NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[Edella]

No matter which side of the debate you're on,The ruling today might have further reaching implications as we move towards midterm elections.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/15845712.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/25court.html

[pgrmdave]

Being a resident of New Jersey, and having a few gay friends who live here, this hearing is very important to me. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think that gays should have the right to marry, just like anybody else. On the other hand, I don't think that the courts should have the ability to legislate, it should be elected officials who make the decision. What I'd like to see is the court be able to force the legislature to come up with a decision by some date, and if they don't, then gay marriage becomes legal until such time as it is banned by legislation.

[TheBigDog]

Here is a link to the New Jersey Constitution.

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

 

It may be beneficial to understanding the basis of the ruling however it turns out.

 

Bill

[Edella]

And the ruling is in...http://www.blogs.nj.com/newsupdates/slnewsupdates/default.asp?item=246306

A win for gay rights activists?

[cwes99_03]

Being a resident of New Jersey, and having a few gay friends who live here, this hearing is very important to me. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think that gays should have the right to marry, just like anybody else. On the other hand, I don't think that the courts should have the ability to legislate, it should be elected officials who make the decision. What I'd like to see is the court be able to force the legislature to come up with a decision by some date, and if they don't, then gay marriage becomes legal until such time as it is banned by legislation.

 

If I understood the synopsis that I glanced at, this is basically what has happened today.

 

The NJ SC said that they will not re-define "marriage" as is defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, they did say that equal rights (under the law) must be given to gay and lesbian couples. They would then be free to call it a "civil union" if the term applied to same-sex couples and the term provided the same legal rights as a married couple. They also set a date of 180 days for such to be accomplished by the legistlature.

 

Unfortuneatly what I have read from the press says that the right wing politicals are unhappy because of their religious viewpoint that homosexuality is just plain wrong, and the left wing politicals are unhappy because they want to throw it in the face of right wingers and have the word marriage itself be reapplied to anyone who wants to change the legal status of their relationship.

 

I do think constitutionally however, that their decision to afford equal rights to married couples, even if not in a union under the name of marriage, was the right constitutional decision.

[pgrmdave]

I am pleased, for the most part, with the decision. As far as I can tell, they at least provided that gays must have equal rights, if not equal words, which seems to speak simply to the constitution. And, they refrained from appear to add legislation by way of a judgement.

[TheBigDog]

I still question the courts ability to compell the legislature to write new laws. All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law. I am going to look deeper into this.

 

Bill

[Edella]

All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law.

Bill

I think you're right Bill. Maybe the problem is when two or more existing laws are perceived to be in conflict.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I think it comes down to the current laws not being in line with the constitution of the state. They have really just said that the constitution demands equal rights, but they are unwilling to say that any law currently on the books illegally denies them that right. However, they note that there is currently no law allowing them rights in a specific sense, so one must be adopted, or else they will be forced to declare any law governing marriage as between a man and woman only, as unconstitutional.

[pgrmdave]

I still question the courts ability to compell the legislature to write new laws. All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law. I am going to look deeper into this.

 

Ah, but that's the beauty of their decision - the court ruled on an existing law that provides equal benefits to everybody. They weren't ruling on a marriage clause, but on an equality clause. As such, they are within their bounds to say that gay marriage is necessary to provide equal protection under law, and that it is up to the legislature to draft that law.

[Zythryn]

In my mind it is the best example of a rational decision yet.

Basically it sounds like the decision was... 'call it what ever you want, but homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples'.

 

They didn't go to either extreme and thus, will probably get both extremes ticked off at them:)

[TheFaithfulStone]

I still question the courts ability to compell the legislature to write new laws.

 

I don't think this is a problem. The court hasn't compelled the legislature to write a specific law, but simply to address a short coming. For example, if everyone had the right to vote, but armed thugs kept all the people with blond hair away, it would be incumbent upon the legislature to pass a law giving the executive the necessary powers to enforce the law.

 

So, the current situation isn't so much - "You must pass a law about civil unions" as it is "You are not adequately performing your constitutional duty under the equality clause." In other words, you can't provide (or deny) rights or benefits to some people based on something they can't help.

 

As cwes pointed out, the alternative is to declare regular marriage unconstitutional, which nobody wants.

 

I think this is actually the smartest decision about the issue to come out of a court yet. I like that it backs everyone into a corner - people who are against it are now forced to either argue a different issue (courts don't have jursidiction) or just come right out with "gay people are gross", and people who are for it are now forced to either accept it or to admit that really all they wanted was to freak out the fundies.

 

Personally, I don't see any reason not to call a spade a spade, but if you wanna call it a "lil'shovel", I'm not complaining.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

In other words, you can't provide (or deny) rights or benefits to some people based on something they can't help.

 

Careful, you're putting words in their mouths. They didn't say anything about whether people can choose to be gay or not, as that is a slippery slope and has nothing to do with the law. In fact if anything, they are supporting freedom of choice (liberty).

 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/njruling.pdf

 

plaintiffs sought a declaration that laws denying same-sex marriage violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Careful, you're putting words in their mouths.

 

Fair enough - but I think it's probably an assumption that is made by supporters of gay rights, and contested by opponents, in general.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

The following is a quote from the ruling

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

A-68 September Term 2005

 

II

Plaintiffs contend that the State’s laws barring members of

the same sex from marrying their chosen partners violate the New

Jersey Constitution. They make no claim that those laws

contravene the Federal Constitution. Plaintiffs present a

twofold argument. They first assert that same-sex couples have

a fundamental right to marry that is protected by the liberty

guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution.

They next assert that denying same-sex couples the right to

marriage afforded to opposite-sex couples violates the equal

protection guarantee of that constitutional provision.

In defending the constitutionality of its marriage laws,

the State submits that same-sex marriage has no historical roots

in the traditions or collective conscience of the people of New

Jersey to give it the ranking of a fundamental right, and that

limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is a rational exercise

of social policy by the Legislature. The State concedes that

state law and policy do not support the argument that limiting

marriage to heterosexual couples is necessary for either

procreative purposes or providing the optimal environment for

raising children.7 Indeed, the State not only recognizes the

right of gay and lesbian parents to raise their own children,

but also places foster children in same-sex parent homes through

the Division of Youth and Family Services.

The State rests its case on age-old traditions, beliefs,

and laws, which have defined the essential nature of marriage to

be the union of a man and a woman. The long-held historical

view of marriage, according to the State, provides a sufficient

basis to uphold the constitutionality of the marriage statutes.

Any change to the bedrock principle that limits marriage to

persons of the opposite sex, the State argues, must come from

the democratic process.

The legal battle in this case has been waged over one

overarching issue -- the right to marry. A civil marriage

license entitles those wedded to a vast array of economic and

social benefits and privileges -- the rights of marriage.

Plaintiffs have pursued the singular goal of obtaining the right

to marry, knowing that, if successful, the rights of marriage

automatically follow. We do not have to take that all-ornothing

approach. We perceive plaintiffs’ equal protection

claim to have two components: whether committed same-sex couples

have a constitutional right to the benefits and privileges

afforded to married heterosexual couples, and, if so, whether

they have the constitutional right to have their “permanent

committed relationship” recognized by the name of marriage.

After we address plaintiffs’ fundamental right argument, we will

examine those equal protection issues in turn.

[cwes99_03]

It is their claim of fundamental right to "marry" that the justices denied as the historical use of the word marry is defined as between a man and woman, and it would be up to the NJ legislature to redefine that word if they so chose.

[InfiniteNow]

This is sort of silly, the whole naming convention. It's marriage for crying out loud. Talk about placating the idiots who care...

 

If I murder someone, but call it a "focussed population adjustment" instead, is it different? :hihi:

 

 

Funny humans we are...