NJ to File Defense of Civil Unions Vs...

NJ to File Defense of Civil Unions Vs Gay Marriage

There are 23 comments on the EDGE story from Aug 2, 2013, titled NJ to File Defense of Civil Unions Vs Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

Lawyers for New Jersey are expected to defend the state's civil unions for same-sex couples as opposed to gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1 Aug 2, 2013
Ummm why? The State of New Jersey already put together a Commission that already states that Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriage and it makes Gay and Lesbian Couples feel like 2nd Class Citizens!!!

Here is that report:
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Fina...

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#2 Aug 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Ummm why? The State of New Jersey already put together a Commission that already states that Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriage and it makes Gay and Lesbian Couples feel like 2nd Class Citizens!!!
Here is that report:
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Fina...
I agree. Didn't the court long ago order marriage equality in New Jersey ?

(btw, did ya eva notice that when you go thru The Holland Tunnel and get out in Manhattan that there's a BIG sign that says "WELCOME TO NEW YORK !:)" but when ya go the other way and get out of the tunnel, that there's a BIG sign that says "WELCOME TO HELL !:)". Did ya eva notice that ?:))
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#3 Aug 2, 2013
Jersey loses this one from the git-go
.
The US Supreme Court decision renders civil union certificates useless. New Jersey needs to issue refunds
.
The IRS won't trigger the 1,138 rights, benefits, and privilege package unless a couple has a legal marriage license
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/... ;

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#4 Aug 2, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Didn't the court long ago order marriage equality in New Jersey ?
(btw, did ya eva notice that when you go thru The Holland Tunnel and get out in Manhattan that there's a BIG sign that says "WELCOME TO NEW YORK !:)" but when ya go the other way and get out of the tunnel, that there's a BIG sign that says "WELCOME TO HELL !:)". Did ya eva notice that ?:))
I've read before on topix, but I have NEVER been to New York......sorry!!!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#5 Aug 2, 2013
New Jersey will stop the 'civil union' hoax as soon as the first 'civil-unioned' couple sues for trillions in class-action damages due to loss of federal benefits
.
As the new owners of New Jersey, we'll be renaming the 'Garden State' to the 'Rainbow State' and require homophobes to wear straitjackets and ankle bracelets to protect the general public from hissy fit pollution

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Aug 2, 2013
We'll see what the court says this month, or maybe next month, or maybe the month after that, or maybe......

Well, we'll see eventually I suppose, or maybe not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Aug 2, 2013
I agree with everyone else that I don't see what possible argument the state could come up with now that ONLY a marriage license gets the federal benefits.

I suspect it will be along the lines of "NJ law only controls NJ benefits, not federal", or something like that. But unless the court is stacked with Christie appointees, I don't see that argument getting any more traction than a "I'm rubber you're glue" defense.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#8 Aug 2, 2013
but I believe that since the court ordered the legislature to make marriages equal for us, the court will say that civil unions are NOT equal (they obviously aren't) and will order the legislature to make it truly EQUAL.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 Aug 2, 2013
Their defense against the request for summary judgment has been filed. They argue that they should sue the feds for denying recognition to civil unions, not the state and that they need more time to find something that might be confused with a defense for this. Expect summary judgment against the state in the not so distant future.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Aug 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Their defense against the request for summary judgment has been filed. They argue that they should sue the feds for denying recognition to civil unions, not the state and that they need more time to find something that might be confused with a defense for this. Expect summary judgment against the state in the not so distant future.
I don't know. Not being from New Jersey, I don't have a good feel for this court, but in general the courts are too often cautious cowards who are afraid of being overturned on appeal. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they agreed to a full trial just to be thorough.
qwerty26

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#11 Aug 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I agree with everyone else that I don't see what possible argument the state could come up with now that ONLY a marriage license gets the federal benefits.
I suspect it will be along the lines of "NJ law only controls NJ benefits, not federal", or something like that. But unless the court is stacked with Christie appointees, I don't see that argument getting any more traction than a "I'm rubber you're glue" defense.
Agree. And if they use the bit about "NJ law only controls NJ benefits, not federal", it won't take long to realize that the state defines marriage. They work hand in hand.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12 Aug 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Their defense against the request for summary judgment has been filed. They argue that they should sue the feds for denying recognition to civil unions, not the state and that they need more time to find something that might be confused with a defense for this. Expect summary judgment against the state in the not so distant future.
The plaintiffs have the Commission's report and the Supreme Court has already state that Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriages!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Aug 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I don't know. Not being from New Jersey, I don't have a good feel for this court, but in general the courts are too often cautious cowards who are afraid of being overturned on appeal. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they agreed to a full trial just to be thorough.
While granted courts tend to be cautious, this is too much of a been here done that situation. The state's defense against summary judgment is half-hearted at best and the notion that it's the feds' fault that they won't recognize your second class status is just silly. I seriously doubt that any Judge would really want to waste time on a trial at this point.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14 Aug 2, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
The plaintiffs have the Commission's report and the Supreme Court has already state that Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriages!!!
That's why this case is about to hit the judicial version of a fast track. I'm not foreseeing a trial in this case's future. We're going straight to verdict.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Aug 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While granted courts tend to be cautious, this is too much of a been here done that situation. The state's defense against summary judgment is half-hearted at best and the notion that it's the feds' fault that they won't recognize your second class status is just silly. I seriously doubt that any Judge would really want to waste time on a trial at this point.
I hope you're right.

I'm sure the verdict in the end will be in our favor, I'm just not sure how quickly that verdict will come.

Even assuming the state is correct that civil unions provide the equal rights & benefits at the state level- a big assumption, but one which likely WOULD take a trial to prove or disprove- the state court CAN ensure equal treatment of same-sex couples even at the federal level by simply ordering the state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

So for me it comes down to what the NJ Supreme Court wants to do. There have been some changes to the court since the 2006 ruling, so that may have an effect on how the court moves forward.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#16 Aug 3, 2013
Especially with DOMA down, that's ridiculous.

It's easy to show that a civil union is not recognized by the federal government, and, so, discriminatory and harmful to gay couples.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you're right.
I'm sure the verdict in the end will be in our favor, I'm just not sure how quickly that verdict will come.
Even assuming the state is correct that civil unions provide the equal rights & benefits at the state level- a big assumption, but one which likely WOULD take a trial to prove or disprove- the state court CAN ensure equal treatment of same-sex couples even at the federal level by simply ordering the state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
So for me it comes down to what the NJ Supreme Court wants to do. There have been some changes to the court since the 2006 ruling, so that may have an effect on how the court moves forward.
You might be right, but a Commission has already put out a 150 page report that states why Civil Unions DON'T work!!!

No need for a trial because this issue has been going on for awhile now!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#18 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I hope you're right.
I'm sure the verdict in the end will be in our favor, I'm just not sure how quickly that verdict will come.
Even assuming the state is correct that civil unions provide the equal rights & benefits at the state level- a big assumption, but one which likely WOULD take a trial to prove or disprove- the state court CAN ensure equal treatment of same-sex couples even at the federal level by simply ordering the state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
So for me it comes down to what the NJ Supreme Court wants to do. There have been some changes to the court since the 2006 ruling, so that may have an effect on how the court moves forward.
The plaintiffs had two questions they were asking; whether civil unions were kosher in the world according to Lewis and even if they were, were they constitutionally acceptable to equal protection under the US Constitution? The now rather obvious answer to the second question makes the first one pretty much insignificant at this point. This case now has bigger problems than can be settled with a trial.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Aug 3, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You might be right, but a Commission has already put out a 150 page report that states why Civil Unions DON'T work!!!
No need for a trial because this issue has been going on for awhile now!!!
But has that report been submitted as evidence to the court and has the state had the opportunity to refute it?

I agree it SHOULDN'T have to go to a trial, I'm just saying considering the history of past cases I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the court goes the delay route.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Aug 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The plaintiffs had two questions they were asking; whether civil unions were kosher in the world according to Lewis and even if they were, were they constitutionally acceptable to equal protection under the US Constitution? The now rather obvious answer to the second question makes the first one pretty much insignificant at this point. This case now has bigger problems than can be settled with a trial.
Which is why I don't expect a quick resolution. Because of the federal questions being asked, whatever the state court rules is going to end up in federal court.

That means delay, delay, delay.

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
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr guest 505
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 2 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 1,986
first time having gay sex? (men) 2 hr bottomislife 1
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Troll Trace Online 22,358
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Troll Trace Online 42,798
News Barney Frank speaking at launch of LGBT justice... 4 hr Christsharian Col... 7
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 5 hr Christsharian Col... 6
More from around the web