quote:

---

In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.

The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.

---

Seems New Jersey, not Virginia, is for lovers.

[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Until now, courts in many other states — including the Court of Appeals in New York in July — had rejected similar lawsuits by same-sex couples, with the common rationale being that only the legislative branch can define or redefine marriage. No legislature has yet done that, though several states, including New Jersey, and dozens of cities and towns have enacted domestic partnership laws to grant gay couples some benefits in recent years.

Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Most others have statutory bans, but New Jersey and four other states do not. In addition to Massachusetts, where more than 8,000 gay couples have married in the past three years, Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions, which generally offer the same legal protections, if not the same societal status, as marriage.

---

quote:

---

"We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of marriage -- passed down through the common law into our statutory law -- has always been the union of a man and a woman," he wrote. "To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.

"We will not short-circuit the democratic process from running its course," said Albin, who was joined by Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, John Wallace and Roberto Rivera-Soto.

Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, who reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 today, wrote the dissent. She argued that whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to full-fledged marriage is "a question for this court to decide" and the answer should have been yes.

"We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities," Poritz wrote. "By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the state declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.

"Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or significant as 'real' marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage," Poritz wrote. She was joined by Justices James Zazzali, who becomes chief justice today, and Virginia Long.

---

If the state wanted to license red cars and not blue cars, could the blue car proponents go to court and claim that their cars were red and demand the court to declare them red. Of course not.

The crux of the argument seems to boil down to whether or not a state has the right to define the conditions for issuing a license. Of course they do, therefore; it falls to the legislative branch to do so. The reasoning behind licensing marriage is sound, in that they are designed to protect the family unit which is the foundation of our society. It is not in the states interest to promote same sex unions. Therefore, they do not license these types of unions. Could they license same sex unions. Yes they can, and maybe they should, but it would not be a marriage license because marriage by definition is the union of a man and woman.

Same sex couples can still declare their commitments to one another, making the public commitment as the traditionalists do, but their unions are not protected under the law because their union is not licensed. Same sex couples can hire a lawyer and obtain nearly all of the same legal protections as licensed couples through a power of attorney and a will.

It all boils down to gays attempting to gain legitimacy for their sexual preferences. Since they can't do it in the public arena, they are attempting to do so through the courts. They attempt to establish their moral authority through the opinions of a bunch of lawyers. (There is a joke in there somewhere.) They claim discrimination. Each and every american has the right to be licensed for marriage if they meet the requirements outlined in the law. How is this discriminatory?