Skip to comments.
New Jersey Gay Marriage Opinion - Gay Unions Required
NJ Supreme Court ^
| 10/25/06
| NJ Supreme Court
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]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 401-414 next last
To: OldFriend
To: conservative in nyc
Could this help Kean jr. to win?
62
posted on
10/25/2006 12:33:29 PM PDT
by
Alex1977
To: Incorrigible
Poritz is the one who assured McGreevy that she would go along with the swap of Toricelli for Lautenber.
63
posted on
10/25/2006 12:33:39 PM PDT
by
OldFriend
(IF YOU MUST BURN OUR FLAG, PLEASE WRAP YOURSELF IN IT FIRST)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?
Well, I'm still trying to read this thing. It's 90 pages long. That's what it sounds like. The phrase "gay unions" (that I used in my made up title) might be misleading because the Legislature need not even call it that. They can call it marriage if they wish, or anything else. My GUESS is that they will call it a civil union.
To: MaineVoter2002
I've heard they meet an American gay, marry him or her and become a legal permanent resident of the state.I don't see how. Legal residency in the U.S. is a matter of Federal law, not State law, and Federal law does not recognize the validity of same-sex unions.
65
posted on
10/25/2006 12:34:43 PM PDT
by
RonF
To: conservative in nyc
To: 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 ALBINs opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.
The decision part of the decision.
67
posted on
10/25/2006 12:35:01 PM PDT
by
Captain Rhino
( Dollars spent in India help a friend; dollars spent in China arm an enemy.)
To: Sandy
It is not a bit loss: the legislature may pass a gay marriage bill; or it may go to a referendum and it will be appealed. It will be litigated, have no fear. Corzine would sign a gay marriage law.
68
posted on
10/25/2006 12:35:28 PM PDT
by
juliej
To: jasoncann
actually - I thought that NJ would say that "Marriage is a Constitutional Right".....instead they said that civil union would suffice ---- if the democratic process so decided.
69
posted on
10/25/2006 12:35:39 PM PDT
by
rface
("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
To: conservative in nyc
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. So why do the "samesex" couples have to be committed? There is no similar requirement for opposite-sex couples, is there? Isn't this just additional discrimination?
Since when is "samesex" a word?
70
posted on
10/25/2006 12:36:15 PM PDT
by
gridlock
(The 'Pubbies will pick up at least TWO seats in the Senate and FOUR seats in the House in 2006)
To: dcnd9
After all, you can't discriminate against pedophilia, can you. I mean, that's just age discrimination.
71
posted on
10/25/2006 12:36:44 PM PDT
by
musikman
To: Tanniker Smith
Kean + 5 gay-marriage bump.
Whaddya think?
Not clear. I think most Jerseyites support civil unions, so the backlash might not be as bad as you think. It could energize conservative voters in New Jersey, though.
To: camle
Absolutely... I can't believe I'm the first one to play the "Rove, you magnificent bastard" card...
To: OldFriend
They didn't punt anything. It's the same thing. They only exposed the farce that there is a difference between gay marriage and gay civil unions.
If you change your name from OldFriend to AgedChum you are still the same freeper.
74
posted on
10/25/2006 12:37:26 PM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: rface
i believe Corzine has already stated that he would NOT sign a law prohibiting gay marriages.
75
posted on
10/25/2006 12:37:47 PM PDT
by
Spaghetti Man
(NJ politics suck (and apparently so do some of the politicians!))
To: zbigreddogz
Any idea how much this will affect the Kean/Menendez race?Considering that the race is between a liberal trying to appear more moderate (Menedez) and a liberal trying to appear more liberal (Kean), it will probably have little impact.
76
posted on
10/25/2006 12:38:06 PM PDT
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: musikman
Well, in fairness, people under 18 aren't granted the same rights as adults, so from a legal standpoint, there is a greater difference between a kid and an adult then a man and a woman.
But still, you aren't completely wrong. Given enough time we could be headed in that direction.
To: conservative in nyc
I love that final line where the Court says the name given to gay marriage is up to the democratic process. How generous of them. I guess that counts for judicial restrain the eyes of the Left.
78
posted on
10/25/2006 12:38:16 PM PDT
by
Aetius
To: conservative in nyc
I can't believe their political masters let them do this at this time.
Wow.
79
posted on
10/25/2006 12:38:30 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: zbigreddogz
If Kean is smart, he'll come out and say he opposes this decision because this is an issue that is best left up to legislatures and the people and the courts should stay out of it.
80
posted on
10/25/2006 12:39:11 PM PDT
by
COEXERJ145
(Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 401-414 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson