Jim McGreevey's Judges Order Legislature To Permit Same-Sex Marriage
Or The Same Thing Under A Different Name. So, There's That.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Law — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
More to follow on this later - the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the state legislature must amend the state's marriage statute to permit same-sex marriage or some other civil union that gives identical rights and benefits to marriage.
The opinion is written by Justice Barry T. Albin, who was appointed by - surprise! - Jim McGreevey. McGreevey's two other appointees, Justice John E. Wallace, Jr. and Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, formed three of the court's 4-judge majority for telling the legislature who decides this issue in New Jersey (hint: not the people's elected representatives). [UPDATE: Reading too quickly here - as noted in comments, the rest of the court wanted to go even further]
UPDATE: The New York courts, in decisions I discussed in detail here and here, reached the opposite conclusion by relying in significant part on the traditional nexus between opposite-sex marriage and the bearing and raising of children. But note that on page 20 of the opinion the court refuses to consider this argument because the New Jersey Attorney General refused to make it:
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. . . Unlike the Appellate Division, we will not rely on policy justifications disavowed by the State, even though vigorously advanced by amici curiae.
The NJ AG is appointed by Governor Corzine (given that the case was argued in February, this would be the same AG who resigned in August amidst a scandal involving abuse of her official position).
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Banditos* — Comments (8) »
Jim McGreevey's Judges Order Legislature To Permit Same-Sex Marriage 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"NJ Court Stops Short of Gay Marriage OK."
The AP headline.
Expect a lot of that from our liberal pals.
I'm not sure exactly how to react, as I was expecting even worse from that court after the Toricelli outrage, but this will help turnout for our side. Not as much as Massachusetts, but some. I can't say whether this will make any difference in New Jersey's Senate race.
to help the Dems in any way. This is the last thing they wanted to happen less than 2 weeks from Election Day. Unfortunately, I more or less expected this from the NJ court.
keeps this from being a big election issue, since they have not imposed the term "marriage", but they have imposed all the rights and goodies that go with such a union.
The dissenting moonbats would have required the term "marriage" be used. In a sense, they are being more consistent and intellectually honest than the majority.
I've got plenty of gay friends these days - after a long bout of homophobia in high school - and I just don't understand why they can't have the same privileges at "normal" couples have. Like the right to visit their sick partners in a hospital, it seems cruel not to let have something like that.
I don't object to reserving the word marriage for straight couples but denying the accompanying contractual/economics privileges to gay couples is both wrong and unnecessary.
If you read the opinion, it makes clear that this was one of the rights granted by the NJ legislature's domestic partnership statute that was passed while the case was pending and is now moot. We're talking more about things like tax breaks here, and many of the hundreds of other ways the state distinguishes married from single people.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I've got lots of gay friends, one of the side effect of living in California. And after several decades of "research", outside of the ability to procreate, I really don't see any differences between straight couples and gays ones. And in this state, the legislature has already past, but Arnie veto-ed, a gay civil union bill. Arnie's got four more years, then it is a done deal here. I suspect it really won't be all the long for the rest of the country either.
Wasn't there a voter-enacted initiative that restricts marriage to one man - one woman? I was under the impression that there have been legal battles out in Cali about exactly what the Legislature could pass in this area since they cannot abrogate the Initiative law without another popular referndum/initiative vote.
I doubt it's a done deal in Cali. But even if it is - that's the way it should be done - by the voters themselves or through their elected officials. If you don't want gay marriage or civil unions, vote for state legislative candidates that oppose those laws. And if supporters of such legislation prevail at the ballot box, then they're entitled to enact the laws that their constituents want.
In the spirit of full disclosure: I'm gay myself. I don't believe that there should be gay marriage. I'd probably say that recognizing relationships has benefits, but really I'm not terribly concerned with getting such recognition. All the real "goodies" are federal benefits. States provide few rights, privileges, or responsibilities on married couples that cannot be contracted around with legal documents. I just want to see all sides agree that courts should butt out, that legislatures (and referenda where they exist) should be the proper decision making locus, and then fight it out on the ground.
Is for government go get out of the business of handing out benefits (such as a lower tax burden) to married people over single people and to parents of children over the childless. Of course, we will never see that, because married people turn out at the polls more than the unmarried. On things like survivor benefits, simply let the person designate whoever he wants.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I can't understand why a gay person would be opposed to gay marriage. The only reason to deny gays the right to marry is bigotry--"Gays can't marry because I don't like gays." Why would you support such vicious nonsense?
You don't get to jab pointy sticks at other commenters.
Are we cool?
Because if not, I can make us cool -- or rather, I can lower the tension fast.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Like the right to visit their sick partners in a hospital, it seems cruel not to let have something like that.
Gay marriage and civil unions are not necessary for this. My brother was in the hospital a couple of years ago and his partner has power of attorney w/r/t his healthcare. All it takes is planning ahead. On the actual issue of gay marriage, I am against it, civil unions, I'm ambivalent.
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
It's not just about the word "marriage." It's about society (in the person of the state) saying that any form of coupling (and in the future, maybe "tripling" or "quadrupling," ad infinitum)should be recognized as equally valid and beneficial to the community. I think humans get a lot of stuff wrong, but after centuries of practice, it's hard to deny that they got the existing concept of marriage right.
I know, I know. Divorces, broken homes, etc. But the concept is right and society has decided that traditional marriage is the goal, even if it doesn't work out in every case.
the key to this opinion, and the reason for all of these cases, is found at P. 61 of the opinion: "Plaintiffs seek not just legal standing, but also societal acceptance..." That is what this case is all about. All the so-called "vast array of economic...benefits...and privileges" of marriage are either already available, or can be amended by the legislature to include same sex couples, and indeed, as has been pointed out, New Jersey has already done that to some degree. No, the Plaintiffs here are demanding that the court order society to accept their lifestyle choices. While you can't LEGISLATE morality, apparently you can ORDER it by judicial fiat. Who knew?
You can't legislate morality unless it is LIBERAL "morality."
Remember, you can be convicted of hate crimes for being bigoted against blacks or gays or Jews, but you're a profile in courage if you're bigoted against religious Christians or conservatives.
You can't legislate any public expression of a religious belief, but you can legislate to restrict religious observance, chase religion from anyplace a liberal might visit, and attack churches where any political expression occurs (through threatening their tax-exempt status).
If it's a liberal-preferred policy it's a "right" or a "civil liberty." If it's a conservative policy preference it is prohibited.
I beg to differ -- Activist judges deciding things the legislature should have purvey over is going to be a huge issue nationally, count on it. Show me where it says in the US Constitution, or the State Constitution that things like this are to be decided by black robed ones.
Activist judges have to be stopped, the first thing to look at is Sen Biden's pledge that no originalist judges will ever get through his committee if he is chair.
Saddle up and spread the word ...
Activist judges deciding things the legislature should have purvey
But what is the point of having a Constitution if the legislature can do whatever it wishes?
If you don't like what the Constitution says, organize support for altering it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Might energize voters.
Checking the www.nj.com forum which is normally liberal, there
are alot of angry comments.
Should be good for 5%. That might do it for Kean.
But they don't want to be the "Homo State". Not my nomenclature
Conservatives did not go trolling for this issue, It was thrust upon us by lefty judges.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Something that often gets lost in discussions like this is what's best for children. Is it generally a good idea for children to have a Mom and Dad while growing up? And if so, then why can't a legislature promote that idea? And doesn't a child have a fundamental right to preferably be nurtured by the two people who brought him or her into this world?
These are all legitimate issues, but none of them were addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court today. That was shameful. The court blamed that oversight on the fact that the executive branch conceded that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is not necessary for providing the optimal environment for raising children. How convenient for the judges that the executive branch did that.
Incidentally, I blogged briefly today about a different aspect of this New Jersey decision, at confirmthem.
perhaps a longer piece on this parallel would be worthwhile, but it suddenly came to me, and thought I'd just point it out and see if it strikes anyone else the same way?
the (ex-) gov'ner, fancying a new partner, and unhappy with the strictures placed upon marriage, appoints his own priests in robes to rewrite the constitution so he can do what he wants.
there's an aspect to that, on top of all the other problems, that just seems wrong, no?
It was unanimous to give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples. The four in the majority thought that was all they were entitled to. Then three concurred in part and dissented in party, and they insisted that the majority DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, that the title of "marriage" should go to homosexual couples as well as all the rights of marriage.