NJ Court Stops Short of Gay Marriage OK

[JohnnyK]

breitbart.com/news/2006/10/25/D8KVRMU02.html

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.
Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

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.

 

[BioCatholic]

It’s actually an excellent opinion. It puts the ball entirely in the Legislature’s and People’s court. The Legislature can amend the statutes as it sees fit, or the Governor can call for a special referendum to amend the Constitution to prohibit or allow same-sex marriage.

The Court just said, “As we read the NJ Constitution and statutes right now, we can’t find ANY reference to prohibition of same-sex marriage”. They decided to let the Legislature legislate.

this is what courts should do. if the Legislature does not address it, then the NJ Constitution in no way prohibits same-sex marriage. It is up to the People now.

 

[rpp]

So the intention of the framers of New Jersey’s constitution 200+ years ago was to have sodomites marry? I suspect that is not the case. This was an utterly wrong-headed decision that separates the clear intent of the framers’ with what was written down. This is exactly what is meant by “activist judges”, seeing things “rights” that are not there.

Sick! Sick! Sick!

 

[WanderAimlessly]

This actually surprises me. I thought for sure NJ’s court would open the floodgates. However, expect action if no action or the “wrong type” of action by the legislature

 

[Maxply]

I’m looking forward to the homosexual marriage issue causing people to revisit/revise their views of homosexuality, and realize that homosexuality really is a complex phenomenon, not merely a genetic one. Check Jeffrey Satinover’s book.

 

[Digitonomy]

So the intention of the framers of New Jersey’s constitution 200+ years ago was to have sodomites marry? I suspect that is not the case. This was an utterly wrong-headed decision that separates the clear intent of the framers’ with what was written down. This is exactly what is meant by “activist judges”, seeing things “rights” that are not there.Sick! Sick! Sick!

New Jersey’s constitution is only about 60 years old.

 

[BioCatholic]

So the intention of the framers of New Jersey’s constitution 200+ years ago was to have sodomites marry? I suspect that is not the case. This was an utterly wrong-headed decision that separates the clear intent of the framers’ with what was written down. This is exactly what is meant by “activist judges”, seeing things “rights” that are not there.

Sick! Sick! Sick!

The court did what Conservatives have been screaming for Judges to do. They looked at the Constitution, didn’t find anything, and actually said they didn’t find anything, EITHER WAY. They said “Uhhh, guys, we don’t see any prohibition in the statutes or Constitution against same-sex marriage. We’d better let the Legislature decide this one”.

They didn’t “find any rights”. They were asked if the NJ Constitution or statutes prohibited same-sex marriage. They ruled it did not. They were asked to interpret, as judges ultimate purpose is to do. They found no prohibition, and told the Legislature that it had better address this issue through legislation, because NJ law is virutally SILENT on this issue. They basically said “We can’t rule on this issue, because there is nothing to rule on”. Activist? how dare they not rule in Conservatives favor. That seems to be the definition of an activist judge.

Karl Rove has destroyed an Independant Judiciary with his political tactics to win Bush’s campaigns. People complain about judge’s decisions, but never actually read the opinion. They take the word of some underpaid journalist who summarizes 50 page documents in 5 sentences.

so while we’re on the “activist” subject. How about Congress, led by Republicans, stripping Florida courts of 200 years Jurisprudence, and remanding a state-level case to Federal court? I thought Congress made legislation “related to or affecting interstate commerce”. They have the power to determine FEDERAL jurisdiction, but cannot overturn a STATE court’s decision, as they did in 2005. how activist is that?

 

[Karin]

breitbart.com/news/2006/10/25/D8KVRMU02.html

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.
Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

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.

Doesn’t this make you proud to be from NJ
AHH…just another reason to get out of this “hell hole” of a state since we can be pretty sure that lawmakers are not going to make the right choice

 

[Holly3278]

Oh geese. Well, at least they didn’t approve of gay marriage.

 

[Zelopes]

This is a campaign for rights to some people. In a nutshell, as I recall, it all started by the claim that these were actually sick people who needed, if nothing else, every person’s compassion or, at the very least, to let them alone, in the absence of any known treatment for the alleged sickness. This seemed reasonable.

Later, the idea that sick people would organize parades to publicly proclaim their pride for… being sick looked, at least, quite unusual, started to spread around! In truth, it seemed really strange. Sick people would rather seek treatment than proclaim pride.

Then it evolved to the issue of freedoms and choices… Well, this sounded a little more like it… But it still didn’t look right. If Mother Nature would have wanted people to sexually associate the way lesbians and gays do, wouldn’t Nature rather have made us hermaphrodites? If nothing else, just to secure the survival of the species… Instead, having made people with just one sex, male or female, it seems that any behavior that contradicts the originally intended purpose would have to be considered abnormal or as a deviation. Sicknesses and abnormalities usually drive people to seek treatment, not to proclaim pride.

On the other hand, if the issue is freedom of sexual orientation or choice, it doesn’t seem reasonable, since it would ultimately drive humanity to extinction. Now, it is true that the world population may be growing to high too fast, but still, human population control is one thing. Another very different one is running head-on towards extinction.

Outside of this frame, as simplistic as it may seem, I personally have nothing against gays and lesbians, except when it comes to the adoption of children by gay couples, which I most vehemently oppose.

I do defend the idea that these, like any other people, as human beings, deserve to be respected and to not be subject to any kind of discrimination. But what is going on seems to be much more than this. In order to survive, Nature intended that marriage is between a male and a female.

Not intending to offend anyone, this is what I sincerely think.