LGBT NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by NOVAJock, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
    28 minutes ago

    TRENTON, N.J. - 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.

    The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
    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.

    "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 4-3 majority's decision.

    Outside the Supreme Court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant. Many started to agree that they needed to push for a state constitutional amendment to institute gay marriage.

    Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay and lesbian political organization quickly announced Wednesday that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to get full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

    Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law the Legislature passed in 2004 giving gay couples some benefits of marriage, such as the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and healthcare coverage for state workers.

    Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.

    Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts including New York, Washington, and in both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

    They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

    Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven by gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

    "New Jersey is a stepping stone," said Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. "It's not about New Jersey."
     
  2. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    ...a major mistake. :hs:
     
  3. Navvik

    Navvik Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    why?
     
  4. OakleyTodd

    OakleyTodd New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The harder you push an issue on people, the harder they will fight back against it!

    The 2004 election was a perfect example. That was the year that something like 11 or 12 states all passed constitutional bans on it. Me personally, I think civil unions are the answer. Funny, cause if you read the story, that means I actually agree with a Democrat Governer!
     
  5. Navvik

    Navvik Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    but the pres pushed the issued of social security and the war on iraq...
    i think its the way you push an issue that gets results. simply because it was banned in 11 states doenst mean jack, lookit those states in general. right wing conseratives and republicans. though.... you may be right
     
  6. suckmyexhaust

    suckmyexhaust New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Fl
    When you force an issue to be delt with, that ill create opposition unless you have a few parties agreeing on it.
     
  7. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    ...legislative combat is not easy, or as simply as so many think it to be. I fully agree with NOVA's comment.

    If 'we' really want such a thing to get pushed through we would have to be a hell of lot more politically manipulative and 'brokered'. 'We' tend to be more politically short-sighted in our goals...and therefor juvenile.
     
  8. RedVsBlue

    RedVsBlue Penguins > *

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Another reality apparently
    They made the right decision. It isnt the courts job to make law on social issues. Judge Scalia of the Supreme Court just gave a speach about how courts need to stop making law that isnt there, and leave that up to the lawmakers.

    The court made the correct constitutional decision. Its good to see our process still works sometimes. Now it goes to the lawmakers, where it should be. Now to see how well the lawmakers represent the will of the people.
     
  9. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    ...such a very interesting topic, this Judicial -VS- Legislative.

    What happens when the 'will of the people' differers from the foundation of which our society was built? What should happen in cases when the majority seek to legally discriminate against a minority?

    Although RedVcBlue is correct in saying that it is not for Judges to make laws, and that lawmakers alone has that power. BUT, the ultimate power of the judicial branch is that it interprets the laws made by the legislative, and determines when any are unconstitutional.

    So, this becomes very interesting indeed.
     
  10. RedVsBlue

    RedVsBlue Penguins > *

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Another reality apparently
    I agree, and am somewhat torn, and this is where I see our form of government as faulty.

    The judicial system should protect the minority, but at the same time it isnt their job to make law. The laws are made by congress, who are supposed to represent the majority opinion of the people they represent.

    However, we are also talking about constitutional ammendments here. A judge should not have the power to rule an ammendment unconstitutional, because an ammendment is part of the constitution.

    Overall its a big circle of political BS, and its designed so those in power can always place the blame on someone else.

    Honestly, I dont see why social issues like this should be any part of the constitutional or legal process. Personal issues should not be decided by anyone but the people themselves.

    Marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, should not be regulated by law. The law shouldnt decide how people conduct their daily lives except the actions which directly affect other people.

    Libertarianism FTW. Let the people live thier lives, let the government due its intended purpose of protecting us (although not from ourselves) all. There shouldnt be dividing issues like this brought into politics. Once again, personal lives and decisions should not be decided on a political level.

    Sadly, it seems much of the country now disagrees with these statements. Both sides of every argument want the government to step in and enforce their will upon everyone else, instead of letting each individual live thier own life with their constitutional guarantee to the pursuit of happiness.
     
  11. Fate13

    Fate13 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    back to the point at hand... we as a community are not only short sighted politically, we are also very unorganized and split nationally. We would need to become a stronger singular force with a decent leadership. We lack a Martian Luther King Jr. type leader and many ppl in the community seem to be aloof when it come to politics IMO. However i do think we need to push this in order for change to happen, if we don't then we as the minority will be overlooked and the majority will strip/deny us our rights.
     

Share This Page