NJ And You

Perfectly liberal. The problem isn't even the result, it's how they get there. Apparently now the Courts get to instruct the legislature what laws to write and when to write them.

No activism there, not much. Unfortunately, NJ is such a wasteland of Liberalism, I doubt they'll even challenge the ruling. As long as the lame ass politicians here get to keep their hand in the till, they'll run along and do precisely what the court dictates. Why should they care about separation of powers so long as the corrupt cash keeps flowing their way?

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

But the court left it to the Legislature to 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 the 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.

Comments

[Ed Muntin]

Who was this activist judge?

Is he member of either party?
From which party was the Governor who appointed him?

I sure hope we get this matter cleared up before the mid-terms.

[mylena]

I wouldn't call it liberalism, I call it no interference in people's personal life ...

[jaime]

Don Sherwood choked his mistress, Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife as she was fighting cancer, and Rush Limbaugh failed with 3 wives before gays ever got Married in Mass and NJ.

Half of your marriages will fail and gays have nothing to do with it.

[Gary Maxwell]

I have seen it described as a 4-3 decision. All the judges were appointed by Republican Christy Wittman or Democrat and closeted ( to his wife) gay Jim McGreevey. Wittman was never a conservative so some of her appointment could well be in the majority. I have not seen a breakdown of the vote by appointment yet.

[jpe]

Now you can pop the question to Alex P. Keaton. This should be a special day for you.

[IAMSICK]

HOW SWEET...BLAHHHHH, puke..puke.

[Purple Avenger]

I guess all those "Foley alienated evangelicals" are back in the boat eh?

Democrats -- developing poor timing into an art form.

[jaime]

"Democrats -- developing poor timing into an art form."

4 Americans died in Iraq yesterday, Dennis Hastert is being twisted in knots, republicans are being indicted or going to jail left and right, and King George has left the right high and dry by cutting and running from stay the course and you're all worried about teh gay?

[don surber]

"The problem isn't even the result, it's how they get there. Apparently now the Courts get to instruct the legislature what laws to write and when to write them."

Bing-O!

How queer that we get this King George crap over a decision by teh Imperial Judiciary of New Jersey

[jaime]

The Courts are the only branch of government not sucking on the Republican knob. As we've seen, to the right wing an activist court is one that rules against them...except when its a majority Republican appointed court. Then the "liberal" judges should be threatened with physical harm or impeachment.

Not one single "conservative" called Antonin Scalia a liberal activist judge when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Terri Schiavo case. Not one single "conservative" called Mark Pryor a liberal activist judge when the appeals court ruled against the Shindlers.

50 years ago the Don Surbers and Dan Riehls of the world would have been crying about how the imperial Judiciary of Earl Warren's court forced the good people of the south to have the negroes infect their schools when they forced the liberal agenda of "Brown v. BOE" down everyone's throats. Thank God for their imperiousness.

[Dan Riehl]

sucking on the Republican knob

Jaime's having a wet dream. LOL

[Tulkinghorn]

Activist court, my ass.

Just like in Massachusetts, the legislature has done nothing to clarify this area of the law for more than a decade. That is abdication on the part of the legislature. Naturally, nature abhors a vacuum.

But this is perfect for intellectually dishonest libertarian-authoritarians who are just looking for a object for their minute of hate.

Goldstein!

ps. Jaime is spot-on. Prove him wrong if you can.

[Dan Riehl]

the legislature has done nothing to clarify this area of the law for more than a decade.

Oh, I'd agree with that, on many issues. But it's a different issue.

[Tano]

As any one who understands the Constitution should know (especially conservatives!), our rights come not from government, but are our natural endowment as human beings. That was at the core of the truly revolutionary American revolution.

The government (all branches) does not dispense rights to the people. Rather it is the people who grant certain powers to the government, to do what needs to be done to insure the general welfare and the purusal of a more perfect union.

When exercising the powers that have been granted to it by the people, the government may not discriminate amongst the people, but must grant to each and everyone of us the equal protection of the law.

This ruling does not "grant the right" to civil unions. It rules merely that if the government grants priveleges, advantages, and legal recognition to some committed couples under the civil marriage statutes, then it cannot withold such priveleges, advantages and legal recognition to other such couples.

The "right" to live as a married couple is preexisting - and is part and parcel of our endowement as free people. The power of the government to grant or withold recognition of that status is the issue in question, and the Court properly found that to deny it to gay couples is not an equal application of the laws.

[melior]

Did I miss something, or did the Court just rule that the state Constitution requires equal treatment under the law?

So is this what you mean when you use the term "judicial activism"? Because I'm quite sure this kind of thing is what the Courts do on a regular basis.

See, the state Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on if the Court didn't issue rulings to ensure that the words on it, you know, mean something. Legally speaking. It's kind of their job, really, if you think about it.

I'm a little surprised you didn't get taught about it in school, but glad I could clear that up for you.

[larry]

and THIS, amigos, is why it's important to hold your nose and vote republican. the democrats know they can't sell their agenda to americans, because americans don't want it. they won't vote for it.

so, being democrats and interested only in power - in advancing the anti-american agenda - and not giving a damn about small things like 'is it moral' or 'is it legal', they have their programs instituted by fiat from the courts. they'd prefer to do it via congress: looks better, you understand.

but in the end, it's all the same to the liberals/totalitarians: the rubes will do as they are ordered!

voting gop slows judicial tyranny. judges who see the constitution as a guide, rather than an impediment to be run over, will only come from the gop. it's important to remind ourselves, (while its still legal to do so), that they're only judges. mere shysters wearing robes. not legislators. not gods.

[Tulkinghorn]

Tu>the legislature has done nothing to clarify this area of the law for more than a decade.

DE>Oh, I'd agree with that, on many issues. But it's a different issue.

But on the issue of whether the court's ruling is activist, it is the central issue.

The primal example is slavery in Massachusetts. The equal protection language was in the Mass. constitution but for the first three sessions of the Mass. legislature thereafter no law abolishing slavery in Massachusetts was passed. It was not a popular issue in the legislature, as no-one wanted to go on record either as pro-slavery or as anti-property rights. So a slave sued his master under the equal protection language in the constitution,the court was obliged to make a ruling in the case properly before it, and so had to do the legislature's job of abolishing slavery.

The court did a pretty poor job of it too, as the ruling was limited to the facts of the case, and certain types of slave were not freed by the ruling (IIRC, only adult slaves at the time of passing of the Mass constitution were affected, leaving enslaved children unemancipated). This took decades to work out as the heroic legislature persisted in dodging the issue for some time.

This precedent was not cited in the court's decision, but was discussed in great depth in the briefs for the Massachusetts case, and influenced the court greatly.

My point is that if the Mass. or NJ. legislatures had ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage, the courts would have given those rulings great deference. You can't give much deference to cowardly silence.

[Dan Riehl]

the state Constitution requires equal treatment under the law?

Oh, bullshit. You and I both know that when the document was written, the authors had absolutely no intention of granting the alleged right in question.

[Fred Beloit]

Much of the argument over gay marriage seems to me to be caused by a glaring flaw in our legal system. It is the feeling on the part of judges , and I'm afraid all lawyers, that they can change the meanings of words, even words that have had only one meaning for thousands of years. When, in the Bush/Gore election dust up, the Chief Judge of the Florida Supreme Court told David Boies that Florida law required that "all the votes be recounted", David's reply was, "It depends on how we define 'all the votes'." The learned judge did not disagree. He changed the subject. He should have said something like this instead: Mr. Boies, all means each and every one, and surely all of us know what vote means. Personally, I would have no problem with contracts that confer benefits, etc. But marriage, not now, not ever. Unless elected legislators decide to confer this right.

[yyy]

So what, the authors of the constitution had no intention of letting women vote, paying federal income taxes, freeing the slaves or a number of other things that have changed with the times.

What is the big deal about gay marriage, who cares? It isn't as if all of a sudden Catholic priests and evangelical ministers will be forced by the government to perform religious ceremonies for Brad and Steve...who cares?

We already let gay couples adopt children which is MUCH MORE against the natural scheme of things since children are being raised in a household that could not possibly have produced them, but letting Brad and Steve get married, who CARES?

How can gay marriage destroy marriage? For that matter, the respect for marriage among the straight crowd is pretty dismal, isnt' the real threat to marriage revolving divorces, infidelity and the feeling that if you don't like it all you have to do is change it up and find a new partner for life???

It is so utterly ridiculous that anyone would be up in arms about this issue it boggles my mind, but then I remember who it is...the right wing, religious Republican fanatics and it makes perfect sense.

[Fred Beloit]

One side of a debate whose main argument is "who cares?" seems to lack, shall we say, a little punch. Anyway, you seem to care a great deal based on the energy of your rant. What shall we decide in courts next year? Change the word green to red because there is so much more green in nature and red has fewer letters? The legal argument would be that writers on the subject of Nature have suffered damages because they use green so much that valuable time is lost in typing two more letters, and time is money.

[yyy]

Oh brother.

The brilliance of the constitution is in the fact that it was written to speak to the future, that is why [just like the geneva conventions] it is written in wide generalities dealing with issues in the broadest possible ways...freedom to speak, gather, freedom from government control and intrusion, freedom to dissent, due process, equality.

Therefore, the idea that if the word isn't in the constitution or the specific issue is not dealt with in the constitution then the framers would have been against it is ridiculous, which is why the strict interpretations by Scalia and co. are generally misguided.

[Davebo]

"What is the big deal about gay marriage, who cares?"

I agree, but keep in mind, we aren't even talking about "gay marriage" unless the state legislators decide they want it. Call it civil unions, or call it nothing other than allowing one group the same rights as another.

Of course, we know what it really is. Remember, the issue of gay marriage only threatens the sanctity of... well the sanctity of something, every two years in late summer and fall. It's a seasonal issue.

Which means that Dan, and those whining here, can only be one of two things. Either they are crafty political hacks lacking a shred of intellecutal honesty, or the most gullible dupes on the planet.

What's sad is I honestly can't tell which.

[SinCerely]

Let's face it. Seven judges sitting on a bench will not change the minds of the American people, and that is really what the gay agenda is about. Getting America to believe that poking one another in the ass is OK. Changing laws will not be an advantage for gays, the advantage will only come about when they change the minds of people. And that will not happen.

The NJ court voted 7-0 against giving equal marital rights to homosexuals. What they did vote on was to add "legal same sex unions" to be identified under the law. However, as in Mass, I suspect the people will speak out against the court as they have in other states.

The fight isn't over.

[yyy]

Oh it will change, just like the idea of working side by side with women was unthinkable 100 years ago and now is normal, same with blacks.

The challenge in a democracy is balancing the need to lead with the desires of the people...sometimes the 'people' need to be led to the right choices...like outlawing slavery, letting women vote, etc. and sometimes government needs to stay out of things and stop meddling, like forced busing and the welfare state.

[Jane]

"It rules merely that if the government grants priveleges, advantages, and legal recognition to some committed couples under the civil marriage statutes, then it cannot withold such priveleges, advantages and legal recognition to other such couples."

I agree with this. The Court called it a due process, equal protection issue, and I don't see how you can get it out of that realm. It's a better (legal) decision than in MA where the Court pretty much ignored the legislature, at least this brings the legislature into the mix.

I can't quite figure out why anyone would not want adults to have equal rights under the law. If you are against gay marriage, then don't marry a gay. Other than that, who cares?

[Fred Beloit]

Oh sister! Does yyy maintain, I wonder, that slavery's end and women's right to vote were widely unpopular at the time and where totally top down? What elite member of the court brought these things about, John Brown perhaps? And, pal, you had to proudly show your I AM INTOLERANT flag by stating that people who disagree with you are: "right wing, religious Republican fanatics". And, buddy, I never argued the word marriage was in The Constitution. It is in every dictionary, however. Finally, does reading all these comments, including your own, still cause you to ask, who cares?

[Jane]

You know Fred I hate to admit that I am old enough to have been a part of that whole - women entering the workplace- era. But I was.

There was an active emphasis on getting women into the scheme, and I certainly benefitted from it. It was not, however, "widely []popular as you suggest. I can remember encountering lots of men who were not overjoyed at the thought of women in the workplace.

Now my mother, a single woman with 2 children, was pretty much relegated to being a nurse, a teacher or a secretary in her era. You couldn't get into the workplace, no matter how talented you were.

(Contrast that with my nieces who have never seen any barriers (or benefits) from the whole woman entering the workplace thing.)

I agree with yyy - I see huge comparisons to the "women's movement" and the current gay issues on the table. Assimilation of any group is tough, but once the group figures out that assimilation is the point, not standing alone, it goes a lot easier. And trust me, there were lots of women out there who for years expected something extra, "because they were women". Luckily most of us were not that stupid.

You don't need to know who your doctor or lawyer is sleeping with, and it's hard to dislike someone you respect.

Oh and you have every right on this planet to think and believe that being gay is wrong. But in the end it is only your behavior you have control over.

[RFYoung]

Let them suck at the public trough. Pass out all of that good tax payer dollers. Remember the "categorical imperative".

If all of society were disfunctional gay blood-suckers then society would cease to exist. Therefore the society has a right to proscribe such behavior.

It is not a matter of whether an individual gets to suck the goverment teat, but whether the community can continue into the future.

[yyy]

As I remember, a war that left 600,000 Americans dead was fought, in part over state's rights to have or not have slaves, so um, yeah, I would say the issue of freeing the slaves was done from the top down, jesus christ. Considering that about half the states tried to leave the union I would say that not having the right to own slaves was WILDLY UNPOPULAR at the time to say the least.

I don't know about women's right to vote other than a lot of them were thrown in jail and there was a lot of opposition to it, from the 'general public'...

I never said it was the courts specifically, but said sometimes GOVERNMENT [note: we had at one time three branches of goverment designed to provide checks and balances against many things including too much executive power, bad, but popular ideas held by the majority and so forth] had to lead.

Yes, I think it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to be up in arms over gay marriage. If you are against gay marriage then attend a church that doesn't marry gays, don't marry a gay person, if you must go so far then don't associate with gays who want to get married, are married or gays AT ALL.

What is preventing gay marriage going to do for this country? Will it help our economy? affect the Iraq debacle? keep straight couples from divorcing? will legal gay marriage make a bunch of straight kids 'turn gay/

So, yeah, WHO CARES, it is a totally irrelevant, stupid issue that does not belong in any worthwhile dialog about the future of this country.

[Mary]

D I S G U S T I N G...

[Davebo]

I'm with RFYoung!

No blood suckers should be allowed to marry. Or even if they may not suck blood, but have unusually large canine teeth!

[Officious_Pedant]

I must admit to a certain amusement at the folks opposed to gay marriage. Particularly when I hear abotu them at the public trough, or where they put their genitalia, or how they undermine marriage. Why? Because none of you can back up those assertions.

Fred, in particular, is all up in arms about the Constitutional aspect (ignoring the 14th Amendment in the process), and then falls back on the dictionary for support of the "definition" of marriage. I invite Fred to read up on the Council of Trent, for some background on the institution he so zealously guards.

I encourage any of you to find a single case of a conservative attempt to prevent marrying incarcerated felonsm or having the prohibition enshrined into Constitutional law. I encourage you to identify a way, any way, in which gay couples represent a burden on the public teat or trough that is not reflected in the hetero community.

If any of that is too much for you, then I challenge you to define (as you would in a court filing) precisely how gay marriage undermines your marriage or the perceived worth of your marriage. I'll wait.

[Phoenix]

Just for the record, while there may have been a few women tossed in jail in the fight for women's right to vote, it was settled in about half an hour as the wives of legislators in DC all donned hats and marched to the Capitol and stood around in a polite group. All their husbands peered out the window at the spectacle and thought....'oh, no nookie for a week if I don't sign this bill'.

Looks as if sex ruled then - just as it seems to do now - albeit a 'different' kind of sex. The subject is certainly boring at this point, especially as FOX continues to show the damnedest ugliest same-sexers kissing. Just get that out of my sight and let's let our inner-bonobos loose and move on to the next oh-so-immoral topic.....like who gets to set morals, anyway?

[yyy]

Half an hour? Geeze you are an ass. Try reading up on your history...you know, little details like when the women's right to vote got started [1800's] and when women were universally granted the right to vote [1920]...even if you just start the clock at 1913, you are still talking several years.

[Phoenix]

"Geeze you are an ass."

Cool. Whyncha kiss it, Porn Queen. :)

[yyy]

You must have learned your non existant debating skills from Danny Boy...oooh, I am feeling so taken to task by your super intelligent and thoughtful retort.

OMG how did you fools ever get into power in the first place? Public school education must be much worse than anyone knows.

[jaime]

What this all boils down to is people's view that "Fags are icky"

Traditional marriage used to be one man 20 wives. Then it was arranged marriages where daughters were exchanged for land/power/title and a player to be named later.

If that picture Dan used were two hot women instead of two dumpy guys I bet gay marriage would do better with the focus group. That's why Fox news, and drudge, and Dan Riehl goes with the dumpy guys...to give the issue the ick factor.

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry, had to leave the discussion for a bit. Oh Jane, I never said I think and believe being gay is wrong. What did I write that gave you that idea? Reread my posts and see. As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults can do whatever they want. But I think judges changing the meaning of words is wrong. I also said if the people through their representatives want to legalize marriage, they can do so. I will honor it. Until then, if ever, they can make contractual arrangements to protect or formalize their long-term commitments, as far as I'm concerned. yyy, yes, doing away with owning slaves was unpopular with slaveholders. It was popular to some extent in the most populated areas, eg, the North. As for allowing women to vote and receive preferential treatment in the workplace, through so-called affirmative action, these were legislative, rather than judicial, outcomes.

[jaime]

"But I think judges changing the meaning of words is wrong."

I guess you're right. All men are created equal. Men and only men. Stupid liberal activist judges changing the meaning of the term "men".

[Jane]

Fred,

"But I think judges changing the meaning of words is wrong. "

I completely agree. And since they haven't done that here that I can see, we must be on the same page.

Your beef appears to be with the framers of the NJ constitution. Take it up with them.

[Fred Beloit]

jaime, I don't recall that court case. Can you tell me where I can look it up? Besides, not long ago, before the feminist movement, the word men DID mean women and men.

[yyy]

You cannot reduce judges to rubber stamping anything and everything that the legislature, or say, a whack job wanna be king president does.

Repeat after me...the point of the judicial branch is to provide a longer term view of these types of issues to be a counter balance to the executive and the legislative branch.

Legslatures pass laws.
Executives implement laws.
Judges interpret laws.

This is why the supreme law of the land resides not in the single president but in nine unelected supreme court justices serving life terms...to prevent a single wave in time from corrupting the court and the constitution.

And, of course, if the country is truly up in arms over any supreme court ruling or any judicial ruling then the legislature is FREE TO PASS LAWS to clarify whatever they want to.

For that matter, we could overturn Roe by passing a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, but of course, that will never happen, but is a legal option.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Jane, I thought we were discussing gay marriage and the law, not just NJ's version. But, what you said.

[Phoenix]

Porn Queen,

People might respond with more erudition to you except that you've proven yourself to be a selective reader so anxious are you to pick out words/phrases that you can turn into political talking points that you cannot seem to resist. You are like a broken record. Worse... you are boring. That is why you engender such insipid responses from those of us who have been reading your drivel for a while.

Case in point - I said the women's right to vote issue was 'settled' in half an hour. I did NOT belabor the history of it as I wanted to make the point about sex and the role it played back then and the role it is *still* playing now in our government. Hello? Is that kind of comprehension and curt synopsis beyond you and your blithering blather.

Now kiss my ass, cunt. <---- Male/female, since you use both chromosomes to identify yourself, it works.

[jaime]

"the word men DID mean women and men"

Oh, so words CAN have different meanings. Saying dog is cat or up means green is changing the meaning of the word. Men meaning men and women is a different interpretation and that's what judges are supposed to do.

[yyy]

Your point was that the male legislators voted in favor of giving women the right to vote so they would get sex from their wives....

Not really worth reading, writing let alone responding to...and of course, also, totally, completely untrue by any wild stretch of history or reality.

I could go into all the societal changes brought about by WWI which were the root cause of the women right to vote movement, but I think it is obviously over your head.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh Oh. yyy has taken out that big flag again. You know the one with the motto, "Ego est intollerantus" with a big emblem of a rampant moonbat. Please leave my President out of this, he is not involved. And I probably would decline to repeat anything after you, OK? Furthermore, I require no civics lessons from you, or any other kind of lessons really. Though it was very kind of you to offer. And I don't understand why you are interjecting Roe into this. Unless it is just a part of the old jerking left knee.

[Fred Beloit]

jaime,in my hand is a paperback Oxford American Dictionary, Printed 1980, so a little out of date. On page 402 we find the following definitions for the word man (hombre, verdad?):"1.a human being...2.mankind.3.an adult male person...) Now after all my hard work, you aren't going to dispute me on this are you? If you did I would be so disappointed.

[yyy]

Of course "your" president is involved, he's against gay marriage isn't he?

My point was that whining about 'activist' judges is just that WHINING, because the people have the power to make any change to the LAW they want to.

Soo, for example, when judges interpreted rape laws in a way that the public and legislature disagreed with, the laws were CHANGED. There was a famous case where the man admitted he had the his hands around the woman's throat, admitted she said no repeatedly but the PA supreme court overturned his conviction, they didn't think "force" was sufficiently proven. What happened, an outcry in PA and the laws were 'clarified' to prevent judges from wrongly interpreting them.

Sooo, if the country wants to outlaw gay marriage then we can amend the constitution to do so, just like we could amend the constitution to outlaw abortion, outlaw torture or anything else that 'we the people' want to do through the lesilative process.

If "we" the people or the legislature do not have sufficient motivation or votes to change the laws or clarify the laws that judges interpret then, that's life.