Replies

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.

A few obvious questions:

Does the New Jersey Constitution define "Heterosexual" or "Heterosexual Married Couple" anywhere? Is a homosexual man married to a heterosexual woman considered a heterosexual married couple?

Are heterosexual married couples assumed to be "committed" by the NJ Constitution or any NJ Law? If not, then why are same-sex couples required to be committed?

On what basis would a same-sex couple that is not committed be denied equal protection under Article I, Paragraph I of the NJ Constitution?

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.

Wait a minute! What happened to the requirement that the same-sex couple be committed? If the statute is amended, will a new requirement that opposite-sex couples be committed be introduced? Or is there to be no requirement that the same-sex couple be committed, after all?

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.

Well, if the State is not permitted to make entry into same-sex civil union any more difficult, then there can be no "committed" test. So I guess that puts that one to rest. All that is to be required is that they not be polygamous or directly related.

By the way, what would be the reason to deny a consanguinous same-sex couple equal protection under Article I Section I of the NJ Constitution? Heck, I'll even allow as to how that couple might be "committed". It certainly is not in order to prevent genetic disease, is it? Why are the Supremos getting all judgemental, all of a sudden?

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.

And if the Legislature does not pass the law, will the NJ State Supreme Court command a remedy? If so, the cooperation of the Legislature is not required for implementation, is it?

Does the New Jersey Constitution define "Heterosexual" or "Heterosexual Married Couple" anywhere? Is a homosexual man married to a heterosexual woman considered a heterosexual married couple?

I doubt the New Jersey Constitution defines marriage but the ruling referred to the fact that New Jersey legislators have passed a law defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual in character. In fact, the recentness of this law's passage was taken by the judges as a indication that marriage continues to be viewed as exclusively heterosexual institution by a majority of living New Jersians(?)...err...New Jerseites(?)

Are heterosexual married couples assumed to be "committed" by the NJ Constitution or any NJ Law? If not, then why are same-sex couples required to be committed?

On what basis would a same-sex couple that is not committed be denied equal protection under Article I, Paragraph I of the NJ Constitution?

Yeah, sort of ambiguous, isn't it. Two meanings are possible. A lot of homosexual rights activists use committed as a codeword for an existing long term monogamous homosexual relationship. Committed could also refer to the commitment ceremonies for homosexuals that certain mainline Protestant churches are now conducting. IMO, the judges were using the term to refer to the existence of a marriage-like relationship between two (and only two) homosexuals.

Wait a minute! What happened to the requirement that the same-sex couple be committed? If the statute is amended, will a new requirement that opposite-sex couples be committed be introduced? Or is there to be no requirement that the same-sex couple be committed, after all?

You answer yourself on the committed aspect of your question later in your own post. But note that the court has laid down the easy and the hard paths the legislature can take to implementing the decision:

Easy: Just modify the marriage statutes (how many can there be?)to include same-sex couples.

Hard: Go through every single NJ statute, find the ones touching on the rights, benefits, burdens and obligations of marriage and then modify them to create parallel but exactly equivalent rights for heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions. And don't miss one or the plaintiffs will go right back to court and accuse the state of continuing discrimination.

Well, if the State is not permitted to make entry into same-sex civil union any more difficult, then there can be no "committed" test. So I guess that puts that one to rest. All that is to be required is that they not be polygamous or directly related.

By the way, what would be the reason to deny a consanguineous same-sex couple equal protection under Article I Section I of the NJ Constitution? Heck, I'll even allow as to how that couple might be "committed". It certainly is not in order to prevent genetic disease, is it? Why are the Supremos getting all judgmental, all of a sudden?

Obviously, no biological issues involved, but the court is striving in it's ruling for exact equality between marriage and civil unions. Consequently, consanguinity is prohibited for homosexual civil unions because it is forbidden now (and presumably will continue to be forbidden) to heterosexual marriage partners. Exact equality is enforced for both sides - even if it doesn't make sense.

And if the Legislature does not pass the law, will the NJ State Supreme Court command a remedy? If so, the cooperation of the Legislature is not required for implementation, is it?

See my post 345 above for my opinion about what happens if the legislature does not act.