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.
I'm glad the Justices were operating their own legislature and debating whichj gay marriage bill to pass. sarcasm off.
So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?
You're kidding! Even in MA, I believe the three dissenting judges said it should be a legislative matter.
it sounds like NJ will just pass civil unions then.
Gay marriage activists use equal rights protection disingenuously. Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. It has everything to do with forced social acceptance and legitimacy of an unnatural, anomolous, self-chosen lifestyle. Period.
There is nothing "progressive" or "enlightened" about a socity that accepts such behavior. The "enlightened" citizens are the ones that understand this is just one more step toward the downfall of our society.
Gays insist their sexual orientation is not a choice yet they believe they are capable of making all other choices in life. In essense they are insisting on having it both ways. If this in not a choice then what other behavior are gays capable of without their consent or decision? They would be the first to insist they make all choices in their lives yet just this one choice is forced on them.
That's pure nonsense. They either choose their lifestyle or they are freaks of nature. One or the other. It's that simple.
Well and good for state benefits, but the DOMA controls, for now, federal benefits, which uses the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Eventually, I see the need for a constitutional amendment either in NJ and every other state and/or federally.
Sheesh, a court that splits between liberal and wacko!