Latest from NJ

[Joz]

(AP) TRENTON New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions......
http://cbs3.com/local/local_story_297212127.html


Needs Adobe to read
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

 

[glockmail]

I didn't know that marriage was a right.

 

[Mr. P]

I didn't know that marriage was a right.

I don't think that's what they mean. It's more like

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

 

[glockmail]

I don't think that's what they mean. It's more like

The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood, and a spouse of the opposite sex to assist in their upbringing, both moot points in a gay relationship.

 

[Mr. P]

The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood, and a spouse of the opposite sex to assist in their upbringing, both moot points in a gay relationship.

You can do that and never be married. It's much more, but this is not about marriage.

 

[KarlMarx]

This is the most brazen, most egregious abuse of judicial powers that I can imagine! This is the same shit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court pulled a couple of years ago.

Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books.

What if the New Jersey State Legislature can't come to an agreement on the terms of gay marriage? What then? Is the judge going to have the entire New Jersey State Legislature thrown in jail for contempt of court?

I can think of an example.

Someone is brought into court for stealing. Judge says, "you broke the law because the law says you can't steal". The defendant says "I stole because I was hungry", then the judge says "OK, State Legislature, you have 180 days to amend the state constitution to make theft by hungry persons legal".

What? It sounds stupid? It sounds insane? Well, it is! And this ruling is nothing better.

And speaking of rights that are in the Constitution. What about the voters of New Jersey? Has the judiciary of that state suddenly taken away their right to decide on this issue? I thought voting on rights not enumerated in the US Constitution was a right, per the 10th amendment.

 

[Mr. P]

This is the most brazen, most egregious abuse of judicial powers that I can imagine! This is the same shit that the Massachusetts Supreme Court pulled a couple of years ago.

Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books.

....

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled based on the Massachusetts Constitution. That is hardly an abuse of judicial powers. The court simply sent it to those who make the laws for correction based on the Massachusetts Constitution.

 

[KarlMarx]

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled based on the Massachusetts Constitution. That is hardly an abuse of judicial powers. The court simply sent it to those who make the laws for correction based on the Massachusetts Constitution.

I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state?

I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court toldthe Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.

Sorry guy, this isn't about gay vs. straight, this is about an overstepping of powers. The court could have ordered the Legislature to outlaw peanut butter or mandate that Urdu be taught in public schools, it wouldn't make any difference.

I wonder what people's reaction would be if George W Bush told the Supreme Court to rule on decisions a certain way? Or if the President ordered the Congress to pass certain laws? Would people call him a dictator? Yes, and he would be, too. This is no different.

 

[dmp]

I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state?

I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court toldthe Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.

Sorry guy, this isn't about gay vs. straight, this is about an overstepping of powers. The court could have ordered the Legislature to outlaw peanut butter or mandate that Urdu be taught in public schools, it wouldn't make any difference.

I wonder what people's reaction would be if George W Bush told the Supreme Court to rule on decisions a certain way? Or if the President ordered the Congress to pass certain laws? Would people call him a dictator? Yes, and he would be, too. This is no different.

You nailed it. Well done.

 

[Mr. P]

I have to wonder, how gay marriage is in the Constitution of any state?

I believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Court toldthe Legislature to pass gay marriage. They also gave them a deadline (6 months)... what is that? It sounds like an order to me. Like a court order... "do it or else" kind of order.

Sorry guy, this isn't about gay vs. straight, this is about an overstepping of powers. The court could have ordered the Legislature to outlaw peanut butter or mandate that Urdu be taught in public schools, it wouldn't make any difference.

I wonder what people's reaction would be if George W Bush told the Supreme Court to rule on decisions a certain way? Or if the President ordered the Congress to pass certain laws? Would people call him a dictator? Yes, and he would be, too. This is no different.

I don't see it that way.

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.

The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.

That's how I see it too.

 

[glockmail]

You can do that and never be married. It's much more, but this is not about marriage.

You can have a spouse and not be married? Explain.

 

[glockmail]

.....

Judges do not have the right to order the legislature to write laws and pass laws. They are only supposed to be interpreting the ones on the books......

New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.

[from post 1 link, emphasis mine]

You are right Karl, this is egregious! I’d have to check the NJ State constitution, but I can’t see how the Judicial branch would have the authority to force the Legislative branch to write a new law. All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional.

With regards to the “right” of homosexuals to have the same benefits of marriage, that’s like saying a blind man should have the right to drive a car. It’s preposterous!

 

[Mr. P]

You can have a spouse and not be married? Explain.

Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
The main benefits of marriage are the Blessing of children from my own flesh and blood,

You can do that and never be married. Get it?

 

[jillian]

[from post 1 link, emphasis mine]

You are right Karl, this is egregious! I’d have to check the NJ State constitution,

Because you have what education in the area of Constitutional Construction which would allow you to determine the issue definitively when great jurists are divided on many of these issues?

but I can’t see how the Judicial branch would have the authority to force the Legislative branch to write a new law. All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional.

Courts have often directed the legislature to remedy a situation which they feel violates the equal protection clause. I'd draw your attention to Brown v. The Board of Ed. and Bakke v. Regents of California.

With regards to the “right” of homosexuals to have the same benefits of marriage, that’s like saying a blind man should have the right to drive a car. It’s preposterous!

And that analogy works for you because????

 

[Mr. P]

All they have the authority to do is to void existing laws if they are unconstitutional.

This is what they did, and said fix it. If they don't, I have no doubt it will move to the USSC.

 

[glockmail]

You can do that and never be married. Get it?

I must be missing something: Main Entry: 1spouse
Pronunciation: 'spaus also 'spauz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French espus (masculine) & espuse (feminine), from Latin sponsus betrothed man, groom & sponsa betrothed woman, bride, both from sponsus, past participle of spondEre to promise, betroth; akin to Greek spendein to pour a libation, Hittite sipant-
: married person : HUSBAND, WIFE

[m-w-com]

 

[glockmail]

Because you have what education ..... because????

Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.

 

[jillian]

Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.

Have you ever asked anything that made sense? Musta missed it. :
:talk2:

 

[Annie]

Links:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_22-2006_10_28.shtml#1161812027

[Eugene Volokh, October 25, 2006 at 5:33pm] 5 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Gay Rights Laws, Slippery Slopes, and a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Civil Unions:

The New Jersey Supreme Court has just held that the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection principles require the legislature to recognize at least same-sex civil unions. (Whether the legislature must recognize outright same-sex marriage is left open.) I'm not sure I'll have much to add on the big picture questions this raises, but I did want to note one thing -- this decision, whether you like it or not, seems to be an illustration that the slippery slope is a real phenomenon. Even when there are conceptually quite clear distinctions that could be used to distinguish the first step A from the final step B, A may nonetheless help bring B about.

Consider how the decision relies on the enactment of past gay rights laws. The backers of such laws often argue that these laws do not create a slippery slope towards same-sex marriage or civil unions. Thus, for instance, an editorial in the Boston Globe, Oct. 15, 1989, at A30, said "[A proposed antidiscrimination law barring sexual orientation discrimination in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing] does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights." See also Phil Pitchford, Council Members Wary of Partner Registry, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Apr. 30, 1994, at B1, quoting Riverside Human Relations Commission member Kay Smith as saying that "[t]hose that truly have a problem with homosexuality will see [a domestic partnership proposal] as part of the 'slippery slope' [toward gay marriages] . . . . But, this legislation needs to be looked at on the face value of what it is, and it really does very little." And see the Editorial, A Vote Against Hate, Louisville Courier-J., Feb. 3, 1994, at 6A, rejecting as "arrant nonsense" the claim that a hate crime law "would lead to acceptance of gay marriages."

Yet the New Jersey Supreme Court's equal protection argument begins by citing such non-same-sex-marriage, non-civil-union gay rights laws (citations omitted):

In addressing plaintiffs’ claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

In 1974, a New Jersey court held that the parental visitation rights of a divorced homosexual father could not be denied or restricted based on his sexual orientation. Five years later, the Appellate Division stated that the custodial rights of a mother could not be denied or impaired because she was a lesbian. This State was one of the first in the nation to judicially recognize the right of an individual to adopt a same-sex partner’s biological child. Additionally, this Court has acknowledged that a woman can be the “psychological parent” of children born to her former same-sex partner during their committed relationship, entitling the woman to visitation with the children. Recently, our Appellate Division held that under New Jersey’s change of name statute an individual could assume the surname of a same-sex partner.

Perhaps more significantly, New Jersey’s Legislature has been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination, New Jersey became the fifth state in the nation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “affectional or sexual orientation.” In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2004, the Legislature added “domestic partnership status” to the categories protected by the LAD.

The LAD guarantees that gays and lesbians, as well as samesex domestic partners, will not be subject to discrimination in pursuing employment opportunities, gaining access to public accommodations, obtaining housing and real property, seeking credit and loans from financial institutions, and engaging in business transactions. The LAD declares that access to those opportunities and basic needs of modern life is a civil right.

Additionally, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is outlawed in various other statutes. For example, the Legislature has made it a bias crime for a person to commit certain offenses with the purpose to intimidate an individual on account of sexual orientation, and has provided a civil cause of action against the offender. It is a crime for a public official to deny a person any “right, privilege, power or immunity” on the basis of sexual orientation. It is also unlawful to discriminate against gays and lesbians under the Local Public Contracts Law and the Public Schools Contracts Law. The Legislature, moreover, formed the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category, and required school districts to adopt antibullying and anti-intimidation policies to protect, among others, gays and lesbians.

In 2004, the Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, making available to committed same-sex couples “certain rights and benefits that are accorded to married couples under the laws of New Jersey.” With same-sex partners in mind, the Legislature declared that “[t]here are a significant number of individuals in this State who choose to live together in important personal, emotional and economic committed relationships,” and that those “mutually supportive relationships should be formally recognized by statute,” The Legislature also acknowledged that such relationships “assist the State by their establishment of a private network of support for the financial, physical and emotional health of their participants.” ...

In passing the Act, the Legislature expressed its clear understanding of the human dimension that propelled it to provide relief to same-sex couples. It emphasized that the need for committed same-sex partners “to have access to these rights and benefits is paramount in view of their essential relationship to any reasonable conception of basic human dignity and autonomy, and the extent to which they will play an integral role in enabling these persons to enjoy their familial relationships as domestic partners.” Aside from federal decisions such as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, this State’s decisional law and sweeping legislative enactments, which protect gays and lesbians from sexual orientation discrimination in all its virulent forms, provide committed same-sex couples with a strong interest in equality of treatment relative to comparable heterosexual couples.
​

Later in the case (opinion pages 48-49 and 51-52), the court refers back to this reasoning, and uses it as an integral part of its equal protection argument.

Now maybe this entire discussion, though detailed and prominently placed, is all makeweight; maybe the court would have reached the same result even if such laws hadn't been enacted, and would have found that something else besides those laws "provide committed same-sex couples with a strong interest in equality of treatment relative to comparable heterosexual couples." But if we take the New Jersey Supreme Court at its word, it sounds like in New Jersey antidiscrimination laws, domestic partnership laws, and hate crime laws did indeed help bring about same-sex civil unions, just as they did in Vermont (PDF pages 59-61) and, as to same-sex marriage, in Massachusetts.

One can condemn this slippery-slope effect, or praise it. (I support same-sex marriages and civil unions as a policy matter (see PDF page 37), but I don't think that state courts should mandate them as a constitutional matter.) But I think that one can't dismiss the possibility that slippery slope effects, good or bad, are indeed present here, and can be present in similar contexts. And this is so even when, as a purely logical matter, the initial steps (employment discrimination bans, domestic partnership laws, hate crimes laws, and the like) are eminently distinguishable from the final step (same-sex civil unions).

Related Posts (on one page):

1. Gay Rights Laws, Slippery Slopes, and a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Civil Unions:
2. Third Way Result in New Jersey Marriage Case:

 

[Mr. P]

Sorry missy. You don't get to ignore my specific questions on most other threads and then get answers to your questions from me.

Sheeewwww I'll keep that in mind, still waiting for some answers from you myself. It seems you only twist and ask though. Oh well.