NJ Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage issued

The ruling was just issued on whether or not same sex couples in NJ should be allowed to marry. Via AP:

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.

[…]

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.

I’ll be interested in reading the opinions of some of the Volokh Conspiracy lawyers/bloggers to the ruling. I’ve not had a chance to read it yet, but Dale Carpenter has a brief summary posted here (along with a link to the ruling. Update: Here’s the HTML version, for those who don’t have Adobe).

Stop The ACLU has a lengthy commentary on the ruling – check it out. I’m reserving lengthy comment for the time being until I’ve read the ruling and checked out more analysis of it. My initial reaction, though, pretty much mirrors Allah’s. He writes:

It sounds like they’ll let the legislature put whatever label they want on it — “marriage” “civil unions” etc. — but that the state’s equal protection clause requires that the incidents of marriage be made available to same-sex couples to the same degree as they are to straights.

Here’s my opinion on gay marriage, for the record.

Update: Glenn Reynolds weighs in.

14 Responses to "NJ Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage issued"

Big Bang Hunter says:

October 25, 2006 at 4:28 pm

– Ok kids, settle down…. Todays word is “Hotpotato”. Can you say hotpotato and use it in a sentence kids….

– Bang
The Political Pit Bull says:

October 25, 2006 at 8:55 pm

NJ Supreme Court’s Decision On Same-Sex Marriage

Basically, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave the legislature the option to either rewrite the state’s marriage statute to include gays or create a new statute which would allow civil unions and give gays the same rights afforded to straights….
Dana says:

October 25, 2006 at 9:57 pm

There is something entirely repugnant about one branch of government being able to order another supposedly co-equal branch of government to do something within the second branch’s authority, that is denied to the first branch.

The “hammer,” of course, is that if the legislature does not comply, the court will then revisit its decision and say, OK, since you didn’t create civil unions when we gave you the opportunity, we’ll just decide that the marriage statutes must include homosexual couples.

The only other alternative is for New Jersey to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex “marriage.” Since the court gave the legislature only 180 days in which to act, the state does not have sufficient time to get a constitutional amendment through the process.
Dana says:

October 25, 2006 at 10:12 pm

You know, so far we’ve got 45 states plus the federal government which have passed laws or constitutional amendments stating that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, while only one state recognizes same sex “marriage” as a marriage, and that was imposed by judicial fiat, not the will of the people expressed through either referenda or their state legislatures. You’d think that, in a democracy, such overwhelming public support would mean something, but apparently you’d be incorrect.
Great White Rat says:

October 25, 2006 at 10:38 pm

Oh great….once again the Supremes in my state have decided to make law, not interpet it. Excuse me while I put a bag over my head before appearing in public on this blog. Being from NJ is too embarrassing tonight.

Now, OTOH, this might open a window of opportunity for the Kean campaign, if he can pitch it right. This is a blue state, yes, but there’s still an undercurrent of uneasiness when the libs push their agenda too far too fast.
brad says:

October 25, 2006 at 11:34 pm

looks like the court is fine with ‘separate but equal.’
Big Bang Hunter says:

October 26, 2006 at 12:16 pm

– According to the Left, sometimes the Majority is wrong. They love to sight the civil rights laws to prop up this contentious position. We won’t talk about the majority of Dem Congress persons, conspicuously absent at the time that most of the legislature was passed on civil rights. That’s a “good” type of majority. Aren’t bromides wonderful.

– Bang
Dan Irving says:

October 26, 2006 at 12:30 pm

The sad fact is, when you have government deciding what its citizens can and cannot do (I’m not talking common law here) you get inequality. Why are our youth given the adult responsibility of fighting a war or determining our nation’s president yet prevented from exercising the adult right to drink? You can effectively die for your country before that country recognizes your right to consume alcohol.

Why should married couples alone be burdened with marriage taxes? I say let gay couples be equally screwed. Why are a subset of our citizens *not* given the same rights, privileges and yes, burden, as their fellow citizens? You’d think what with politicians wanting to repress .. err I mean represent the masses this one would be a no-brainer.

I find the whole idea that government, whether it be state or federal, can define what marriage is or is not rather abhorrent. It is yet one more way the state can control you as a private citizen. Maybe what we need is to do away with the term ‘marriage’. Don’t call it marriage (and avoid having to redefine) and come up with a new term (civil union works nice) that can encompass all our citizens equally. That way, those that want to call it a marriage can, those that think marriage is only man/woman won’t have their belief challenged.
Big Bang Hunter says:

October 26, 2006 at 12:59 pm

– Sexual preference is not a political issue, it’s a personal choice. There are other ways to look for normalization. Government has no business even getting involved. Legal recognition is a states rights thing. If we go down that path, and begin legislating every sort of personal kink, how long before Uncles petition for marrying their Neices, ect. Once you except sexual preference as a legitimate political issue, you’ll need to give equal “rights” to any and all alternate life styles. One hell of a slippery slope. Just keep it all in the bedroom where it belongs.

– Bang
Dana says:

October 26, 2006 at 9:47 pm

Bang wrote:

Just keep it all in the bedroom where it belongs.

But Bang, don’t you understand; our liberal friends don’t want to keep homosexuality in the bedroom, because that means only tolerance. Rather, they want to shove it in our faces because they want, they demand not tolerance but acceptance.

This is really hugely important to them. Their interests are in having ~~normal~~ straight people accept their relationships as just as reasonable and right and valid as those among heterosexuals.
Severian says:

October 26, 2006 at 10:52 pm

I think, Dana, that it goes beyond wanting acceptance and moves into the area of wanting to be lauded, praised, given special treatment, and made a fuss over. Homosexuality has gone from “the love that dar not speakit’s name” to “the love that won’t shut the hell up.”
Marshall Art says:

October 27, 2006 at 12:03 am

Good one, Sev. Pardon me if I use that.

I think Medved has the best take. There is no rights problem with supporting traditional marriage. This is a matter of whether or not one relationship is equal or identical to another, and if all relationships are deserving of the same sanctioning by the state. The state recognizes the value of the unique nature of the blending of the sexes and the formation of a family which produces offspring. And ideally, that’s what a quality traditional marriage provides that is a benefit to society, and it’s that ideal that the state seeks to support for society’s sake. A gay relationship doesn’t provide that. It’s like American English. They are a great band that looks and sounds very much like the Beatles. But they aren’t the Beatles, and wouldn’t be given the time of day were the Beatles able to perform. They don’t produce like the Beatles or create like they do. The state acknowledges the value of the Beatles, but not their pale imitation, nor do they support any of the other imitations, such as brother/sister marriage or polygamy, etc.

Now regarding governments dictating who one can marry, or intrusion into personal affairs, it ain’t the government totally, but the people who have elected those who serve in our governments. In reality, it is one’s neighbor who is dictating these things, and it has that right. The people have the right to determine what they feel is acceptable behavior or acceptable relationships granted state sanctions or priveleges, and they do so through their elected reps, which is how it’s supposed to work. Just as in Massachusetts, the New Jersey Supremes are out of line.
Tas says:

October 28, 2006 at 6:05 pm

Why dost thou concern yourself with the mote in your brother’s eye, when you have a beam in your own eye?

In other words, stop hating. I bet each and every one of you eat shrimp, catfish, mussels, and do not relegate your female relatives to isolation for seven days during their menstral cycle, either. Yert failure to comply with these requirements is an abomination, according to the Bible.
Baklava says:

October 28, 2006 at 11:36 pm

Not in the new testament Tas.

Christ cast off the 1,000 rules like the ones where you could only walk so many steps on Sunday etc. etc. etc.

This is a fundamental understanding. You didn’t know this?

Comments are closed.