New Jersey Court Rules In Favor For Same Sex Unions
Posted on October 25, 2006
New Jersey rules in favor of Gay Marriage.
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 the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.Instead, the high 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.
New Jersey is one of only five states where there is no law or constitutional amendment specifically barring same-sex marriages. This ruling changes the dynamic of the debate significantly. However, this ruling is significant because it impacts things on a national level. Massachusetts has a law barring out-of- state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their own states. New Jersey has no such law. Gay-rights groups are already poised for lawsuits in which couples marry in New Jersey and sue their home states to recognize their marriage. Currently the Defense Of Marriage Act would prevent something like this. However, groups are poised to challenge this now. However, the court stopped short of actually ruling for gay marriages. This looks like a mixed bag as it is sent back to the legislative branch for a decision to ban or allow them. The court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits of marriage. Whether those benefits are “marriage” or an equivalent form is left to the democratic process. Or in other words, the court just mandated gay marriage in all but name. People should stay aware on this because it opens all kinds of doors.
While gay-advocates view this as a milestone and a victory it very well could cause a backlash. Overall, I think attempting to push such things on the people hurts the gay-rights movement more than it helps it. Many state courts have ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages or unions only to have amendments proposed, voted on by the people, and added to the constitutions of the states to barr them. I think pushing this issue on the people is the wrong way to go. I think gay advocates should convince the people of their cause if they want any real momentum. When you push something on people that are not willing to accept it they will fight back that much harder. So now the question is..with six months for the legislative branch to act…will this get conservatives out to the polls?
Red State sees a backlash possibility as well.
If NJ legalizes homosexual marriage Wednesday, joining MAssachusetts as the second state to do so, we’re two weeks out from the election with conservatives suddenly bombed with yet another activist court redefining marriage. Apart from a particular spike in conservative turnout in the states with pending marriage amendments on their ballots (AZ, CO, ID, SC, SD, VA, TN, WI), we could see conservative invigorated across the country. Note that we’ve got the key Senate races in TN and VA on that list, Governor runs in AZ and WI, and scattered House races in AZ and CO in particular.
The ACLU of NJ was involved here, and I’m not quite sure how they will react to this ruling.
October surprise? I guess we will soon find out. Even though the court pushed this back into the legislative area…with six months for lawmakers to act on this it very well could be a GOTV for conservatives in New Jersey and other states as well. However, Allahpundit is more pessimistic.
Gay marriage is now mandated in NJ, imnposed, yet again, by judicial fiat.
However, the state is not required to call it marriage, unless it so chooses.
But in all saliet aspects, the court has mandated that gay marriage is “constitutionally required” in New Jersey.
Unfortunately, NJ is such a wasteland of Liberalism, I doubt they’ll even challenge the ruling. As long as the lame ass politicians here get to keep their hand in the till, they’ll run along and do precisely what the court dictates. Why should they care about separation of powers so long as the corrupt cash keeps flowing their way?
Political implications? Big reminder to the social conservative base and other folks worried about the judiciary that they don’t cotton to courts making these decisions for them. The judges issue has always been important to social conservatives in this cycle, but it’s been so far from the news cycle (”Hey, Stephens might retire in a couple years!”), that it was impossible for operatives to credibly emphasize it.
ADF calls it a loss for marraige opponents, but that judicial activism alive and well.
New Jersey’s highest court today ruled that “there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage” but gave the legislature six months to create a structure for same-sex couples to receive all the same benefits of marriage. In December, attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund coordinated friend-of-the-court briefs and filed one on behalf of the Family Research Council, defending marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
“If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy. “This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other ‘unions’ makes marriage meaningless. It’s critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only.”
“New Jersey has now given citizens greater reason to vote on November 7 to protect marriage in the 8 states with referendums on the ballot,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s President. “The New Jersey Supreme Court has distinguished itself once again for imposing its own form of discrimination by arrogantly declaring that a woman is not needed to make a marriage, or that a man is not.
“The thirty-year experiment of treating marriage as expendable, by making divorce easy and children fatherless, has proven to be a disaster for women, children and society. This should provide enough evidence for courts and legislators to quit abusing marriage by pretending it is less important or demanding than it is. It’s utter discrimination to claim a woman is unnecessary, or a man is unnecessary, to make a marriage. We should not be forced, or children subjected to, another social experiment with marriage simply to make individuals personally satisfied.”
» Filed Under ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News, Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “New Jersey Court Rules In Favor For Same Sex Unions”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“Before this ruling the only state allowing gay marriages was Massachusetts.”
Just a heads-up: New Jersey is actually in line with Vermont and Connecticut in allowing same-sex couples all the benefits and legal protections of marriage but calling it something else. It’s up to the legislature whether to call it a “marriage” or “civil union” or “domestic partnership” or something else.
Massachusetts is currently the only state that uses the word “marriage” for same-sex unions.
Gotcha, will correct.
Raw opinion is here:
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf
Thanks for the link ArrMatey. I’ll read up on this more tomorrow, but it seems like a very balanced ruling. They even managed to avoid “legislating from the bench.”
“They even managed to avoid “legislating from the bench.”
No Jeff, this is precisely what this court did. You need to read and understand the decision — the court ordered the legislature to enact its edict.
I have done so now, Glib and I still disagree with your assertion. They simply ruled that the status quo results in disparate treatment that disfavors same-sex couples and is thus unconstitutional.
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?
I doubt that the progressive state of New Jersey will take a stand against the judicial activism that exists on their Superior Court whose members all had no problem legislating from the bench. The four moderates one and delivered the political decision.
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.
Focus Jeff, focus.
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.
You have asserted it several times, but you can’t demonstrated it.
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.
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.
Sorry, that was supposed to read “you haven’t demonstrated it.”
“To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I,
Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State MUST
provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full
rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
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. If the State proceeds with a parallel
scheme, it CANNOT make entry into a same-sex civil union any
more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the
state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme
similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions
based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous
relationships.
The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot
be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The
implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the
cooperation of the Legislature. 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.”
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.
Yes, your quote matches my interpretation. I don’t dispute a single word of it.
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 guess out conversation must end. It seems to me that they exercised their power of judicial review and nothing more.
Should I take that to mean that your answer to my last question was #3?
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.
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.