name from Bob to Dan you haven't changed yourself. It's just a title.

Why are people so dumb?

[dirtboy]

. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.

The NJ Supreme Court Legislature strikes again.

[Incorrigible]

Image courtesy of Strange Cosmos

 

[OldFriend]

Frank did not support gay marriage in Massachusetts.

[RonF]

It depends on what avenues they have to voice their opinion.

Is there a recall process for Justices in N.J.?

What would the likely outcome be if a "Defense of Marriage Act" reached the floor of the N.J. legislature?

What are the mechanisms to enact an amendment to the N.J. Constitution?

[gidget7]

Actually, they can rule any way they want, it's up to the legislature to make it law.......or not to. The Judges have no say in the legislative process. NJ Gov could go ahead and make it law, like Romney did, or tell them to pound sand. The legislature always has the option to put an referendum to a vote, just as several other states did. If the constitution in that state doesn't ban it, fix the constitution so it does.

All depends on the Gov and their Congress. Just as was the case in MA, the judges can only state their opinion. They cannot make law. The Gov's and the Congress are the ones who allow them to impose law. All they have to do is say no.