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.
N.J. Court: Legislature Should Decide on 'Gay Marriage'
TRENTON, N.J. -- 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 the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections. Instead, the high 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.~ NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006
(C) 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below |
5 Comments:
MARRIAGE REDEFINED
New Jersey’s state Supreme Court today took a giant step toward redefining traditional marriage by ordering the legislature to give all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. How this is to be implemented is up to lawmakers, but homosexual rights advocates are already demanding legislation to legalize same-sex “marriage.” This setback was not unexpected. This was the same court that ruled the Boy Scouts had to accept open homosexuals as scout masters, a decision ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Today’s decision may have far-reaching consequences because, unlike Massachusetts, New Jersey has no law banning marriages that would be illegal in another state. Homosexuals from any state, including one of the 20 states with marriage protection amendments, may soon be able to travel to New Jersey, get “married,” and return home demanding recognition of their New Jersey “marriage.” This scenario presents a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and our system of representative government. Under our Constitution, judges are not supposed to make laws. The people decide the laws of this country through the elected legislatures. Once again, we are seeing the advocates of a radical agenda turn to the courts to achieve what they could not win at the ballot box. It is further evidence that a federal marriage amendment is needed to prevent a few robed radicals from redefining our most cherished values.
American Values
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 950
Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: 703-671-9700
Fax: 703-671-1680
PRESERVING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Thursday, October 26, 2006
There is chaos in Trenton, New Jersey, today as legislators grapple with the decision by the state supreme court to redefine traditional marriage.
Homosexual rights advocates are reportedly pressuring lawmakers to support legislation legalizing same-sex “marriage.” Leading Democrats in the state, however, appear to be wavering, while the Republican candidate in the surprisingly close U.S. Senate race announced his support for a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
In Iowa today, President Bush said, “… we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”
My friends, if you had any doubts about whether or not it is worth voting this November, I hope yesterday’s decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court erased any and all reservations.
As I noted in Wednesday’s report, the radical Left is using the courts to impose an agenda that would not pass at the ballot box. But the people are not powerless. It is up to the American people to demand that their elected representatives take action to counter this agenda and rein in these rogue judges. That is why your vote is so important!
I received many messages this morning from concerned citizens expressing their anger and frustration with yesterday’s ruling, the inability to pass a federal marriage amendment, and asking what can be done to stop judicial activism. The first thing we must do is to support candidates who recognize the value of preserving traditional marriage and who realize the dangers of judicial activism. And the two political parties have clear and distinct positions on these issues.
For example, when Congress last voted on the proposed federal marriage amendment, 85% of Senate Republicans voted to prevent state and federal judges from redefining traditional marriage. In contrast, just 4% of Democrat senators – two of them – voted for the marriage amendment. In the House, 87% of Republicans backed the marriage amendment, while just 17% of Democrats voted for it.
Unfortunately, passing a constitutional amendment is not easy. It requires a super-majority vote in both houses of Congress. And while the vast majority of Republicans support the marriage protection amendment, they don’t have a super-majority, so Democrats effectively killed it. In fact, 12 Senate Democrats who voted against the marriage amendment “represent” states that recently enacted their own marriage protection amendments!
How’s that for being “out of touch”?
By the way, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee is former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the man who signed the nation’s first civil unions law.
You -- the American people -- are not divided or confused about the meaning of marriage. Every time the issue has been put up for a public vote, the American people have overwhelmingly reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage. To date, 20 states have passed marriage protection amendments by an average vote of 71%, and eight more states are likely to approve marriage amendments this year.
If values voters stay home on November 7th, the federal marriage amendment will not get a vote in Congress. Democrats with long histories of opposing traditional marriage, even voting against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, would become Speaker of the House and chairmen of key committees.
In the Senate, the most partisan liberals would be empowered to block all of President Bush’s conservative judicial nominees. If Harry Reid had been Majority Leader for the past two years, Samuel Alito would not be on the Supreme Court today. In addition, all kinds of bills undermining
traditional values will be pushed through Congress, while the courts impose same-sex “marriage” on America.
That’s the alternative, my friends.
Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
Campaign for Working Families
Campaign for Working Families
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 930
Arlington, VA 22206
Phone:703-671-8800
Fax: 703-671-8899
Web: www.cwfpac.com
N.J. SUPREME COURT RULING OPENING DOOR TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES -- A WAKE-UP CALL
26 Oct 2006
ANN ARBOR, MI – The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite–sex couples. The Court ordered the state legislature to enact legislation within 180 days that would either include same-sex couples in the existing marriage laws, or create a parallel statutory structure. Gay activists hailed the Court’s decision as an enormous victory.
The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that had dismissed the complaint brought by seven same-sex couples, which alleged that state restrictions of marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex unions despite the fact that current state law defines marriage as between one man and one woman and despite the fact the court acknowledged there is no fundamental right to same –sex marriages.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, condemned the ruling, “The New Jersey Supreme Court has engaged in a reckless act of social engineering and judicial activism which, if allowed to stand, will have bitter consequences for society in the future. No consideration was given to the instability the Court’s social experimentation will have on society as they cavalierly detached marriage from procreation and the traditional family of one man and one woman. This decision should be a wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriages. Perhaps the chief lesson of yesterday’s decision is the importance of providing traditional marriage with constitutional protection.”
In 2004, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment. When opponents of the amendment claimed it was unnecessary because Michigan law limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the Center warned that a constitutional amendment was the best guarantee against a redefinition of marriage by an activist court.
Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who drafted Michigan’s Marriage Amendment for the Coalition, noted another lesson to be learned from the decision. “The defense of traditional marriage was fatally compromised by the Attorney General’s failure to defend the role that marriage plays in promoting the true good of the spouses and children who enter the family. Once society fails to appreciate these essential goods of marriage, damage to the family and, ultimately, the common good, becomes inevitable.”
Last week Gillen appeared before the Michigan Supreme Court in a case where the Law Center argues that Michigan’s Marriage Amendment prohibits public schools from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships. Yesterday, the Law Center filed an appeal from a decision dismissing its claim that the Marriage Amendment prohibits Michigan State University from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnership benefits. In both cases the courts refused to rule on the merits of the claim, dismissing the suits based on narrow jurisdictional grounds.
Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that has authorized same-sex marriages. Two other states, Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions. Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments that explicitly ban samesex marriages. On November 7th eight additional states will be voting on constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
JERSEY COURT ORDERS OK OF GAY UNIONS
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 26, 2006
The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday said that although there was no right to same-sex "marriage" in the state constitution, homosexual couples were treated unequally by the state and that lawmakers must find a way to correct this.
"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," said Justice Barry T. Albin, who wrote the 4-3 decision in Lewis v. Harris.
Justice Albin said the democratic process must decide "whether marriage or some other term" will be used to name the rights and benefits, but the high court gave state lawmakers 180 days to "amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples" or "create a parallel statutory structure" that will give such couples "on equal terms" the rights, benefits and obligations borne by married couples.
The long-awaited ruling was a disappointment to homosexual rights advocates, who were hoping the court would make New Jersey the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex "marriage."
"Those who would view today's Supreme Court ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong," said Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, a homosexual rights group in New Jersey.
However, he said, three state lawmakers are poised to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" and "thousands of us will now hit the streets, the phones and the hallways to get this legislation passed."
All seven justices agreed that the current situation was unconstitutional, but the three dissenters wanted the court to directly create a marriage right for homosexuals.
Retiring Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz led the dissenters, saying that she could "find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage," adding that denying the homosexual couples the symbolism surrounding the word "marriage" was to "demean" them.
David Buckel of Lambda Legal, who represented the seven homosexual couple plaintiffs, was more optimistic, saying, "The bottom line here is that the entire court said that there must be a remedy for the inequality that bars same-sex couples from marriage."
It should be easy for the legislature to pass full marriage rights for same-sex couples, given the public's widespread support for the issue, he added.
Many social and religious conservatives described yesterday's decision as another loss for homosexual "marriage," but no one called it a total victory for their side either.
"This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn't need constitutional protection," said Glen Lavy, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund.
"This is probably the best decision we could have hoped for out of New Jersey, the court that thought it could order the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
The high court "pulled a Vermont," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, referring to the Vermont Supreme Court's 1999 ruling that forced state lawmakers to either enact same-sex "marriage" or a parallel system of benefits for same-sex couples. The ruling resulted in the nation's first civil union law.
In his majority opinion, Justice Albin said there was no constitutional right to same-sex "marriage."
"Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions, history and conscience of the people are deemed to be fundamental," he wrote.
The New Jersey Legislature, which has a Democratic majority in both chambers, already has enacted a domestic-partner law that gives same-sex couples hospital-visitation rights and health and pension benefits for state employees.
State lawmakers should "do the simplest, fairest and most sensible thing: include gay and lesbian couples within the existing framework of civil marriage," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
However, John Tomicki, head of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, said his allies will work to both stop enactment of same-sex "marriage" and put a constitutional marriage amendment on the November 2007 ballot.
Copyright 2006 Washington Times
October 26, 2006 – The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage should be legal in that state. The Court has ordered the state legislature to either revise its marriage laws to legalize homosexual marriage or create a separate legal institution like civil unions to provide homosexuals with the same benefits of traditional marriage.
The Court ordered the state legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.
TVC has condemned this decision and issued the following press release:
NEW JERSEY JUDGES DISTORT MARRIAGE, IGNORE WILL OF THE GOVERNED
Underscores Urgency of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment
Washington, DC -- The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) called today's New Jersey court decision "another example of a court overstepping its authority and ordering a legislature to enact a law within a certain timetable."
In a 4 to 3 decision, the court ruled that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process." The court established a 180 day deadline for the New Jersey legislature to enact legislation which conforms to its decision.
"Like the earlier Massachusetts decision, the New Jersey court seeks to thwart the will of the people by imagining new rights," said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. "It just underscores the urgency for Congress to enact an amendment which defines marriage and consequently bans homosexual "marriages" of every form."
"The present federal marriage amendment attempts to play word games by trading civil unions for marriage. Civil unions are synonymous with marriage and everyone knows it so this legislation is going nowhere fast.
The Congress needs to enact a real marriage protection amendment and then give it to the states for a vote.
"Today's decision is another attempt by the liberal judiciary to shout down the voices and votes of the American people. Congress needs to act immediately!"
TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty called the decision "more judicial bullying."
"America seems to be engaging in a very risky gamble. Each time we "roll the dice" and ask judges to ponder something which is obvious to most Americans, we are risking our nation's future.
"Washington needs to hear the voice of the American people louder and clearer than it has before. We have reached that point with the marriage issue. Some members of the House and the Senate who know better are acting confused about marriage. It is up to the American people to explain it to them.
"Of course, the worst gamble is being made by those who plan to stay home this November and leave the fate of this and other important issues to others who cast their votes. Republicans, Democrats or Vegetarians, it doesn't matter -- religious conservatives should vote for people who support traditional marriage and vote against anybody who doesn't."
"A lot of these courts have become liberal lobbying machines which create laws and precedents where legislatures and voters have taken the opposite position.
"Find out how candidates come down on this issue and vote in November.
If pro-marriage people stay home, the liberals win."
The New Jersey decision is available here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf.
Post A Comment