NJ: 1 judge can't force gay marriage recognition

Oct 11, 2013 Full story: WXOW-TV La Crosse 27

Military chaplains will be able to offer worship services to members of the armed forces and their families despite the partial government shutdown under a bill moving through Congress.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Oct 11, 2013
The state make a lame argument but has history on their side. A stay has been issued in every other case we've won. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they get one this time too.
Qwerty26

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#3 Oct 11, 2013
Every NJ couple who is negatively impacted by losing the ability to file joint tax returns or any of the other tangible benefits of marriage should sue the state if they have to wait another year to attain those benefits. They have waited long enough.

NJ courts decided quite a while ago that the state must offer the same benefits to gay couples as to breeder couples, so they compromised and allowed civil unions. Now that the Federal government has changed positions, I cannot see how any reasonable person can look at civil unions and say that they offer the same benefits as marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Oct 11, 2013
Qwerty26 wrote:
Every NJ couple who is negatively impacted by losing the ability to file joint tax returns or any of the other tangible benefits of marriage should sue the state if they have to wait another year to attain those benefits. They have waited long enough.
NJ courts decided quite a while ago that the state must offer the same benefits to gay couples as to breeder couples, so they compromised and allowed civil unions. Now that the Federal government has changed positions, I cannot see how any reasonable person can look at civil unions and say that they offer the same benefits as marriage.
The state has made the argument that it is the federal govt which is preventing same-sex couples from getting equal rights & benefits. Technically that is true. The federal govt refuses to treat same-sex couples in civil unions equally to married couples (gay or straight).

Where the state's case falls apart is in the remedy they suggest- i.e. have the couples sue the federal govt for equal treatment of their civil unions. That certainly IS an option open to the plaintiffs, but that doesn't address the state's obligation to provide equality under the NJ constitution.

The state court can't do anything about federal law, but they CAN ensure same-sex couples are treated equally as required by the NJ constitution by simply requiring the state to allow them to marry.

It's the most direct & effective remedy, and the only one available to the NJ Supreme Court; unless they're going to overturn the precedent of the previous NJ Supreme Court ruling.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Oct 11, 2013
"'To overhaul such an ancient social institution prematurely, precipitously, or in a manner ultimately deemed unnecessary would injure not only the public interest, but the State that represents this interest," the state attorney general's office said in its brief.'"

HOW ???

In the many states in the U.S., and D.C., that have EQUAL Marriage Rights, I have not seen of, nor heard of any injuries to the public interest. Want to "protect marriage" ? Then ban divorce.

Christie's arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny to justify barring equal rights to some American citizens. I USED TO like and respect this guy, but not anymore.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Oct 11, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
"'To overhaul such an ancient social institution prematurely, precipitously, or in a manner ultimately deemed unnecessary would injure not only the public interest, but the State that represents this interest," the state attorney general's office said in its brief.'"
HOW ???
In the many states in the U.S., and D.C., that have EQUAL Marriage Rights, I have not seen of, nor heard of any injuries to the public interest. Want to "protect marriage" ? Then ban divorce.
Christie's arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny to justify barring equal rights to some American citizens. I USED TO like and respect this guy, but not anymore.
Which just proves you're a poor judge of character.

The ONLY reason Christie is doing this is because he's trying to get the GOPasaur nomination in '16?

If he wasn't going to run for President he'd have happily signed the marriage bill into law when it passed.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Oct 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which just proves you're a poor judge of character.
The ONLY reason Christie is doing this is because he's trying to get the GOPasaur nomination in '16?
If he wasn't going to run for President he'd have happily signed the marriage bill into law when it passed.
He wants to run for the U.S. Senate, and he hasn't got a prayer of being nominated for POTUS, because the "right wing" of the republican Party is too strong now to ever permit such a thing. The days of "Rockefeller Republicans" being viable candidates for the Republican nomination for POTUS are long over.

I remember when Gerald Ford foolishly said that Ronald Reagan was "unelectable" because he was "to far right". The voters dumped Ford and elected Reagan TWICE in two of the largest Presidential landslide POTUS elections in history. Ford ranks near Jimmy Carter in his political acumen, and also as one of the most ineffective POTUS'es in history.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#9 Oct 11, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
He wants to run for the U.S. Senate, and he hasn't got a prayer of being nominated for POTUS, because the "right wing" of the republican Party is too strong now to ever permit such a thing. The days of "Rockefeller Republicans" being viable candidates for the Republican nomination for POTUS are long over.
I remember when Gerald Ford foolishly said that Ronald Reagan was "unelectable" because he was "to far right". The voters dumped Ford and elected Reagan TWICE in two of the largest Presidential landslide POTUS elections in history. Ford ranks near Jimmy Carter in his political acumen, and also as one of the most ineffective POTUS'es in history.
Since you brought up the issue of being an effective president, care to say which president and which party has been most effective in helping gays and lesbians gain equal protection?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Oct 11, 2013
And regarding the headline: Of COURSE a judge can do that ! A single judge makes decisions like that frequently !
Ren

United States

#12 Oct 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Since you brought up the issue of being an effective president, care to say which president and which party has been most effective in helping gays and lesbians gain equal protection?
President Barrack Obama (Democrat). He has the highest record dealing with equal rights for the lgbtp+ community out of any other president. Bill Clinton would have taken that spot if he hadn't of caved to republican pressure...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Oct 11, 2013
Ren wrote:
<quoted text> President Barrack Obama (Democrat). He has the highest record dealing with equal rights for the lgbtp+ community out of any other president. Bill Clinton would have taken that spot if he hadn't of caved to republican pressure...
WRONG ! The perjurous Clinton gleefully signed DADT into FEDERAL LAW, when he had a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in the House, and a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in the Senate. It was the DEMOCRATS who wrote the DADT law. The Republicans in congress couldn't do ANYTHING because they were in the MINORITY !

Why do you Stalinist Libs always rewrite history to hide your despicable past ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Oct 12, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG ! The perjurous Clinton gleefully signed DADT into FEDERAL LAW, when he had a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in the House, and a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in the Senate. It was the DEMOCRATS who wrote the DADT law. The Republicans in congress couldn't do ANYTHING because they were in the MINORITY !
Why do you Stalinist Libs always rewrite history to hide your despicable past ?
DADT was better than the outright ban which existed at the time.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Oct 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
DADT was better than the outright ban which existed at the time.
So you ADMIT it was the DEMOCRATS who designed and passed DADT, and a DEMOCRAT who gleefully signed it into law. And who then looked into a tv camera and LIED to the American, people, was impeached, and is now a disbarred attorney.

Why do you defend him ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Oct 12, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ADMIT it was the DEMOCRATS who designed and passed DADT, and a DEMOCRAT who gleefully signed it into law. And who then looked into a tv camera and LIED to the American, people, was impeached, and is now a disbarred attorney.
Why do you defend him ?
Because the GOPasaurs would have kept the outright ban.

DADT was a stepping stone to open service, which was also designed & passed by Dems.

Which means you're STILL a moron.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Oct 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the GOPasaurs would have kept the outright ban.
DADT was a stepping stone to open service, which was also designed & passed by Dems.
Which means you're STILL a moron.
Which means YOU still make excuses and apologies for EVIL people.

What you say is RIDICULOUS and UNTRUE. The Republicans were the minority party in both houses. HOW could they pass ANYTHING ?! The DEMOCRATS with majority control in BOTH houses, could pass ANYTHING they wanted and since they had a DEMOCRAT in The White House, he would sign it.

So explain WHY the DEMOCRATS didn't repeal the ban ENTIRELY when they had majorities in BOTH houses of Congress and their guy in The White House.

These are EVIL people. Just admit it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Oct 13, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means YOU still make excuses and apologies for EVIL people.
What you say is RIDICULOUS and UNTRUE. The Republicans were the minority party in both houses. HOW could they pass ANYTHING ?! The DEMOCRATS with majority control in BOTH houses, could pass ANYTHING they wanted and since they had a DEMOCRAT in The White House, he would sign it.
So explain WHY the DEMOCRATS didn't repeal the ban ENTIRELY when they had majorities in BOTH houses of Congress and their guy in The White House.
These are EVIL people. Just admit it.
Because not every Dem supported allowing gays to serve openly, and even IF every Dem supported it, they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

DADT was still an improvement over an outright ban.

Democrats DID repeal the ban entirely; it just happened in 2010.

Republicans would STILL return us to an outright ban if they had their way.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not every Dem supported allowing gays to serve openly, and even IF every Dem supported it, they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
DADT was still an improvement over an outright ban.
Democrats DID repeal the ban entirely; it just happened in 2010.
Republicans would STILL return us to an outright ban if they had their way.
excuses, excuses, excuses.....

As Commander-In-Chief, Clinton COULD HAVE simply issued a military order barring discrimination against LGB people in the military. Any action by congress to write the ban into federal law,(the ban was NOT federal law at the, until Clinton put it into federal law with DADT) could have been vetoed by Clinton, and the chance that that veto would be overridden by overwhelming numbers of his own party was nil.

Instead, he GLEEFULLY signed into federal law a law specifically discrimination against LGB people for the VERY FIRST TIME in American history. Not ONLY the fact that he SPECIFICALLY LIED TO US.

The man is an admitted perjurer, and admitted liar to the American people, an impeached official, and a disbarred attorney. He has NO credibility whatsoever. WHY do you constantly make excuses for someone who screwed us ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Oct 13, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
excuses, excuses, excuses.....
As Commander-In-Chief, Clinton COULD HAVE simply issued a military order barring discrimination against LGB people in the military. Any action by congress to write the ban into federal law,(the ban was NOT federal law at the, until Clinton put it into federal law with DADT) could have been vetoed by Clinton, and the chance that that veto would be overridden by overwhelming numbers of his own party was nil.
Instead, he GLEEFULLY signed into federal law a law specifically discrimination against LGB people for the VERY FIRST TIME in American history. Not ONLY the fact that he SPECIFICALLY LIED TO US.
The man is an admitted perjurer, and admitted liar to the American people, an impeached official, and a disbarred attorney. He has NO credibility whatsoever. WHY do you constantly make excuses for someone who screwed us ?
He was STILL better than any Republican on the issue.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#21 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
He was STILL better than any Republican on the issue.
No, he WASN'T. MORE people were thrown out of the military under Clinton, than Reagan for instance.

And Reagan fought against the Briggs initiative in California (which was defeated) in the 70's. Clinton made things WORSE, not better.

Why do you believe these fairy tales and constantly stick up for someone who lied to our faces about this issue, lied to the American public, committed perjury, and was disbarred ?

By your twisted logic, any CRIMINAL who says "I believe in Gay Rights", automatically gets your support no matter how many crimes he's committed and how many lies he has told. Ti sis EXACTLY what's wrong with you STUPID Democrats, Libs, and fellow travelers.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Oct 13, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he WASN'T. MORE people were thrown out of the military under Clinton, than Reagan for instance.
And Reagan fought against the Briggs initiative in California (which was defeated) in the 70's. Clinton made things WORSE, not better.
Why do you believe these fairy tales and constantly stick up for someone who lied to our faces about this issue, lied to the American public, committed perjury, and was disbarred ?
By your twisted logic, any CRIMINAL who says "I believe in Gay Rights", automatically gets your support no matter how many crimes he's committed and how many lies he has told. Ti sis EXACTLY what's wrong with you STUPID Democrats, Libs, and fellow travelers.
Because unlike you and your self-destructive irrational hatred of the Dems, I actually look at things rationally.

Also, I was in the military under both Reagan AND Bush AND Clinton, so I know for a fact things were better for gay & lesbian service members after DADT was passed.

The only reason more people were kicked out after DADT was passed is because more people got tired of hiding and many others incorrectly believed they could be more openly gay and not worry about it.

And of course you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that it was the Dems under President Obama's leadership who finally repealed DADT.

So keep hating the Dems, if that keeps you warm at night...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#23 Oct 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because unlike you and your self-destructive irrational hatred of the Dems, I actually look at things rationally.
Also, I was in the military under both Reagan AND Bush AND Clinton, so I know for a fact things were better for gay & lesbian service members after DADT was passed.
The only reason more people were kicked out after DADT was passed is because more people got tired of hiding and many others incorrectly believed they could be more openly gay and not worry about it.
And of course you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that it was the Dems under President Obama's leadership who finally repealed DADT.
So keep hating the Dems, if that keeps you warm at night...
Four closely-held cats keep me warm at nite.

:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 9 min Vitez 1,796
Stay issued in Indiana gay marriage ban case 35 min KiMare 21
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 56 min KiMare 200,939
4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban 57 min KiMare 625
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 1 hr Pro-Ukraine 1,349
John Barrowman Proud Of Gay Kiss At Commonwealt... 1 hr Beauty Queen 23
Single Women Raise Gay Sons: Pat Robertson short 3 hr NorCal Native 38
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 4 hr DebraE 386
Web filter lifts block on gay sitesWeb filter l... 5 hr Professor Jumper 15
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 6 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 609
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,889
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 11 hr WeTheSheeple 751
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••