This is a false characterization. The court ordered the legislature to modify law to remove the disparities. It did not tell the legislature how to go about doing so.

Nope, the only false characterization is being done by you. The court DID tell them how to go about doing so when they said…
“The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement IN ONE OF TWO WAYS.”
There are more then two ways to go about removing these supposed disparities. They could in fact amend the constitution effectively stopping both civil unions and Gay marriage. Your specious reasoning isn’t fooling anyone, even if you get the last word.

3. You don’t believe homosexual couples are entitled to similar rights as heterosexual couples.
—-
Should I take that to mean that your answer to my last question was #3?

Option three is a strawman, but I figured as much coming from you. Gays already have similar rights; they are free to marry someone from the opposite sex. Additionally, heterosexuals aren’t allowed to marry those of the same sex either.

You are wanting additional rights added.

You know where this is from Jeff? The opinion issued yesterday by the NJ Supreme Court.

Yes, your quote matches my interpretation. I don’t dispute a single word of it.

Is the definition of “legislating from the bench” clear now?

My definition of it is very clear to me, but I still have no clue what your definition of it is. Please state it in clear language or my best guess will have to remain “any decision with which Glib Fortuna disagrees.”

I think our conversation must end because no one with a bit of sense can argue that the court did not seize legislative authority here.

I guess out conversation must end. It seems to me that they exercised their power of judicial review and nothing more.

BTW, this notion of “couples’ rights” — when was this invented? “Rights” have always been in the context of the INDIVDUAL in this country. An individual who identifies as a “homosexual” is guaranteed the same rights as anyone else. This new formulation of “group rights” is an alien concept that, if widely mandated and enforced, means the end of our constitutional republic.

Should I take that to mean that your answer to my last question was #3?

You know where this is from Jeff? The opinion issued yesterday by the NJ Supreme Court. Is the definition of “legislating from the bench” clear now? If you don’t understand what the court has done here, I think our conversation must end because no one with a bit of sense can argue that the court did not seize legislative authority here.

BTW, this notion of “couples’ rights” — when was this invented? “Rights” have always been in the context of the INDIVDUAL in this country. An individual who identifies as a “homosexual” is guaranteed the same rights as anyone else. This new formulation of “group rights” is an alien concept that, if widely mandated and enforced, means the end of our constitutional republic.

This decision is another abysmal example of the tyranny of an arrogant elitist court, nothing more.

You have asserted it several times, but you can’t demonstrated it.

Sorry, that was supposed to read “you haven’t demonstrated it.”

You made a false statement, I called you on it. Your statment about not “legislating from the bench” is completely untrue. Whatever the specifics, the court certainly did do what you think it didn’t.

You have asserted it several times, but you can’t demonstrated it.

the court ordered the legislature to enact its edict.

This is a false characterization. The court ordered the legislature to modify law to remove the disparities. It did not tell the legislature how to go about doing so.

This seems well within their powers, so I guess I’d like to know what your definition of “legislating from the bench” is.

“Reasoning?” You mean the part about “evolving ethos?”

I mean reasoning: Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments.

I can only think of three possible reasons why someone would not agree with this ruling:

1. You don’t believe the courts have the power of judicial review
2. You believe their reasoning is invalid
3. You don’t believe homosexual couples are entitled to similar rights as heterosexual couples.

Which one(s) best describes you? If I’ve missed another possibility, feel free to add it.

You made a false statement, I called you on it. Your statment about not “legislating from the bench” is completely untrue. Whatever the specifics, the court certainly did do what you think it didn’t.

“Reasoning?” You mean the part about “evolving ethos?” What arrogance.

I understand that there are arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue that folks find persuasive. But yesterday’s decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court should frighten and offend folks on either side of the issue. After all,…

There is an out the legislator may use without violating to court fiat. They could back a law similar to Colorado Senate Bill 166 that Dr. James Dobson backed. This one grant marital rights but is not based on status such as homosexuality. That means no civil unions or gay marriage. This is an option I have not heard offered but one that does appear to meet the criteria of the Superior Court.

Huh? Some call that passing the buck. I’m going to go with “woussing out”. If you are going to be a breathingist judge, be one. Don’t be scared. Go to the mattresses with it. Well, it looks like this bunch stopped short of the bedroom threshold.

They didn’t say “marriage now includes homosexuals”, they just said “Fix the disparity, so we don’t have to.”

Are you upset that homosexuals are going to gain rights in NJ or are you upset with their reasoning?