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.

[Claud]

in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage.

I ain't no lawyer, and I'm not sure how, but this little phrase seems to me that it could really end up biting the gay activists in the rear.

Legal beagles, any thoughts?

[dcnd9]

According to DRUDGE REPORT: http://drudgereport.com/


"'Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues.' MORE...

At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples.' DEVELOPING.."

[maryz]

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.

You're kidding! Even in MA, I believe the three dissenting judges said it should be a legislative matter.

[rface]

but would he sign a civil unions law?

[steadcom]

Kean + 5 gay-marriage bump.
Whaddya think?

I hope so but it's hard to say with a state like NJ. I think it could help Allen to some degree since VA voters can see what can happen with *judges gone wild* over gay marriage. Right now Allen is heavily running an ad blasting Webb for not supporting a constitutional admendment for traditional marriage.

[angcat]

Anyone have today's NY Post?

[ElPatriota]

Let New Jersey have what NEW JERSEY wants!... I wonder about those people in that state, but... that is the deal.

We here in VA, are voting to BAN these ass-- from doing the same thing here.

[Sandy]

It is not a big loss: the legislature may pass a gay marriage bill;

So what? That was possible even without this decision. The gays wanted the court to discover a constitutional right to gay marriage. That didn't happen; they lost.

[Aetius]

Judges letting the democratic process determine the name for the gay marriage it has imposed is the Left's idea of judicial restraint.

And it just goes to show that Democrats really do support states rights on this issue, just so long as its settled by the Courts.

[dcnd9]

: - ) Indeed!

[conservative in nyc]

Thanks. I stole the syllabus summary for the post (after originally posting nothing, in the interests of time). The Admin Moderator can consider changing the original post again, if he or she wishes.

[rottndog]

...The Judges have no say in the legislative process....
...Just as was the case in MA, the judges can only state their opinion. They cannot make law....

You are entirely correct in this. I wish the Bush Admin had challenged the MA ruling, where the court had dictated legislation (violation of article IV section 4). This was a blatant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The same is true of this NJ decision.

Article. IV. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...

[gridlock]

Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.

Is there a requirement in law that requires opposite-sex couples to be heterosexual? I was certainly not aware of this. If so, there are a lot of closeted gay or bisexual people out there who aren't as married as they think they are!

Similarly, are same-sex couples (who must be committed, apprently), also required to be homosexual? Can bisexual people or heterosexual people (who are committed) marry people of their own sex under this ruling? If not, why not?

Goodness gracious. These judges really are as stupid as we all think they are!

[gidget7]

"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."


That's exactly what I was saying. There is a process to get a referendum to the people quickly, or they can always use Evecutive order to fis the supposed problem in the constitution. There ARE ways. Judges cannot make law. Unless the Gov. and Legislature allows them to.

[conservative in nyc]

That's not from the actual opinion, but the summary put out by the court. The punctuation got edited out in my cut and paste job, for some reason.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Are these the same clowns who re-wrote Election Law for the Democrats?

Clowns.

[Aetius]

I've always been puzzled by the whole 'gay marriage-no, gay marriage in all but name-yes' mindset. Its as if people want to protect and preserve the word 'marriage', but not the institution and concept.

Polls show that a large percentage of the public holds this contradictory position though. Go figure.

[Eva]

I know, the ruling ignores the purpose of the financial and social props that are afforded to married couples, that is that marriage is supported as the basis of the family unit for the purpose of raising children. The gay community tacitly admits this by referring to heterosexuals as "breeders".

[freeperfromnj]

NJ court grants rights to gays, stops short of gay marriage

10/25/2006, 3:28 p.m. ET
The Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals in New Jersey, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.....

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1161779045231470.xml&storylist=

[Aetius]

They did not lose. Any judicial imposition of same-sex union recognition is an illegitimate act by the Courts. Only the most radical demand the word 'marriage' as well, while the more clever are content (for now) with gaining what is in effect gay marriage in all but name.