NJ Gays Get Civil Unions Or Something - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

segep soch · #1 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

This just in:

Quote:

HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

[emphasis mine]
...

15. 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. (p. 65)

http://www.blogs.nj.com/uploads/246474-opinion.pdf

Quote:

BREAKING NEWS
(AP)

Updated: 16 minutes ago

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey’s highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.
Advocates on both sides of the issue believed New Jersey posed the best chance to become only the second after Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage because its high court has a history of extending civil rights protections.
Instead, the Supreme Court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15416613/

3 down, 47 to go....

SamInTheSouth · #2 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by segep soch

This just in:

3 down, 47 to go....

Not exactly. The State Legislature has six months to "define" marriage. So, my understanding from what I have read elsewhere is that they can legally make it man and woman only. The way I have read everything is that the court has basically told them the law doesn't clearly state one way or the other so they need to decide how it will be.

segep soch · #3 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Not exactly. The State Legislature has six months to "define" marriage. So, my understanding from what I have read elsewhere is that they can legally make it man and woman only. The way I have read everything is that the court has basically told them the law doesn't clearly state one way or the other so they need to decide how it will be.

Yes, they could do that. But the court says they have to provide an equal institution for gays, whether it's "Civil Unions" or whatever else they want to call it.

Speakeasy · #4 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Not exactly. The State Legislature has six months to "define" marriage. So, my understanding from what I have read elsewhere is that they can legally make it man and woman only. The way I have read everything is that the court has basically told them the law doesn't clearly state one way or the other so they need to decide how it will be.

The way I interpreted it (and I could very well be wrong), is that they have declared that there must be a legal equivalent to marriage for homosexual couples.

The decision they have to make now is whether it will be called marriage, or whether it will be a new form of civil union, or a form that already exists.

Or something.

segep soch · #5 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Or something.

LOL exactly!

Personally, I'm beginning to believe that I don't care what they call it, as long as it's equivalent. I'm willing to live with "Seperate but Equal" for now.

Crystal · #6 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by segep soch

This just in:

3 down, 47 to go....

You won't get any debate from me. I just wanted to say I think it's great news

Lurker · #7 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

I remember reading somewhere that one of the initial intentions of our nation was that in leaving such broad power in the hands of the state governments yet not restricting travel between states was that a system of competition would be created. Yet at the same time, it also allowed people who live completely different lifestyles to continue to be allied within the same nation, making the whole much stronger than it's parts. Looks like New Jersey will be attracting same sex couples who wish to marry. And those who dislike the fact that their state government has legitimized same sex marriage can leave for a state that hasn't.

While yes, that system has been corrupted significantly (whether or not it is for the best is debatable) things like this are proof that that system does in fact work. Both parties win, same sex couples can move and marry, the other guys can move where it isn't allowed.

And as time moves on, it will spread.

Lurker, Pennsylvanian and American.

kinetic · #8 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

It's easy to understand how this happened when you learn who the judges were appointed by.

Donkey_Left · #9 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

It's easy to understand how this happened when you learn who the judges were appointed by.

Elected officials?

kinetic · #10 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Elected officials?

No. Appointed by the (former) Governor and homosexual James McGreevey.

Donkey_Left · #11 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

No. Appointed by the (former) Governor and homosexual James McGreevey.

Who was elected, right?

kinetic · #12 (**permalink**) 10-25-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Who was elected, right?

James McGreevey was, but he resigned in shame.

chathamfarmer · #13 (**permalink**) 10-26-2006

My partner and I had a church wedding. But it would be nice to go to the J.P. and get a legal document. Civil Union works for me. I'd like the same rights a straight person has when they get civillly, not religiously, married by a judge, (or by Elvis in Vegas). A civil union separates religion from the law. No church or other religious institution would be forced to have a ceremony for gay folk. Just like some churches won't marry folks who have been divorced. I think having civil unions is a great idea.

Crystal · #14 (**permalink**) 10-27-2006

Quote:

Conservatives cheer N.J. ruling on gay couples
Religious right says court decision a wake-up call before election

WASHINGTON - The New Jersey court decision that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples was bad news for social conservatives -- the bad news they were hoping for.

"Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Land and other conservative religious leaders predicted that the court's 4 to 3 ruling, which was handed down Wednesday, would boost turnout of social conservatives in the midterm elections, particularly in the eight states that have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on the Nov. 7 ballot.

What do you think? Will this bring out the conservative base? Is this issue that important compared to other issues? I know many people here view me as conservative, but I got to tell you, when I posted eariler that I think the NJ ruling is great news it was not for the reasons stated in the article. I'm not looking to bring out the religious right.

Speakeasy · #15 (**permalink**) 10-27-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystal

What do you think? Will this bring out the conservative base? Is this issue that important compared to other issues? I know many people here view me as conservative, but I got to tell you, when I posted eariler that I think the NJ ruling is great news it was not for the reasons stated in the article. I'm not looking to bring out the religious right.

Seems kind of like grasping at straws to me. Gay marriage seems to have taken a backseat lately and hardly seems to be the hot button issue it was awhile ago. Seems that Iraq, immigration and government spending are starting to dominate the scene now.

I do enjoy things like this, though, when parties take something that is actually a blow against them and try to make it seem like a positive. First, Michael J. Fox's stem cell research commercial seems to be a success for those who support stem cell research, but then the conservatives claim that it's actually a victory for them, because it will mobilize anti-stem cell votes. Now, gay marriage makes some headway, which is a blow to anti-gay marriage advocates, but it's somehow good news as well.

Everything is good news for everyone in an election year, it seems. The spin is amazing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode