| Author |
Message |
    
Dobler88
Citizen
Username: Dobler88
Post Number: 92
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:46 am: |     |
Well, it is the NJ Supreme Court's turn to weigh in on "gay" marriage. (I hate that phrase, because the point is not what your view is on "gay" marriage, the point is whether everyone should have the right to marry).
Anyway, given the long-standing history in this state and with this Court for giving Jerseyans MORE rights under the NJ constitution than they have under the federal constitution, I truly believe that if the Court follows its own precedent, they have to hold that the state cannot prevent same sex marriage. For example, it would be intellectually dishonest for a Court that has held that citizens have a right to be protected from searches of their garbage to hold that citizens can't get married to the person of their choice.
That's my thought. Notice i haven't said a word about my personal views of same-sex marriage. Because in my book, my personal views are not relevant to the governmental benefits afforded by marriage.
What do you think? |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:25 pm: | |
I say let us say "I Do!!!" |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:59 pm: | |
I think it should be called the Freedom to Marry case or the Right to Marry case or just Marriage Rights. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5196
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:09 pm: | |
I think New Jersey ought to pass a law on it one way or the other. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10689
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:28 pm: | |
An interesting situation. I have posted here before that I don't support the concept fully, primarily because of the reaction to the Massachussets Supreme Court decision where six to eight states via amendments to their constitutions stripped gays and lesbians of almost all civil rights, which I think was a pretty high price to pay.
However, the rather horrendous situation with the Ocean County Prosecutors Detective Lieutenant who wanted her pension rights to go to her partner and where the Board of Freeholders originally wouldn't comply, worries me also. I guess the civil union legislation here isn't as strong as many of us assumed.
However, if the NJ Supremes find a right to same sex marriage, there will probably be a reaction, possibly even here in NJ with an amendment to our Constitution.
I would much prefer to see the legislature address the situation than the courts to be honest. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3154
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:37 pm: | |
On the radio, they keep saying that today's case will only determine who (legislature or supreme court) has jurisdiction over this issue, but not make a decision on the core issue itself. Is that correct? I thought that, given the nature of the system, there was always a bit of a see saw ... i.e. court could make a ruling, legislature could pass an amendment to effectively overrule it and/or it could go to a higher court and be over turned, etc.
How can the Supreme Court make an absolute decision in favor of (or against) itself anyway?
(Perhaps I need a civics lesson here.)
Just what is being decided today, anyway? |
Dobler88
Citizen
Username: Dobler88
Post Number: 94
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:50 pm: | |
Well, in a sense, the NJ Supreme Court can't make an absolute decision about anything other than what the NJ Constitution (as it is written now) requires. Option 1, they could say that same sex marriage is not a right under the constitution (which is the same thing as saying "take it to the legislature," this is not the Court's issue"). Option 2, they could hold that same sex marriage IS a right under the state constitution, and hold that the govt has to allow such marriages.
If they go with option 2, then you are correct, there probably would be a move to get the constitution amended to expressly outlaw (which Bob K already pointed out)...but in order to amend the state constitution, you ultimately need a vote by the public, which I THINK needs to be at least 2/3 vote? I could be wrong on that.
If they go with option 2 (as did Massachusetts) there really is no way to appeal that to the US Supreme Court, because the NJ Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the NJ Constitution--you'd have to argue that it is somehow contrary to the US Constitution to allow same sex marriage--and you could only do that by showing it infringes on someone else's rights (which, even the most ardent anti-same-sex marriage person would have a hard time doing.....)
The upshot is, if we see a ruling from the NJ Court saying that same-sex marriage is a right under the NJ Constitution, expect a movement to amend the state constitution. And that's the ony way to get around such a holding. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10693
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:12 pm: | |
God, I sounded so, well, academic when I wrote my earlier post. I assure you I think I understand (without walking in your shoes) the emotional issues many of our posters go through because the state doesn't sanction their union. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 6752
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:13 pm: | |
I have incredible difficulties with these discussions. It reduces vital, everyday issues in my life (and the lives of hundreds of thousands of others) to an intellectual legal debate.
Many of us have posted numerous times about how this discrimination impacts us negatively on a daily basis. I just can't reduce it to an "interesting issue".
I know that because of the times we live in, that this will remain a political issue for quite some time. But just imagine if this debate took place back in the 1800s: should slavery be abolished via the courts or the legislature? Should it be abolished at all?
Seriously, I have no issues with Dobler or Bob. But I just can't do these discussions. It could also be why we rarely see participation in these threads from gay MOLers. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 994
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:56 pm: | |
greentree,
Help us keep our eye on the ball, so to speak.
The issue is not whether a prohibition on same sex marriage is discriminatory, (it is); but rather, whether such discrimination is permissable under our State or federal Constitutions.
Your analogy to slavery, while facialy enticing, is disingeneous.
Prior to 1865, the Courts lacked the authority to ban slavery.
Lo, and behold, shortly after the end of our Civil War, the federal legislature proposed an Amendment to our Constitution, which was ratififed by the requisite number of the several States.
But I digress.
Don't withdraw from the discussion. Keep the issue front and center.
When nobody puts the issue in our faces, it doesn't get discussed, or resolved.
To you and TS, be good to, and for, one another.
TomR |
Dobler88
Citizen
Username: Dobler88
Post Number: 95
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:56 pm: | |
Greenetree, I'm sorry. I hope you realize that I don't see this as simply an intellectual debate. There is nothing I want more than for the Court to do the right thing here--I guess I just am trying to figure out what might/could happen because I feel like there is actually a chance for this State to respect the rights of everyone. I really didn't mean to be clinical about it. I hope that someday soon, this debate is as un-pc as debates about interracial marriage. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 6753
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 4:01 pm: | |
Dob - I completely understand your post & take no offense; just want you to understand my gut instinct about it.
Tomr, OTOH, doesn't have a clue.
And, Bob, you know I love you!  |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 733
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:15 pm: | |
GM is being dealt with legally because it is a legal matter. But why is it being considered a constitutional issue? Marriage is not such an issue or should be.
Let the state legislature vote on the matter; multiple times if necessary until it is passed.
Fighting it constitutionally is the easy way out....
-SLK |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 997
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:07 pm: | |
greentree,
OK. Explain it to me.
TomR |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 290
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 12:09 am: | |
greentree wrote:"I have incredible difficulties with these discussions. It reduces vital, everyday issues in my life (and the lives of hundreds of thousands of others) to an intellectual legal debate."
Right above your last post.
What about that is not clear? |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 282
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 4:26 pm: | |
I love the quote from one of the plaintiffs, "I hope I can get married before my kids get married"
Greentree, sorry I haven't been more supportive on this issue. As an MOLer who is gay, I try not to read or post on threads with this topic because the right wingers always flood the discussion with posts about bestiality, ploygamy and the rights of religious folks to determine the way we all live our lives! It's too much to deal with when my family and I face the daily reminders that we are not allowed to be a family under the law.
As far as the Assembly deciding the fate of gay and lesbian citizens of New Jersey - one only has to look north to Canada to see the coming fight to reverse the right to marry in that country. Mr. Harper (Conservative) has said he wants to undo the law as soon as possible. A Supreme Court decision in favor would at least, in my opinion, provide a stronger response to the almost guarenteed reaction from the right wing. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 738
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 6:10 pm: | |
maplewood fan-
not ALL of the right wing is against GM.
And one question, if you don't read the posts then how do you know "the right wingers always flood the discussion with posts about bestiality, ploygamy and the rights of religious folks to determine the way we all live our lives?"
I've been in many board discussions on this topic and I never came across such talk.
-SLK |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10711
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 7:05 pm: | |
Scrotus, there are a couple of posters who have reduced these discussions to people marrying their dog.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10719
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 9:04 am: | |
Maplefan, out of respect for the gay and lesbian posters here, especially Greentree who gave me a pretty good blast with her 28 gauge scattergun a couple of days ago, I wanted to think about posting further here. Obviously, I have decided to go ahead.
When the Mass. Surpreme's found for gay marriage, quite a few states countered with constitutional amendments banning not only marriage, but civil unions, benefits, etc. There is also a amendment pending in Massachussets to do the same thing.
The NJ constitution is relatively easy to amend. A 3/5th vote in the legislature and a majority vote at the next election is all it takes.
Personally, I would take my chances with the legislature, assuming they have the kumquats
to go for it. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 744
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 9:21 am: | |
Bob K-
Some people have crazy views, nothing I can do about that, but to sum up right leaning people in such a way as Maplewood fan does is childish and intellectual laziness.
Sorry for the jump, but many people tend to forget (deliberately)that it was a Democratic President that signed DOMA into law, subsequently allowing many states to put restrictions on GM.
And pursuing this matter constitutionally is the wrong route to go.... |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 2:37 pm: | |
finnegan,
It is an intellectual legal debate, or at least I hope that's what occurred in our Supreme Court earlier this week.
I asked for greentree's help in keeping people focused on the importance of the debate, and wished her well.
That somehow annoyed her, and apparently, you.
Whatever.
Be well.
TomR |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 283
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 3:20 pm: | |
Once again - its a right winger doesn't respond to the real life discimination faced by gay and lesbian families and choses to respond to a statement about my choice not to post on any previous website - talk about intellectual laziness! |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 755
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 3:36 pm: | |
maplewood-
I apologize but ????????????????????????????????
-SLK |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page