[vrwc1]

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!!!

Why did the courts leave out the 3rd possible option? The legislature could amend the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman!

Is the court hostile to this possibility? Why in the heck would they leave out this option? Perhaps the court is biased, and as such each member of the New Jersey Supreme Court should have recused themselves from this case!

As I understand, the process to amend the New Jersey state constitution is as follows:

A bill to amend the state constitution must pass each house in two consecutive legislative sessions - or pass each house by 60 percent in one session - before going to the voters as a ballot measure.

Why did the New Jersey SC not give the legislature this option?

[conservative in nyc]

Corzine has said that he would veto any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.