The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court’s vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
The decision mirrors the one made in 1999 by Vermont’s highest court, which prompted its legislature to create civil unions for same-sex couples, with the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.
The New Jersey high court held that state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from receiving the “financial and social benefits and privileges” of marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution and served no “legitimate governmental purpose.”
The biggest problem this decision faces is that the issue is now handed back to politicians for possible resolution. Anyone else old enough to remember when you could expect leadership — instead of opportunism and reaction — from politicians on a controversial issue?
Does anyone else see a problem with the courts making laws?
Activist judges of the world unite!
Now, watch the NJ house come up with new wording to get around the court ruling, without same-sex unions being granted.
We’ll explain freshman civics to y’all some other day.
NOOOOOOOOO
Canada needs these Smarter Than Average, often Professionals, to immigrate to our great country. Igloos are not necessary, just a passtime, if you live within 500 miles north of the US border. Really!!! Come visit in January, it’s not that bad.
Plus, as a Canadian, same sex couples can travel cheaply and safely to great holiday resorts like Cuba, friendly customs inspectors on the way back too!
(Deep breath, chest fills with pride – pun intended)
1 Does anyone else see a problem with the courts making laws?
Nope.
Anything that gets our elected representatives off the fund-raising circuit long enough to actually legislate is fine by me.
It’s New Jersey for Christ sake. It’s not like there’s going to be a lot of gays moving there. 🙂
Every time I see or hear this issue I think, “what’s the big deal about workers wanting to join a union for men or women only?”
2 countries divided by a common language indeed.
Jack.
#5, you make a good point
#6, you make a good point
Still, the courts making laws sort of takes the power of law-making from the legislature. The courts are supposed to make rulings based on the laws as the legislature makes the laws. That’s what I was taught in freshman civics, but again, that was in US public schools.
#7. what?
#8 — so are you ignorant of our history or just playing little semantic games? By your reasoning, then, our courts shouldn’t have overturned or reinterpreted the validity of laws guaranteeing slavery, discrimination and other bits of our foolish past.
Or has culture caught up to homophobes well enough to push them into these cul-de-sac trips — preferring intellectual dishonesty to overt bigotry?
For people that complain about the judges, Remember that blacks are 3/5 human afterall.
> The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to
> either change state marriage laws to include same-sex
> couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil
> unions, that would provide the same protections and
> benefits.
I fully endorse same sex marriage. However, achieving it in this way goes against the core princples in which the Founding Fathers believed. It is fundamentally wrong for the Courts to dictate to the legislature which laws they will accept.
10—Abraham Lincoln did that.
>our courts shouldn’t have overturned or reinterpreted the validity of laws >guaranteeing slavery, discrimination and other bits of our foolish past.
The courts overturned an anti-slavery law and said slavery was a constitutional right. Even if you’re right about all these good decisions, you can get good results from a king too. Should we just cancel the elections?
Cripes — listening to a few of the fearful, here — you’d think we shouldn’t have courts as part of the tripartite system of checks and balances. Just leave everything entirely up to politicians, right? As long as they’re your politicians.
Even the Founding Mothers didn’t put themselves in that trick bag.
I am more comfortable with courts making these kinds of rulings than activists legistlators who continually put forward assinine anti-flag dessicration bills or videogame violence bills or activist cabinet members who make up terms like “enemy combatant,” decide to wiretap Americans without going through established proceedures, or say that the Geneva convention is “quaint.”
If we are worried about “activists” in government, I think that activist judges are low on the list of the activists to be worried about.
“Courts making laws” ?
You people are really dishonest, or just blame dumb. The courts are not ‘making laws’. The job of the courts is to decide the boundaries of existing laws in areas that are vaguely defined, and ultimately the constitutionality of the law (State or Federal). I love that Republicans don’t mind the “activists judges” when they agree with the outcome. If the courts overturned some environmental regulation that benefits Exxon, you “intellectuals” wouldn’t scream that they’re being activists judges. You just say the courts are fairly overturning bad regulations, not making environmental law. But when you don’t like the decision…you whine like spoiled children. You can’t have it both ways.
“Courts making laws” – Anyone here know of a little old president called judicial review? Marbury vs. Madison?
Neocons, fundies and other ignorant types please please read a basic law book.
12 It is fundamentally wrong for the Courts to dictate to the legislature which laws they will accept.
Why?
Isn’t that why we have courts?
Is it fundamentally wrong for a President or Governor to dictate to legislatures which laws they will accept – or veto?
The Court is saying the law contradicts the state’s contitution. The Court can only say that because someone was willing to carry a complaint all the way to them…
You can:
a. Work to change the law
b. Work to change the constitution
c. Move to another state
d. bitch about “judicial activism” on some blog…
#13 Lincoln only outlawed slavery in the Confederate States, which technically were not within his jourisdiction at the time.
Slavery remained the law of the land as far as the federal government of the United States of America was concerned, and remained in effect in Kentucky until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in December, 1965, after Lincoln’s death.
Don’t they teach history anymore?
#8 – Still, the courts making laws sort of takes the power of law-making from the legislature. The courts are supposed to make rulings based on the laws as the legislature makes the laws. That’s what I was taught in freshman civics, but again, that was in US public schools.
Comment by WokTiny — 10/26/2006 @ 7:02 am
You say making laws. I say interpretting or applying laws.
Politics, rhetoric, semantics…. I think I understand now why people hate politics (and I don’t). I actually like the debate and I like that the debate is based on the precision of words.
I know YOU didn’t say it, but we’ve all heard conservatives talking about “activist” judges for quite some time. Activist, in the context in which they use it, means “judges who make decisions I don’t agree with.” Yes it does. No, don’t start with that, you know that’s what it means… and liberals probably feel the same way about conservative judges, only we tend to characterize it as “pushing an agenda” or something equally divisive.
In reality, I think judges, whether I like them or not, are doing what they are supposed to do. I think “the community standards” test that the SCOTUS gave us from whatever that famous obscenity case was is total BS. But the union stood and I’m still alive, so I guess it’s all okay.
But I really do not in a million years understand the right’s objection to civil unions. I almost understand the objection to marriage, though I disagree, but isn’t a civil union the perfect compromise? (unless you happen to just be a raging homophobic bigot)
But I really do not in a million years understand the right’s objection to civil unions. I almost understand the objection to marriage, though I disagree, but isn’t a civil union the perfect compromise? (unless you happen to just be a raging homophobic bigot)
Well, usually I hear such raging objections as “dogs will marry cats! people will marry sheep!” etc. (Okay… what’s the obvious problem with that? a challenge to the commenters) Polygamy (being married to more than one person at a time) is objectionable to most, but shifting from one spouse to another after a quickie divorce is OK?
Also… for the government, marriage is a CONTRACT.. an agreement to certain conditions and legal obligations. What a particular religion makes of it is irrelevant.
Personally, I rather like what R.A.Heinlein had in several books, where there were limited length marriage contracts, or lifelong commitments.
J/P=?
Shouldn’t be long before the courts yield to my basic right to to legally marry an ape. (Though I think of some of the women I used to date…)
RBG
“As a supporter of the Great Ape Project – a movement to extend human rights to all great apes – (Richard) Dawkins contributed an article to the Great Ape Project book entitled Gaps In The Mind, in which he criticised contemporary society’s moral attitudes as being based on a “discontinuous, speciesist imperative”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7689
I don’t see why Gays want to be married. Half of all marriages end in divorce. The other half end in death. Having been through the courts myself they better be careful what they wish for. I’m waiting for the time when one man is paying spousal support to another man who is shacked up with a third man.
wow, there’s a lot of anger and aggression here. you guys have some valid points, like #10’s point to slavery, but why so hostile? I’m not ‘whining’ or ‘bitching’ about ‘activist’ judges (a word I haven’t even used). I’m not even talking about homosexuals or marriage! All the insults and name calling makes it difficult for me to sift out the genuinely correct information; how is an ignorant chap such as myself supposed to learn?
For the record, I’m not even ‘right wing’ or a Republican. Furthermore ‘activist’ to me means someone who has the courage to stand up for what they believe, which is respectable (admirable, even), without regard to whether I agree with their cause or decisions.
#21, I know YOU didn’t say it, but
thanks for recognizing what I *didn’t* say … instead of attacking me for what other people say, that I remind you of.
I think I understand now why people hate politics (and I don’t). I actually like the debate and I like that the debate is based on the precision of words.
conflict as we may, I am glad to see someone that recognizes that words have precise meanings.
The legislature has 2 options, comply with their state constitution, or change it.
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The court did not make any new laws, only determined that the existing laws did not pass constitutional muster and would need to be changed. It is now up to the legislature to change the laws to comply.
I feel that gay marriage or civil unions are inevitable. So like it or not, everyone needs to start getting used to the idea. Even if your religion forbids such a thing, you cannot apply your religious beliefs on the rest of society. I am an atheist, but have been happily married for 21 years. Does the fact that I don’t believe that your god has sanctified the union with my wife make it any less valid in the eyes of the state.
Don
The legislature has 2 options, comply with their state constitution, or change it.
Perfectly clear, thanks.
Inevitable? Probably.
Without regard to religion, our government is basically ‘.. by the people’ and the citizens have influence on the law, thus (representative) democracy. That said, if the people want something, or don’t want something, as a majority, whether or not their reasons are religious, the law (legislature) is obligated to comply. Is that not democracy?
Therefore, I see this conflict not as an issue of religion, but as an issue of a population divided until the laws comform to either the majority of people, or the loudest of people. It just so happens that a portion of the people’s opinions are religiously inspired.
#27
First… This is an online comminity, and as such it is loaded with different netizens. There are several in the community who I would happily offend, insult, kick in the teeth, whatever, if such should serve my Machiavellian desires… You are NOT one of them. You one of the majority here who i like and respect. You are a reasoned voice and disagreeing with you is always a pleasure… So I hope you didn’t think I was refering to you in my answer above.
That said, if the people want something, or don’t want something, as a majority, whether or not their reasons are religious, the law (legislature) is obligated to comply. Is that not democracy?
I guess a pure democracy can be described that way. To a degree, that is what they have in California, where citizens have far too much access to change government. In Cali, they can, on a whim, yank a governor from office and replace him with an actor, thus they can deny the majority of voters who voted for Davis in the first place the right to have that choice serve out his term.
I used to think that we should have national referendums on issues, and maybe we should… but after seeing Prop 187 get passed and Davis get ousted, I’m not so sure. It seems like a recipe for mob rules and whimsical course corrections with devastating effects.
The system we have is designed to protect minority opinion, and it is designed to make change happen slowly so that reasoned and thoughtful debate (not that it really happens 🙂 ) can prevail.
I like that politics is a game of gain by inches rather than sudden shifts. Change, especially progressive change, is easier for everyone if it is gradual.
#20 Lincoln only outlawed slavery in the Confederate States, which technically were not within his jurisdiction at the time.
Well, that’s what the whole war was about, wasn’t it — whether states could unilaterally secede from the jurisdiction of the Federal government?
And actually, at the time this was proclaimed, about 50% of the rebel territory was under the control of Federal troops. So clearly within Lincoln’s jurisdiction.
#28 I used to think that we should have national referendums on issues, and maybe we should… but after seeing Prop 187 get passed and Davis get ousted, I’m not so sure. It seems like a recipe for mob rules and whimsical course corrections with devastating effects.
IMO, that is the fundamental problem with democracy, which, I suppose, is why we have a ‘representative democracy’ or a ‘democratic republic’; which is almost a solution.
(any total solution would be and ideal that would probably involve a revokation of free will, yeilding unwillfully happy citizens?)