The decision is to be issued at 3 PM today. Will the court decide for gay marriage (like Massachusettes), same legal rights as heterosexual couples without marriage (like Vermont), or reject completely (like New York, Washington, and California)?

C'mon Jerzee, make me proud!

I'm not very optimistic. I hope I'm wrong, but...

Y'all seem to have your wish. Now watch this ruling further galvanize many on the Right who might otherwise had not been too motivated to vote. This ruling will reverberate nationwide and reignite even more so an issue that is bound to bring to the polls those who may have stayed home in protest.

Marriage is an issue for the legislature, but gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Because the court established what was there all along, that we have the right to such things? There was no court mandate to require same-sex marriage as in Mass.

Edited to add: Recent polls show that over half of Americans are in favor of Civil Unions offering the same benefits as marriage (as long as it isn't called marriage).

I find myself, much to my chagrin, agreeing with part of MIB's quote. (not getting laid for years has an effect).

I agree that this will motivate the right wing religious base, and could potentially guarantee them
retention of the house and the senate.

Hell, this could even et Santorum re-elected.

Considering that Casey has been running an abysmal campaign--he got destroyed in each of the debates--and just appears clueless in everything he says and does, Santorum just might pull it off.

Casey's a decent guy, but he has come across as a total idiot.

I think if NJ had mandated gay marriage, then yes, there would be some backlash. But only the righty-right are overly up at arms on this issue at this time. Those most spurred by the decision were not going to vote Democratic anyway. Some in the middle might shift into the R column, but as time passes gay unions and gay marriage become less important to people over things like Iraq.

One outrageous aspect of this decision: giving the NJ state legislature 180 days to come up with new marriage laws. And what will the Court do if the legislature refuses or doesn't do this? Is the Court going to legislate its own laws, as so many of these ridiculous courts have done in other venues? Courts have NO business imposing laws and viewpoints on legislatures. That job solely belongs to the latter.



This may be true, but if Americans begin to believe gay marriage is being forced upon them by courts, they will not take it lightly. Nothing gets an often complacent electorate off their collective asses more than something that's being forced upon them without their input.

Note that the decision isn't going to be made until after the election, so it's all about the spin now.


$20 says the Dems spin it as a Civil Union and the Repubs spin it as Marriage.


Funny how these things work out.

Fine then MIB - the legislature in your state, where ever it is you live (I forget) can pass a law requiring all fags to register with the state and live in special "domestic zones" so that "normal" people don't have to see them - the courts, of course, would have no jurisdiction to stop them, because they don't get to set laws, right? If you want to live in a society under tyranny of the majority, then go right ahead, but the rest of us would like to live in America.

Meanwhile, back to reality - this is actually a better ruling in this political climate than a Massachusetts-style ruling, and hopefully will not generate too much interest outside of the anti-gay hate movement. We need to keep the focus off of this issue, and onto the important issues of GOP incompetence, GOP corruption, and the illegal war being fought on behalf of Halliburton.

Not that this isn't a large issue to the US but the country as a whole has bigger issues than gay marriage; boarder issues, war issues, etc... There will probably be some righties that are muffed about it but I think generally the voters are going to be looking at the boarder, the war, etc..

GO NEW JERSEY!!!

Of course we are going to get the right-wing zealots (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Lie-ly, Sean Hannity, etc.) who will spin this as further evidence of "the erosion of American society". That's a given. What isn't a given is what the Dems' take on this will be.

Apples and oranges. The NJ Supreme Court is NOT the branch of government empowered to make the laws. If the NJ Legislature doesn't act or refuses to act, their Supreme Court cannot decide to make some law to rectify said inaction. Like it or not, that's the way it works (or is supposed to).

(1) How is this apples and oranges? CPT gives an example of exactly what you're talking about MIB--no mention is made of judges making the law in his (her?) example. And again, my favorite retort to all this "judical activism" bluster is Brown v. Board.

(2) Federal courts and most state courts of unlimited subject matter jurisdiction have the power to grant equitable relief, in the form of requiring state actors to perform a certain duty within a given amount of time. So someone's complaint is a real nonstarter--federal courts do this all the time (e.g. the follow up cases to Brown v. Board that ensured that desegregation efforts were being followed by state legislatures.

Since a certain poster is quick to complain about liberal judges, I find it quite telling that the outgoing NJ Supreme Court chief justice is a republican, and yet she wrote a separate opinion very supportive of marriage rights for GLBTs under the NJ constitution.

And I found it equally telling that one of the strongest dissenters in the Massachusetts case was a lesbian, who criticized the majority's ruling.

Equitable relief cannot be legislative action. For example, if a court were to rule that a state wasn't properly funding education then decreed that that state's income tax was to be increased 2% points in order to bring into balance said funding, this would be a blatant usurpation of powers that belong solely to that state's legislature. (There are actual cases of state courts ordering such asinine actions, though I do not recall the specifics right now.)

If the NJ Supreme Court were to rule in 180 days that, because the state legislature failed to act, the state must now issue marriage licenses to gays, that would be a usurpation of the NJ legislature's powers.

Courts often may tell a legislature to do something, but failure to act often can result in simply nothing to be done. I do not condone ignoring judicial decisions, of course, but when it comes down to it, a court must rely on others for enforcement of its decisions.

No, it would be the repercussion of a willful refusal to follow the Constitution. Just because the understanding that gays and lesbians are human beings, in fact a sizable minority of the human species, is relatively recent does not mean that understanding can be ignored when assessing laws. There are only three ways to create new legally-recognized relatives in this country: birth, adoption and marriage. Without access to the 3rd, gays and lesbians are left to the tyranny of their biological families and the courts, which can legally ignore their wishes and their lives when crisis or death occur. That is a fundamental wrong that can no longer be justified because we know more about humanity and how it is ordered.

Not to mention the Court referred the issue back to the legislature, much as an appeals court will return a case to the original judge to retry or resentence or reconsider under their ruling, which shows that the Court is explicitly recognizing the role of the legislature - to make the laws. The Court did not, as in Massachusetts, specify the legal remedy to correct the unconstitutional problem created by the current laws; rather, it told the judiciary that they must, in their capacity as the people's representatives, find some mechanism to correct the imbalance. The legislature does not have to alter the laws to allow same-sex marriages, they can create a civil union with equal rights and responsibilities, or extend the current domestic partnership rights, hell, they could call the new status "Frank" for all the Court cares. In fact, although not explicitly stated in the ruling, the legislature could strip marriage of all its legal rights and responsibilities if it wanted to.

Unless you are one of those who question the reasoning behind Marbury vs. Madison, and therefore the entire concept of judicial review (meaning there is no real role for the judiciary), the courts have always been able to veto legislatures when they trampled on the rights of the people. How is this different - other than the Court is not overturning the law (understanding the value of the existing relationships under the law), but requiring the legislature to address it?

Thankfully I'm not someone who confuses your opinion with actual legal expertise MIB. Again, what kind of relief do you think the Supreme Court was giving in Brown v. Board and the follow up cases? They weren't just waxing poetic about the ills of racism. And if you want another example of courts granting equitable remedies for legislative stupidity, how about Bond v. Floyd?

Your post suggests that a plaintiff can't even petition a court for injuctive relief when a state legislature passes an unconstitutional law or regulation, which is clearly wrong.

Your desegregation dodge has never ended, and I'm sure it never will. I doubt that you're man enough to openly admit that you personally think Brown was incorrectly decided (in fairness even Justice Rehnquist couldn't, despite writing a memo stating otherwise), but at least then you would show some measure of intellectual integrity.

No, it would be a blatant usurpation of powers delegated exclusively to a state legislature! Once again, you lefties don't care how you get your results--constitutions and separation of powers be damned--as long as the results are what you want.

You have remedies in such cases. Get rid of the legislators who fail to act, but don't you dare demand the courts do the legislatures' jobs.



Perhaps you ought to go back and reread that case, because nowhere did C.J. Marshall say SCOTUS or any other court had a right to make laws when the legislatures do not or cannot. You, like Neptune, are confusing what I have been so brilliantly and correctly saying.

Interesting that the 3-judge minority dissented ONLY because they thought the decision does not go far enough --- they say only marriage (not a legislative choice between marriage or civil unions) is the solution to the existing discrimination.

Our Supreme Court has traditionally been one of the more liberal in the country. In this case, the dissenting opinion was, indeed, interesting and was written by a Republican who was appointed by Christie Whitman. The majority opinion was written, ironically, by a justice appointed by Jim McGreevey. Now that the matter has been kicked back to the Legislature (some say that was a total cop-out), it will be interesting to see what they do. The most recent polls here show that almost 70 percent of voters approve civil unions and that 49 percent support legalizing gay marriage. Both houses of the Legislature are controlled by Democrats and while there is already a push by at least one conservative Republican state senator to introduce legislation calling for an outright ban on gay marriage, the leaders of both houses say they won't support or even introduce such a measure. Governor Corzine says that he supports civil unions but would veto a bill that supports gay marriage. In the end, I suspect the Legislature will vote to approve civil unions, similar to Vermont.

Everyone stand back and make room for the next monster to be attacked by Godzilla - not Mothra, but the ever-expanding ego of MIB!

Because Marbury v. Madison created the "right" of the judiciary to veto laws, you're totally incorrect, not to mention this decision does NOT force the legislature to make laws, rather it forces them to correct an unconstitutional imbalance in existing laws. I do not remember the exact case, but there was a follow-up to Griswold, which recognized the rights of married couples to plan their families, in which the courts extended that same right to single people, thereby forcing legislatures to either amend or scrap their laws that gave special rights to the married. I suppose you think that is the wrong decision as well.

And as for "lefties" relying on Court decisions, let us never forget the Supreme Court decision that usurped the Constitutional mechanism for deciding Presidential races (i.e., the House of Representatives) and placed King George II on the first throne of the United States in 2000. Talk about judicial activism.

If this doesn't beat all, I don't know what would! Former Gov. Jim McGreevey wants to get married now that he's gay. He opposed gay marriage publicly but now that he admits his homosexuality, he wants to get married to his life partner. Hypocrisy, thy name is Jim McGreevey.

UCLA: good boy! You just beat me to the punch. Just read this. How ironic isn't it?

Which is as it should be. Now it's time for the NJ State Legislature to get to work.




Sorry, but it is you who are so clearly incorrect. The courts' ability to strike down a law is NOT--are you listening?--NOT the same as making laws, which is the sole power of the legislature. Your fervor to disregard the People's will and get an unelected oligarchy to enact laws with which you agree is frightening. What the hell is the Constitution for when courts can do the bidding of the Left?



I've commented on this numerous times before, but you Bush haters are so blind with partisan ignorance that you cannot understand everything surrounding Bush v. Gore, instead reading and shouting from the Left's playbook that "Bush was appointed and not elected."

Let me sum that up: there was no NEED for SCOTUS to act when it did, for the 12th Amendment and federal election law, which the Florida Supremes so blatantly violated more than once, covered the matter. Quite simply: there was no legal way--none--that Gore could have won Florida. Absolutely none. The Law just wasn't on his side. At all.

So it has been written. So it has been done.

Of course, the christians are taking their usual stand against equality. The christians respond
I'm sure this will create even more homophobic rhetoric from the right. There is a positive aspect in that for some. If the Republicans weren't open about their bigotry against us, how would our Log Cabin friends know for whom they should vote? Oh, wait...there would still be deficit spending to guide them.

But Gore DID win. How selective your memory must be, MIB. How is it in that fantasy world of yours? For the rest of us, those who chose to live in reality, we all recall how Gore actually won on recount. It's proven and factual. Case closed.

Sorry. He did not. Bush won every recount. That's a fact. Gore did not win, and could not legally win with his court battles or his recounts, which violated both the Constitution and USC election code.

Quit with the lies and go to bed. You are doing America a disservice with the spreading of lies. Once again, those of us living in reality know better. You are just making yourself look foolish.

Sorry. I am stating irrefutable facts. Your partisan ignorance is, as usual, illustrated in your typical left-wing comments.

Your homework assignment for the weekend is to study just how Gore's recounts were, indeed, illegal; how the Florida Supremes violated the 12th Amendment and USC election law, and how there was no legal way for Gore to win Florida and the election. Note: Florida's Chief Justice at the time, a Democrat, BTW, hinted at this very fact in his strong dissent.

Turn in the assignment--in your own words and not from the Democrats' playbook--by Monday. Now I'm off to destroy more left-wing idiocy...

Ever hear of the Associated Press, MIB? I thought so. They did a recount, and Gore was the winner. Sorry, it happened back in the year 2000. Gore really did win the election. It's common knowledge. Join us in the land of reality, MIB. Really. You will enjoy yourself. It's so nice to live life without delusion. It will be a welcome respite from how you are living your life now. Now go back to whacking off to your poster-boy, failure of a president, otherwise known as chimpy.

Actually, braniac, NOBODY won either Florida or, IIRC, New Mexico, because both states ended up with statistical ties (and millerbeach is correct that a 2001 statewide recount of FL put Gore something like 1,000 votes ahead). In both states the margin of error for the voting method was larger than the actual votes separating the two candidates, so no winner should have been certified in either state - if one were acting ethically, of course (given that Krazy Katherine Harris was in charge of the count in FL, ethics were not exactly expected). Because there was no real winner in either state, the vote should have moved into the House of Representatives, just as the Constitution requires (remember that little document MIB, you probably glanced at it once or twice in school). Because the House was GOP led, it would have likely gone with King George II anyway, but at least it would have been a legal, Constitutional outcome.

And as for the current New Jersey decision, given your "logic" the court should not have told the legislature to fix things. Instead, they should have overturned ALL the marriage laws in the state and forced the legislature to start over. Of course, that would have meant incredible burden and legal chaos, so they chose a more reasonable route, allowing breeders their special rights for 180 more days. Seems sensible and reasonble to me, not to mention pragmatic, but I guess when one deals with idealogues, pragmatism and sense must be thrown out the window of rigid, narrow-minded thinking.

Thank God your post wasn't serious. Good job of being rather facetious there, mb.

Citing the AP as doing the recount--that's a good one! After all, (a) it's a liberal outlet with, of course, absolutely no bias , and ( recounts are done by each county's election board; and as I explained, there was no way such recounts for Gore could have been legal. Get crackin' on that homework assignment, though. Nice excuse to try and delay it there.

It's interesting to note that the three dissenters -- the ones who said same-sex unions must be called marriage to be truly equal -- - were all appointed by a Republican, former Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

The New York Law Journal Online thinks the New Jersey decision "could have a profound effect on the New York state Legislature's approach to gay unions."



Score one for federalism! What a country!


Btw, if you guys need to rehash the 2000 election, could you take your discussion to its own thread, please? Thanks

As I stated above to mb, statewide recounts done by entities who endorsed and pulled for Gore were completely worthless. Plus, they were illegal. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Even if they were legal, what standard was to be used? Did the chads count? What about the dimples? Overvotes? Undervotes? ONLY the county election boards have the authority to do recounts; however, no further legal recounts were possible.

Also, as ditzy as Katherine Harris may be--and I'll say this clearly so you partisan hacks can get it through your biased skulls--she was following the law! The state legislature, granted SOLE and exclusive power by the U.S. Constitution (you know, that pain in the ass obstacle to liberal domination) and accompanying U.S. election law, spelled out what she was to do. She did it. She had no choice. The FL. Supreme Court had no authority whatsoever to extend or change anything. The final arbiter on what was to be lay exclusively with the FL. State Legislature and no one else.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I'm surprised the statistical error of a vote would be relevant when the votes are actually counted. It would seem that there would be a fixed number of votes and the margin would be irrelevant. The voting would stop the first time "all" the votes had been counted.

In which case if all of the votes in Florida had been counted Gore would have won Florida - no other recounts required.

I was thinking along those same lines. Call me crazy but I don't see why the definition of marriage can not be the same for all citzens before the law. Otherwise eliminate use of the word marriage in any legal sense and call all committed relationships between two consenting individauls the same thing, again before the law.

Many would argue that the problem is the very fact that a word's--"marriage"--basic definition is being discarded in order to justify a particular group's desires.

Its just too bad that "marriage" in the hetero world is doing so well, whats the divorce rate 63%??, that they would want to deny anybody else from being eligible for the same rights and priveledge.

Yeah, the same right to spend a few years together then get divorced in a bitter dispute.