posted on October 25, 2006 04:43:01 PM new
I am glad to see a step in the right direction. Just as we look back at other civil right injustices of the past, banning gay marriage will be another one that Americans will shake their heads in shame.
I'm sure this will get the neocon panties in a wad. hehe.
-------------
N.J. court opens door to gay marriage
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
46 minutes ago
New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.
Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.
If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.
A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.
New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.
For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.
Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.
The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment homosexuals receive under the law.
"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs' lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples," the court said.
Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.
"I'm definitely encouraged," said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, "I'm not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage."
Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: "I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights."
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.
"New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.
GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.
Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.
Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.
Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.
They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 16 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.
Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
posted on October 26, 2006 12:55:26 PM new
So Rustydumbo,
You from New Jersey? Getting your bunghole agitator ready?
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The new Demomoron motto.
posted on October 26, 2006 05:33:21 PM new
Just curious Stone, since you managed to interject here... but exactly how does a Gay Marriage or Civil Union affect your life as an American?
posted on October 26, 2006 06:50:25 PM new
People like Stonehead and the all holy Rev.Colin that are so against gays are sometimes and often closet gutless gays afraid to come out in the open.
These pathetic type of weak people feel threatened by strong people that know themselves.
They remind me of one of the closet gays in their Christian party of moral values Rep.(R)Foley from Florida.
By the way stonehead and Colin maybe you guys can help me out? I have lost track of how many of the lawmakers in the faith based Conservative republican party,that have either gone to jail or are on their way to jail. Is it like 10 or 12 or more???
I guess since its an on going running total my question about crooked NEO-CON LAWMAKERS would be hard to answer. I withdraw the question and apologies to your sensitive fears.
posted on October 27, 2006 07:01:38 AM new
"but exactly how does a Gay Marriage or Civil Union affect your life as an American?"
It farther shows the decline of moral values in the once great country.
Wasn't it the govenor of NJ that was married and fudgepackin on the side?
I don't think this will stand, NJ isn't as liberal as Mass.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
[ edited by colin on Oct 27, 2006 07:03 AM ]
posted on October 27, 2006 08:15:53 AM new
So, basically Colin can't provide anything other than his own personal morals. Such a poor argument. That is pretty much what I would expect though from an ignorant redneck.
posted on October 27, 2006 01:08:29 PM newSo, basically Colin can't provide anything other than his own personal morals. Such a poor argument.
C'mon the wannabe reverend is speaking from all his experience during his visits to gay chat rooms.
I am just waiting to hear the usual rhetoric from the religious right that the NJ legislature has "activist judges".
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
shagmidmod is right about you but I add a couple words to his description of you. I say Such a poor argument. That is pretty much what we all expect though from an VANE,ignorant NEO-CON redneck.
Guys like Colin,Stone and Classic combine all their wit to set the standard for NEO-CON STUPID.
In just a few days America can start removing morons like these people from power.
Remember they had it all and through their stupidity are loosing it.
posted on October 29, 2006 12:37:13 AM new
October 25, 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that It Won't Rule on Gay Marriage
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled by a 4-3 majority that it is not the body that should legalized gay marriage.
Instead, the court has given the New Jersey legislature six months to come up with appropriate legislation legalizing gay marriage.
So, are these supreme court justices saying gay marriage should be legalized but that they can't do it?
This is one sticky wicket.
Update: The Reuters report confirms what I suspected:
TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey's Supreme Court on Wednesday granted same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded by heterosexual marriage and ordered state lawmakers to decide within six months if they want to change the state's definition of marriage.
The nuanced 90-page ruling was neither a definitive victory nor a defeat for gay marriage, which has faced legal and political roadblocks in much of the United States and is legal only in Massachusetts.
As does the AP report:
New Jersey's highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.
Advocates on both sides of the issue believed New Jersey posed the best chance to become only the second after Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage because its high court has a history of extending civil rights protections.
Instead, the Supreme Court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.
"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," the court said in its 4-3 ruling.
The judicial branch is limited to interpreting current law, not dictating to the legislature what laws should be passed. Once again, a liberal court overreaches and legislates from the bench. This alone is an argument for getting out and voting for the Republicans on November 7th.
Can you imagine the US Supreme Court loaded with justices like these?
---------
Yes, once again we see that JUDGES think they are constitutionally allowed to MAKE laws. LOL They're NOT.
Probably will do just like Mass. did....NOT ALLOW THE VOTERS IN THE STATE TO DECIDE. Mass. is the ONLY state whose judges and legislature FORCED gay marriage to be accepted. NOT THE VOTERS.
Nope...the liberals decide the best way to circumvent our constitution is to have their JUDGES make the laws.
If it goes to the voters.....there won't be any 'GAY' marriages.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
Its only guys like you,stoned and LIAR_K that gets all up tight about gay marriage or unions.
I have been in a business that has a lot of gays in the business. I have always found their money as green as anyones.
I just don't see after having done business with both gay men and women for over 35 years how a gay marriage or union would adversely affect me or my family.
But of course you neo-cons lied and tricked people into voting for your neo-con experiment in government. Your tricks and lies worked you briefly in history had all the political power. Once America saw how you neo-cons used your power and how you really think is why your about to lose much of your power.
THANK GOD WE DO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY SO AMERICANS CAN IN JUST 9 DAYS START TAKING THEIR COUNTRY BACK.
posted on October 30, 2006 12:24:29 PM newYes, once again we see that JUDGES think they are constitutionally allowed to MAKE laws. LOL They're NOT.
You fail to understand that the judges were upholding the law. The NJ laws that homosexual couples have equal rights as heterosexual couples. IT IS ALREADY LAW. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE PEOPLE TO VOTE.
The judges did leave it up to the lawmakers to change the law and specifically outlaw gay marriages. This needs to be done within 180 days
Probably will do just like Mass. did....NOT ALLOW THE VOTERS IN THE STATE TO DECIDE. Mass. is the ONLY state whose judges and legislature FORCED gay marriage to be accepted. NOT THE VOTERS.
If the law makers can pass something within 180 days then they have the ability to change the law and allow the voters to decide. You might want to re-read the courts decision a little bit closer before making a judgment.
Nope...the liberals decide the best way to circumvent our constitution is to have their JUDGES make the laws.
You still cant read the courts judgement because the judges did not make any law, the law was already on the books.
Good thing Crybaby_K is not sitting on the bench. She would be interpreting the law based on her agenda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 30, 2006 01:28:14 PM new
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. -- By the end of last week, the splendid colors of
Vermont's fall had largely faded or disappeared, and the wedding
season was in full retreat.
But at 9:45 a.m. Friday, in front of a sugar maple still hanging on to
its leaves, a justice of the peace matter-of-factly joined Paige
Pierson, 39, and DeeDee Flagg, 37, in perpetual union.
The two women, who have been together 15 years and are raising a son,
did not expect to be overcome with emotion. The event, near the Old
Chapel at Middlebury College, lasted barely two minutes. Still, when
the justice of the peace concluded the affair with some kindly,
grandfatherly advice, tears came.
"If each of you takes responsibility for the quality of your life
together, it will be marked by abundance and delight," said Michael
Olinick, 65, a married father of four who is also a mathematics
professor.
"Think of that, dude!" Flagg said to her son, Logan Pierson-Flagg, 4,
whom she had wrapped in a big bearhug. "We're married!"
In reality, Flagg and Pierson had not been married but rather "joined
in civil union" -- "C.U.'d," as it is sometimes called -- in a legally
binding rite the Vermont Legislature established in 2000 under
circumstances very similar to those now facing New Jersey lawmakers.
Ruling seven years apart, in nearly identical cases, the highest
courts of Vermont and New Jersey ordered their respective legislatures
to craft laws giving gay and lesbian couples desiring to wed the same
rights granted heterosexual couples who marry.
The Vermont Supreme Court's December 1999 ruling precipitated a long,
noisy and divisive public debate about the meaning of marriage and the
nature of homosexuality. Legislators were forced to act in an election
year, making their actions immediately answerable to constituents.
Crusaders of all stripes, many from outside Vermont, camped out at the
state capitol. Reporters and cameras seemed to be everywhere.
Today Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions are old hat, and
their numbers -- after an initial explosion -- are on the decline. But
the drama of their birth has not been forgotten. Vermonters wonder if
the New Jersey experience, set in motion by last week's Supreme Court
ruling, will prove as traumatic.
"There was a lot of tension. When the final vote was taken, we knew it
was a mark that would be difficult to overcome -- a new precedent in
the country," said former state Rep. Frank Mazur, 65, a Republican who
represented South Burlington and opposed the civil union law.
VILIFIED
John R. Edwards, 64, a retired state trooper and moderate Republican
from a town near the Canadian border, voted in favor of civil unions
-- a decision that ultimately cost him his seat in the state House of
Representatives. "It was intense. A life-changing experience," he
said.
Edwards, who grew up on a dairy farm, had served three terms. He and
his wife, both widowed in earlier marriages, had six children between
them. He was generally well-liked and respected. But in 2000, his
victorious primary opponent branded him "lower than whale dung."
Edwards attended one town meeting on the issue where feelings ran so
high he feared there'd be a riot. Neighbors avoided meeting his eyes.
A preacher at one of the churches in town predicted Edwards would
suffer eternal damnation. On the other hand, a second church "almost
canonized me," he said. And one day when Edwards, a Catholic, was on
his knees at Mass, an elderly woman squeezed his shoulder and said,
'Go get'em, John."
Edwards is now U.S. marshal for Vermont. In the coming months, he
says, he will watch whether New Jersey legislators produce a law in
the Vermont mold -- reserving marriage for heterosexuals -- or dare to
redefine marriage as an institution for people of any sexual
orientation. That's the position he personally came to favor,
surprising himself in the process, but back in 2000 it was politically
impossible to adopt, he said.
The New Jersey debate "should be interesting, but it shouldn't be as
emotional," Edwards said over lunch last week in a Burlington
restaurant. "We've had civil unions here now for over six years, and
the sky hasn't fallen. We haven't had any major floods.
"People who predicted all kinds of terrible things would happen now
tell me, 'Nothing has changed.'
"I say, 'I told you that.'"
These days he considers Vermont civil unions to be "more than half a
loaf, but not a whole loaf, not equal" to marriage.
DIFFERENT CLIMATE
Much has changed since 2000, and that should make New Jersey's task
easier, said Tom Little, a lawyer and liberal Republican who guided
creation of Vermont's civil union law as chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee. Connecticut now also recognizes civil unions, and
Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage.
"The newness and novelty and shock value have worn off. That gives New
Jersey a distinct advantage we didn't have," Little said last week.
After the civil union law passed, he ran successfully for re-election
but was not a candidate in 2002 or 2004. He is now general counsel for
the Vermont Student Assistance Corp.
As for the ceremony itself, that's left to the couple's taste and
imagination. Getting a "divorce," known as a dissolution, is harder;
at least one member of the couple must reside in Vermont in order for
Vermont's Family Court to dissolve the union.
Judy Kelly, 72, a justice of the peace in Burlington for 30 years who
happily performs both weddings and civil unions, estimates she has
presided at 150 of the latter. Many have been in her own backyard,
since most of the so-called "good places" to marry in town are booked
a year in advance, she said.
"I wouldn't mind being married in my own backyard. It's large, for a
city yard, and there are flowers," she said.
As for her joining same-sex couples, "My husband has often been very
kind and decided to participate, because sometimes there's a sense of
loneliness, for often the couple's families do not support them."
Among the couples who stick out in her mind are two "gorgeous" young
women from Utah, whose fathers were elders in the Mormon church, and a
couple from Detroit who brought along a formally attired wedding
arranger.
"I often use relatively the same service as I do for weddings," Kelly
said. "I don't take it lightly. I type it up on a really special paper
and put some time on it. These are people to be taken very seriously
in terms of their commitment and their desire to have the rights and
privileges that married couples have."
Not all of Burlington's 15 elected justices of the peace like to
perform civil unions, she said; for some, there may be religious
objections. "If they don't want it on their conscience, they'll say,
'I'm busy, I'm not able to do it."
ECONOMIC BOOST
Some people in Vermont claim civil unions have benefited the state, by
boosting tourism. A number of establishments have created a new
industry by packaging civil union weekends like honeymoons.
One is the Moose Meadow Lodge in Waterbury, a gay-operated inn on 86
acres. Greg Trulson, a co-owner of the lodge with his partner Willie
Docto, officiates at the ceremonies. (They were united themselves in
civil union in Vermont on Nov. 10, 2001.)
Trulson is a justice of the peace as well as an ordained member of the
clergy. In 2004, he said, he performed 96 civil unions at Moose
Meadow; in 2005, 70; to date this year, he has officiated at 50.
"We have bookings into next year," he said. "We advertise ceremonies
for both civil unions and weddings, and offer a complete package. We
get everything from small, intimate unions to big parties."
While Vermont's passage of the civil union law satisfied the state's
Supreme Court, it did not really end the debate, say people who remain
on both sides of the issue.
One group, the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, continues to lobby
-- at events ranging from church services to county fairs -- for a law
allowing gays and lesbians to marry, not just be joined in civil
union.
Those who oppose civil unions, meanwhile, lament that Vermont opened
the door. "Vermont was a test state," said Mazur, the former state
representative. "We knew that when it got in here, it could get in any
other state."
Now, he said, "Vermont's known as the Gay State."
John Edwards still ruminates about the experience.
"As a law enforcement officer, I spent my career protecting people's
rights," he said. While a state trooper Edwards directed criminal
investigations and commanded a barracks.
Seven year ago, he spent weeks agonizing over the civil union debate
as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The issue took his mind
to places it had never gone. He pored over a copy of the Supreme
Court's decision.
"I knew there were people in the community who were gay or lesbian,
but I hadn't given it a lot of thought one way or another, and I
certainly hadn't given the issue of marriage itself much thought," he
said.
His eureka moment came two days before the House was scheduled vote on
the measure. Edwards, wanting to be alone, had sought refuge in a
ceremonial room at the Vermont State House known as the Battle Creek
Room, and was sitting in an understuffed chair.
"I suddenly realized that supporting civil unions was the right thing
to do," he said. "You can't base a right on sexual orientation, which
is something people have no control over. I realized it was right,
morally, and according to the state's constitution, which I was sworn
to uphold.
"Once I made up my mind, I was fine. A load lifted from my shoulders."
Today Edwards is not bitter about his defeat. He is proud of the role
he played in Vermont's history.
"The public discourse was healthy for the state. I'll bet there's less
homophobia here now than there was, because of what we did. I do wish
we had called it 'marriage,' but in politics you do what's possible.
Sometimes you don't get the whole piece," he said.
Beth Robinson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Vermont marriage
case and a founder of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said
New Jersey legislators must decide whether "to be at the forefront of
the civil rights movement and allow same-sex couples to actually
marry, or drop into the pack" and approve civil unions.
In 2000 Robinson's group supported Vermont's civil union bill as a
disappointing but necessary political compromise. Its passage was
anything but assured, so she decided to support it.
"In its time, it was in the forefront, but at this point if feels like
Marriage Lite," she said last week. "You can't get around the fact
that it sends a message that we're not embracing this couple as fully
equal."
Robinson said her decision to support the measure haunts her. At the
time, she hoped the civil union law would become a steppingstone to
the legalization of gay marriage.
What New Jersey does, over the coming months, will demonstrate whether
she did the wrong thing, she said.
"If New Jersey looks at this and decides, 'The sky hasn't fallen in
Massachusetts, and we're going to do the simple and fair thing and
change our marriage laws,' then we'll feel good about what we did in
Vermont," she said. "But if the Legislature there says, 'Civil unions
were good enough for Vermont and they're good enough for us,' I'd feel
crummy."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on October 30, 2006 04:50:13 PM new
LOL...how funny...and so sad at the same time.
IF, as you say it was ALREADY LAW in NJ...then there would have been NO necessity for them to ORDER/FORCE the legislature to ACT on either allowing gay marriage...or giving them 'equal rights'.
You're so confused.
Here.....keep reading, over and over again, this reuters report....on how they MADE LAW....they're not supposed to MAKE LAWS....that's what the legislature is for....and they are the ONLY ONES who can 'make laws'. NOT liberal judges.
quote:
TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) -
"New Jersey's Supreme Court on Wednesday ***granted*** same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded by heterosexual marriage and ordered state lawmakers to decide within six months if they want to change the state's definition of marriage."
And the FACTS are that ALL states where this has gone to the voters...rather than the liberals making the decision for them....it has FAILED.
Vermont....LOL....Republic of Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: [b]Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack[b].
Ann Coulter
