Gay Marriage In New Jersey, Its only Natural
Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 06:24AM
Thank you to the New Jersey State Supreme Court for showing the rest of America how you intend to have the people in New Jersey live under your rules.
And thank you for a beautiful example of something I was trying to put into simple terms anyone could understand when it comes to the education funding lawsuits here in our state. Here is a portion of the New Jersey “ruling”:
“4. Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution. (pp. 28-33)”
So the New Jersey Supreme Court can not find that this new type of marriage (there is a new twist on that as well) is a fundamental right? Funny. That is just like the New Hampshire State Supreme Court which could not find that education was a “fundamental” right. No matter, the Court marches on.
Then we have this other wrinkle. More from the NJSSC:
“7. New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have 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 (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state 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.”
Ooops. I thought this was SEXUAL orientation. Now we have AFFECTIONAL orientation added to the mix?
In any case, the hapless New Jersey Legislature is now under an order by nincompoops sitting in the chairs of what once was their state supreme court, to fix this new demand by creating legislation.
But the New Jersey Legislature lost their share as a co-equal branch of government years ago in 1972 when they succumbed to:
Robinson v. Cahill, the New Jersey version of “Claremont”. That resulted in every attempt by the legislature to placate the court being flatly denied until the institution of a 2% state income tax in 1976. After that we have new education funding suits on average every five years with an attempt in 1996 then by Gov. Wittman to DEFINE “thorough and efficient” (for us that would be the adequate trap) being rejected as well.
So it was only natural that the New Jersey State Supreme Court would take the next logical step in social engineering – gay marriage.
The New Hampshire State Supreme Court is following the path laid down by New Jersey almost to the letter, re-invent language, make up new rights, demand funding.
Can New Hampshire skip all the education lawsuits and just use New Jersey's definition of adequate? Not really. I think they are still working on that one.
Reader Comments (5)
"Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."
So, in other words -- NJ still has the task of calling "equal treatment" what they want. The Court is not forcing the State to adopt "marriage". However, the court held that the State failed to demonstrate substantial reason to deny these couples equal rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the State of NJ, therefore they must be afforded the same rights and legal protections as married heterosexual couples.
What you seen to more angry about is that Gays and Lesbians are being given equal treatment and recognition under the law, and are being seen as complete equals to all other citizens of the State by the court. As there is no law in place that says otherwise, and there is no Constitutional provision that required otherwise, how else was the court supposed to rule? Would you have had the say "Oh, well, despite the simple language of Article 1, we know that the authors never meant it to apply to gays and lesbians, therefore we will interpret that Article to not apply to gays and lesbians."???
That would have been pretty "liberal" and "activist" of them, interpreting what was or was not meant by the authors of that Constitution.
In other words, the court ruled narrowly on the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 1 of that State's constitution. That's their job. They left it up to the Legislature to decide what to call it, and how to amend statutes to comply with the requirements of Article 1 -- because that's the legislature's job.
Petty decent ruling all around. States rights, narrow interpretation of the Constitution, didn't try to tell the Legislature that it had to be defined as Marriage.
In this world -- at least in this great nation -- we should all be considered "equal."
No one needs "special rights." No one needs "added benefits." Just equality, thank you.
You probably think that Brown vs. The Board of Education in Topeka was wrong, too.
Saying that any one groups has 'rights' as afforded them by the government, well you've already opened a can of worms there. Everyone has the same God-given rights but if they look to govt to define them, there will always be money involved. Two different things.