Judge Rules N.J. Must Allow Gay Marriage

Judge Rules N.J. Must Allow Gay Marriage

There are 44 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from Sep 29, 2013, titled Judge Rules N.J. Must Allow Gay Marriage. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

A state judge's ruling Friday would make New Jersey the latest state to allow same-sex couples to marry, setting up a potential legal battle with the administration of Gov. Chris Christie .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

Lamer

Norwalk, OH

#26 Sep 30, 2013
Gay marriage is coming and one of the main reasons is there is not a coherent argument for being against it as this thread has yet again showed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#27 Sep 30, 2013
Civil unions, like DOMA, deny equal benefits.

"In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#28 Sep 30, 2013
While a different set of laws, the effects are the same. They deny equality.

Supreme Court:

"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)
Huh

Faribault, MN

#29 Oct 1, 2013
Freedom and equality rings clear..Thanks judge.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#30 Oct 1, 2013
The next question is will a stay be issued.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Oct 1, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The next question is will a stay be issued.
I believe a stay was issued, because if it wasn't, then LGBT people would be getting married in New Jersey right now, and I have not heard that that is happening.

And The New Jersey Supreme Court ORDERED marriage equality many years ago. But it still hasn't happened. If this case gets to them again on Christie's appeal, I'm betting that Christie will lose and that marriage equality will be the law throughout the state soon, almost certainly before the end of the year.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#32 Oct 1, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe a stay was issued, because if it wasn't, then LGBT people would be getting married in New Jersey right now, and I have not heard that that is happening.
And The New Jersey Supreme Court ORDERED marriage equality many years ago. But it still hasn't happened. If this case gets to them again on Christie's appeal, I'm betting that Christie will lose and that marriage equality will be the law throughout the state soon, almost certainly before the end of the year.
No, a stay wasn't issued. The judge ruled it would be effective Oct 21st, likely to give the state offices times to prepare the necessary forms.

The NJ court ordered same-sex couples are entitled to the same RIGHTS as married couples, but they did NOT rule they are entitled to marry.

Of course now that section 3 of DOMA has been overturned, it is impossible for same-sex couples in NJ to get the same rights without being able to marry.

So yes, I'd fully expect the NJ Supreme Court to agree with the district court judge's ruling.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#33 Oct 1, 2013
I seem to remember reading that the delay was a standard procedure that allows time for an appeal.

It sounds like Christie wants it to be clearly beyond his control, which leaves the state Supreme court, an override of his veto, or popular opinion. It seems the State Supreme Court has made it clear how they will rule. Christie can still claim he tried his best to stop it.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#34 Oct 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, a stay wasn't issued. The judge ruled it would be effective Oct 21st, likely to give the state offices times to prepare the necessary forms.
The NJ court ordered same-sex couples are entitled to the same RIGHTS as married couples, but they did NOT rule they are entitled to marry.
Of course now that section 3 of DOMA has been overturned, it is impossible for same-sex couples in NJ to get the same rights without being able to marry.
So yes, I'd fully expect the NJ Supreme Court to agree with the district court judge's ruling.
Except that slime bucket Christie and his dirt bag lawyers are now claiming, in part, that it's not New Jersey's fault that gay couples don't have equality--it's the Federal government's fault because THEY won't recognize civil unions as marriages....

So they HAVE managed to come up with something that, while completely ridiculous in the real world, is a reasonable issue to review in the legal world.

Unbelievable. There's no end to the efforts politicians will go to in order to disenfranchise people so they walk all over them while they claw their way to their own goals. It's sickening.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#35 Oct 2, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that slime bucket Christie and his dirt bag lawyers are now claiming, in part, that it's not New Jersey's fault that gay couples don't have equality--it's the Federal government's fault because THEY won't recognize civil unions as marriages....
So they HAVE managed to come up with something that, while completely ridiculous in the real world, is a reasonable issue to review in the legal world.
Unbelievable. There's no end to the efforts politicians will go to in order to disenfranchise people so they walk all over them while they claw their way to their own goals. It's sickening.
Except that I believe that quite a few years ago the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that so-called "civil unions" (a legal fiction if there ever was one) are NOT equal to marriages, and the court ordered marriage equality. Which still hasn't happened in New Jersey.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#36 Oct 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I believe that quite a few years ago the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that so-called "civil unions" (a legal fiction if there ever was one) are NOT equal to marriages, and the court ordered marriage equality. Which still hasn't happened in New Jersey.
I think if I were sitting on New Jersey's State Supreme Court right now, I'd be wondering who took my balls and why no one is paying any attention to our rulings anymore. It sure seems like that Supreme Court is pretty much being ignored by the rest of their government.

But then, I guess when the court doesn't have the ability to hand down a ruling that resolves the case before it, why should anyone bother to listen to them?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#37 Oct 2, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I think if I were sitting on New Jersey's State Supreme Court right now, I'd be wondering who took my balls and why no one is paying any attention to our rulings anymore. It sure seems like that Supreme Court is pretty much being ignored by the rest of their government.
But then, I guess when the court doesn't have the ability to hand down a ruling that resolves the case before it, why should anyone bother to listen to them?
The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered marriage equality many years ago. It's up to the executive branch of the state government, i.e. the Governor and Attorney General, to enforce it.

A very famous case similar to this is Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S.(6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

It was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.

President Andrew Jackson's response to the SCOTUS ruling was [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

And he simply ignored Chief Justice John Marshal, and the other SCOTUS justices, and that was the end of that.

A case COULD BE MADE that a governor or POTUS, ignoring, or violating a SCOTUS decision, is an impeachable offense for failure to abide by their sworn oath of office.

But what can you do ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Oct 2, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that slime bucket Christie and his dirt bag lawyers are now claiming, in part, that it's not New Jersey's fault that gay couples don't have equality--it's the Federal government's fault because THEY won't recognize civil unions as marriages....
So they HAVE managed to come up with something that, while completely ridiculous in the real world, is a reasonable issue to review in the legal world.
Unbelievable. There's no end to the efforts politicians will go to in order to disenfranchise people so they walk all over them while they claw their way to their own goals. It's sickening.
I do give Christie credit for coming up with that twisted logic.

The problem with his reasoning is that while the state can't do anything about the federal govt refusing to recognize civil unions, they CAN do something about not allowing same-sex couples to marry- and thereby providing the equal treatment the NJ constitution requires.

Considering the past NJ Supreme Court ruling, I don't see any way they overturn the district court judge's current ruling.

The only question is how soon it happens & whether NJ is #14 or #15 or #16 etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Oct 2, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I believe that quite a few years ago the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that so-called "civil unions" (a legal fiction if there ever was one) are NOT equal to marriages, and the court ordered marriage equality. Which still hasn't happened in New Jersey.
No, they never made such a ruling.

They simply ruled same-sex couples must be treated equally to opposite-sex couples, but allowed the legislature to determine whether that would be under the title of marriage or civil unions.

As long as the federal govt refused to recognize marriages of same-sex couples, civil unions theoretically provided the equal treatment under the NJ constitution required by their ruling.

Now that section 3 of DOMA has been overturned, that is no longer the case- theoretically or otherwise.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#40 Oct 2, 2013
While Gill was about DOMA, it shows there is no reason to seperate os from ss marriages.

"This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#41 Oct 2, 2013
Oops, already used Gill above.

How about more Windsor: "Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

It seems clear the court was saying the 14th amendement would tell the states the same thing the 5th tells the feds. Government cannot deny equal protections.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#43 Oct 2, 2013
A Proud Lesbian wrote:
I am getting married on November 29 and was over the moon when I heard this announced on Friday. The ceremony and reception we have planned has not changed at all. But the feeling of that day, and what it means for us as a couple has changed unbelievablely! I cross my fingers that whatever nonsense Chris Christie throws at us will not impact this ruling and our right to be married legally.
www.thatlesbianteacher.com
Congratulations! Best wishes to both of you.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#44 Oct 2, 2013
A Proud Lesbian wrote:
I am getting married on November 29 and was over the moon when I heard this announced on Friday. The ceremony and reception we have planned has not changed at all. But the feeling of that day, and what it means for us as a couple has changed unbelievablely! I cross my fingers that whatever nonsense Chris Christie throws at us will not impact this ruling and our right to be married legally.
www.thatlesbianteacher.com
Congratulations to you and your future wife!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#45 Oct 2, 2013
A Proud Lesbian wrote:
I am getting married on November 29 and was over the moon when I heard this announced on Friday. The ceremony and reception we have planned has not changed at all. But the feeling of that day, and what it means for us as a couple has changed unbelievablely! I cross my fingers that whatever nonsense Chris Christie throws at us will not impact this ruling and our right to be married legally.
www.thatlesbianteacher.com
Congratulations.

None of my business, but just curious what state or country you are planning to get married in? Are you counting on NJ issuing licenses by then, or going to DC, one of the neighbor states, or Canada. I hear DC is doing a lot of marriages. I would think Niagara Falls would also still be popular as well, now that you can do it on either side.
A Proud Lesbian

Elizabeth, NJ

#46 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations.
None of my business, but just curious what state or country you are planning to get married in? Are you counting on NJ issuing licenses by then, or going to DC, one of the neighbor states, or Canada. I hear DC is doing a lot of marriages. I would think Niagara Falls would also still be popular as well, now that you can do it on either side.
Thanks so much for the well wishes! We are planning on getting married in New Jersey. Our Civil Union has already been filed but now that legal same-sex marriages are projected to begin October 21, we are lucky enough to file just around the corner!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Frankie Rizzo 49,268
News South Korean military convicts soldier for havi... 6 min Lester 5
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 13 min Abdel Fattah 69,526
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 29 min Truth 25,631
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 30 min Amused 440
Big Memorial Day Party 31 min Augie 6
News Katherine Clark, Betsy DeVos get into heated di... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 4
News Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance Allowed To ... 1 hr Doctor Feelgood 35
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr BOSE 5,993
More from around the web