[TeleStraightShooter]

Then the court may take matters into it's own hands.

Fine, let them enforce their opinion.

What? if the NJ legislature does not follow their invented prescriptions, will they say the NJ Legislature made them usurp the legislative branches powers?

[OldFriend]

The NJ legislature and the NJ Supreme Court are partners in crime.

The laughing stock of the country when they approved the swap of Toricelli for Lautenberg under the excuse that the voters were entitled to two good choices.

Boggles the mind.

[Captain Rhino]

What? if the NJ legislature does not follow their invented prescriptions, will they say the NJ Legislature made them usurp the legislative branches powers?

That appears to be the set-up. My feeling is that the time limit was set to get the NJ Legislature to do something, soon. If it doesn't, I expect that the court would then be asked to do something. As I noted in an earlier post to another Freeper, the court expressed real reluctance to get anywhere near changing the traditional definition of marriage by judicial ruling. So whatever they did, it would probably be the minimum needed to fully implement civil unions (since the ruling noted that NJ has many provisions in existing state law that are similar to laws in states that now have civil unions).

BTW, I don't make the laws or hand down the judicial rulings. I am simply offering an opinion on what I think the judges meant. Personally, beyond protecting them from physical violence (as I would for any person), I'm not in favor of civil unions or anything else that gives any protected status to homosexuals or to any of their "activities."

[gridlock]

What? if the NJ legislature does not follow their invented prescriptions, will they say the NJ Legislature made them usurp the legislative branches powers?

They did it with school funding. There in no reason they will not do it with gay marriage.

One other question... If same-sex couples are to be guaranteed equal treatment by the NJ Constitution, how do the NJ Supremos then allow the Legislature to draft a domestic partnership law without forcing them to call it marriage. After all, if the resulting law does not result in marriage, these couples will not benefit from the full faith and credit due to them when dealing with other states. Doesn't that violate their own ruling, here?