NJ supreme court ruling on same sex marriage

[okalb 104]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061025/pl_nm/rights_gays1_dc

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

the court said gay advocates must now "appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives."

With that in mind, the court gave the legislature six months to either amend the state's marriage statutes to include gay people, or write a new law in which same-sex couples "would enjoy the rights of civil marriage."

Huh? The first part, I agree with. That's the proper role for a court to say, "In a political question, you must address the legislature t write a law."

But eh second part has me scratching my head. Courts shouldn't be giving deadlines to come up with a law that they can rule on? It doesn't make sense.

I haven't seen the opinion, but I am indeed interested to see if this is merely misreporting or whether there's a way a court can tell a legislature to write a law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

What I heard on the news was that the court ruled that gay couples should have the same practical rights as straight couples, and it was up to the legislature whether to call it marriage or something else, but the rights had to be equal.

[lawrocket 3]

The strange part to me is a court ordering the legislature to write a law. within six months. I'm scratching my head. Will the court next issue an order enjoining the governor from vetoing the law?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

The strange part to me is a court ordering the legislature to write a law. within six months. I'm scratching my head. Will the court next issue an order enjoining the governor from vetoing the law?

I think the Ohio Supreme Court did a similar thing when it declared that the state school funding mechanisms were unconstitutional, and demanded a change within a certain time. I think that is an accurate summary of their decision.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

the court said gay advocates must now "appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives."

With that in mind, the court gave the legislature six months to either amend the state's marriage statutes to include gay people, or write a new law in which same-sex couples "would enjoy the rights of civil marriage."

Huh? The first part, I agree with. That's the proper role for a court to say, "In a political question, you must address the legislature t write a law."

But eh second part has me scratching my head. Courts shouldn't be giving deadlines to come up with a law that they can rule on? It doesn't make sense.

I haven't seen the opinion, but I am indeed interested to see if this is merely misreporting or whether there's a way a court can tell a legislature to write a law.

Based on the part I bolded, I took it to mean they ruled existing laws are unconstitutional and must be amended or replaced to pass muster. Then they were generous to the party which lost and gave a timeframe in which that party can comply, rather than "immediately." The CNN article on this says the 3 dissenting justices actually agreed with the plaintiffs (assuming the state was defending), but didn't think the court should remand the issue to the legislature. The quote I liked best was, "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people." For me, this is the primary factor in the gay marriage debate, and I essentially agree with this court's ruling. (Note: I'd much rather our governments simply not be involved in marriage at all.)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Channman 2]

> I haven't seen the opinion, but I am indeed interested to see if this is merely misreporting or whether there's a way a court can tell a legislature to write a law.

It appear to me courts are now taken on the roles of two branches of the government, now if they can only take over the Executive Branch liberals will have their utopia.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It appear to me courts are now taken on the roles of two branches of the government, now if they can only take over the Executive Branch liberals will have their utopia.

Aww poor baby...... you on the FAR right have had all three brances of government since 2000 and look how well you have done with all that power....

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

(Note: I'd much rather our governments simply not be involved in marriage at all.)

I agree this idea has intellectual traction, but as a practical matter governments, like it or not, must define who is and is not deemed married, since marriage carries with it certain unique rights, such as inheritance of property, the ability to direct medical care for a medically and/or legally incompetent spouse/partner, the right to be covered under a spouse's/partner's health insurance, the right to own property "by the entireties" instead of just jointly, the right to spousal support and/or alimony, property rights and distribution in divorce; custody and visitation of children, etc. Can this be done with "civil unions", too? I suppose so, but government must still proactively be involved in the process of setting the definition.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

(Note: I'd much rather our governments simply not be involved in marriage at all.)

I agree this idea has intellectual traction, but as a practical matter governments, like it or not, must define who is and is not deemed married, since marriage carries with it certain unique rights, such as inheritance of property, the ability to direct medical care for a medically and/or legally incompetent spouse/partner, the right to be covered under a spouse's/partner's health insurance, the right to own property "by the entireties" instead of just jointly, the right to spousal support and/or alimony, property rights and distribution in divorce; custody and visitation of children, etc. Can this be done with "civil unions", too? I suppose so, but government must still proactively be involved in the process of setting the definition.

Then you and I fundamentally disagree on the part I bolded above. Governmental sanction of a relationship is not a critical component in matters of health care, asset distribution, or child custody/support. Ask the gay and lesbian couples that exist today...powers of attorney, living and last wills, and family courts seem perfectly capable of managing such topics without the benefit of marital bliss. If the government didn't recognize the religious institution of marriage, such matters would be decided by other criteria, such as existing orders by the infirm/deceased and whatever criteria are established as best for a child. Marriage, as a matter of religion, shouldn't commute any special privileges...the only reason it does is governmental sanction.

Note: None of the above should be construed to suggest that a couple shouldn't be allowed to enter into a legally binding contract subject to judicial enforcement.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)