NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[Edella]

No matter which side of the debate you're on,The ruling today might have further reaching implications as we move towards midterm elections.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...y/15845712.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/25court.html

[pgrmdave]

Being a resident of New Jersey, and having a few gay friends who live here, this hearing is very important to me. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think that gays should have the right to marry, just like anybody else. On the other hand, I don't think that the courts should have the ability to legislate, it should be elected officials who make the decision. What I'd like to see is the court be able to force the legislature to come up with a decision by some date, and if they don't, then gay marriage becomes legal until such time as it is banned by legislation.

[TheBigDog]

Here is a link to the New Jersey Constitution.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawscon...nstitution.asp

It may be beneficial to understanding the basis of the ruling however it turns out.

Bill

[Edella]

And the ruling is in...http://www.blogs.nj.com/newsupdates/...sp?item=246306
A win for gay rights activists?

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Being a resident of New Jersey, and having a few gay friends who live here, this hearing is very important to me. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I think that gays should have the right to marry, just like anybody else. On the other hand, I don't think that the courts should have the ability to legislate, it should be elected officials who make the decision. What I'd like to see is the court be able to force the legislature to come up with a decision by some date, and if they don't, then gay marriage becomes legal until such time as it is banned by legislation.

If I understood the synopsis that I glanced at, this is basically what has happened today.

The NJ SC said that they will not re-define "marriage" as is defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, they did say that equal rights (under the law) must be given to gay and lesbian couples. They would then be free to call it a "civil union" if the term applied to same-sex couples and the term provided the same legal rights as a married couple. They also set a date of 180 days for such to be accomplished by the legistlature.

Unfortuneatly what I have read from the press says that the right wing politicals are unhappy because of their religious viewpoint that homosexuality is just plain wrong, and the left wing politicals are unhappy because they want to throw it in the face of right wingers and have the word marriage itself be reapplied to anyone who wants to change the legal status of their relationship.

I do think constitutionally however, that their decision to afford equal rights to married couples, even if not in a union under the name of marriage, was the right constitutional decision.

[pgrmdave]

I am pleased, for the most part, with the decision. As far as I can tell, they at least provided that gays must have equal rights, if not equal words, which seems to speak simply to the constitution. And, they refrained from appear to add legislation by way of a judgement.

[TheBigDog]

I still question the courts ability to compell the legislature to write new laws. All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law. I am going to look deeper into this.

Bill

[Edella]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law.
Bill

I think you're right Bill. Maybe the problem is when two or more existing laws are perceived to be in conflict.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I think it comes down to the current laws not being in line with the constitution of the state. They have really just said that the constitution demands equal rights, but they are unwilling to say that any law currently on the books illegally denies them that right. However, they note that there is currently no law allowing them rights in a specific sense, so one must be adopted, or else they will be forced to declare any law governing marriage as between a man and woman only, as unconstitutional.

[pgrmdave]

I still question the courts ability to compell the legislature to write new laws. All the court can do constitutionally is rule on existing law. I am going to look deeper into this.

Ah, but that's the beauty of their decision - the court ruled on an existing law that provides equal benefits to everybody. They weren't ruling on a marriage clause, but on an equality clause. As such, they are within their bounds to say that gay marriage is necessary to provide equal protection under law, and that it is up to the legislature to draft that law.