Gay Marriage | New Jersey | News

New Jersey Supreme Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

NjThe ruling will come tomorrow at 3 pm, says a notice on the court's website.

October surprise? The decision will certainly have political repercussions for the upcoming election, particularly if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage. Just what they will be and how severe is anyone's guess. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

Garden State Equality has announced that a statewide rally will take place on Wednesday night at 7:00 pm, Unitarian Church of Montclair, 67 Church Street, downtown Montclair. The rally will take place whether the court's decision is for or against.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Rudy

    LOL

    I too am jonsing for my daily dose of ZEKE. His posts are wise and he has a way of calming me down.

    :-)

    ZEKE, where are you?!

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 11:06:44 AM


  2. Zeke! Forget Tommy Lee and his ten foot Polish Pole. Come home to us on the political threads. Jimbo and I (and I am sure others) are all at loose ends without you.

    Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 11:15:42 AM


  3. I think Karl Rove thinks - or knows thanks to his dirty tricks - that the ruling is going to be pro-gay marriage and thus a tool he can use to spin the election into a Rethuglican victory. But I have a hard time believing America - in a post-Katrina, IraqWar mess, Foleygate world - is going to fall for it again. Sure, some will - hey, I saw Jesus Camp last night and some people will fall for ANYTHING - and the loudmouths will suddenly be louder...but people are worried about health care and drug costs - Medicare part D is taking the AARP legions to the Democrats without the Dummicrats even realizing it! So let's take a deep breath and commit to fighting even harder if NJ is a pro-gay decision and Karl tried to twist it. Fight back. Talk to your neighbors. Canvas in your community. Don't excuse the God warriors. If they want a war, give it to them.

    Posted by: Ben | Oct 25, 2006 11:29:08 AM


  4. Ben, right on

    Toss in that the other day Bush in a CNBC interview put Social Security privitization back on the table for after Nov 7th. Heck, right after his election vistory and with a sure thing repub controled congress he couldn't get that passed.......He just delivered a silver bullet to the dems and they aren't using it.

    Anyway; hey Rudy, I just sent an e-mail off to zeke to try to get him to post on this NJ court case. No matter what, he with his family man perspective will be interesting.

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 11:35:27 AM


  5. Lord have mercy, I didn’t realize there were so many people here who gave a rat’s behind about what I had to say. And from such an array of the political spectrum; Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians oh my! I am truly honored and completely humbled.

    I have been reading the comments here from the start but have intentionally stayed out of this discussion because it affects me so personally and so deeply. Because this issue affects me and my family so deeply I fear that my ugly Mississippi, slash and burn redneck alter ego will get out and I will lose what respect I have earned at Towleroad. It’s hard for me to remain objective, or even polite, when I feel that my family’s (and most especially my child’s) future may be at stake.

    Let me just give the Cliff’s notes version of where I stand on this particular situation. You asked for it, here't goes...

    First: I am HIGHLY suspicious of the timing of this decision. Though the Chief Justice is retiring, the announcement could have been delayed until after the election to avoid allowing this to become politicized two weeks before an election. I believe delaying the ruling would have been the professional, prudent and a-political way for a COURT to have handled this.

    Second: I become irritated when a person who has never committed themselves to another person for any longer than it takes to get his pants back on tells me that gay marriage doesn’t matter. I am making no judgments about any particular person here because I don’t know anyone personally. I just know for a fact that they exist.

    See, I’m already dancing on the edge of getting ugly. Deep breath Zeke, count to ten…….

    Third: I just can’t bring myself to route for the defeat of my, or anyone else’s civil rights, no matter what the current political stakes or circumstances are. Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest thinkers in history said (and I paraphrase); A man who would trade one ounce of liberty for a moment of perceived security deserves neither liberty NOR security. In my opinion, this statement seems extremely relevant here.

    And finally: Call me unrealistic, call me a dreamer, call me an idealist: I'm definitely guilty of the latter two and sometimes perhaps guilty of the first but I'm fighting for my FAMILY here, not for some social or political statement, as far too many others seem to view this fight. This is not about having a ceremony with flowers, cake and pictures on the steps of City Hall. This is about ensuring that my son is able to be raised by the only other parent he’s ever known, should I die. This is about recognizing the VALIDITY and DIGNITY of my SON’S family. For those of you who have never had the joy and responsibility of having a family of your own, THAT’S what marriage and family is about. It’s about fighting ten times harder for someone else (spouse, child) than you would ever have the strength to fight for yourself. I truly wish that everyone could understand that.

    I TOTALLY understand the concerns and reasoning of those here who are hoping for the defeat of this case; believe me I do! I too wonder if it would be a victory in battle at the expense of the war. I don’t know what the answer to this latest no win situation is but forgive me if I can’t join in the “Just say NO” pep rally.

    My greatest hope is that the ruling is in our favor AND that Americans will vote to send the opposition party into the majority to curtail the steam rolling policies of the current regime. I can’t help but believe that those who are motivated to vote by gay marriage issues, were already motivated to vote before this ruling. They were going to vote anyway. The good thing about it is, no matter how fired up they are, they can only vote once.

    You ask for it, you got it.

    That will probably be the last time you ask for my opinion…but I sincerely doubt it will be the last time I offer it. :)

    Peace

    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 12:46:35 PM


  6. Thank you zeke

    Peace

    All I saw in your post was beautiful heart felt Mississippi humanitarian wonderfulness. No hint of so called red neck ugliness

    Your point of view weighs heavier than others (including my own) because we do not currently have a family.....Husband (in name though not legality YET), a child, etc

    Thank you for your post

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 1:03:32 PM


  7. this court decision will not affect the upcoming election, but will matter dramatically in the ongoing GBLT civil rights movement.

    How can you hope we fail? That's as pathetic as it gets. My recollection is that the black community didn't roll over and die just because some southern states enacted laws against them. They fought on, one step at a time, and they won.

    Why shouldn't we?

    Posted by: stolidog | Oct 25, 2006 1:53:41 PM


  8. Just to clarify: the court could NOT have held the decision until after the election. If they had then the chief couldn't have written or even signed the decision, and it would have to have been reheard under a new court in the next term.

    What's more, this is the judiciary system. Ideally at least it's supposed to be at a remove from the political process.

    Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 2:03:06 PM


  9. "Just to clarify: the court could NOT have held the decision until after the election. If they had then the chief couldn't have written or even signed the decision, and it would have to have been reheard under a new court in the next term."

    I've heard different opinions on this claim. I read an article yesterday that said that the decision has already been made, written and signed and that the date of the public release of the decision would have no bearing on the case.

    Even if this claim is incorrect and the release date of the decision does matter, it seems to me that postponing and rehearing the case might still be preferable to turning this decision into a political football two weeks before a critical national election.


    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 25, 2006 2:19:31 PM


  10. 2:50 p.m. east coast time

    Let the countdown begin

    10 minutes till the announcement at 3:00 p.m. east coast time

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 2:50:25 PM


  11. Shit less than 10 minutes....

    Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 2:52:06 PM


  12. 3:04 p.m.

    anybody heard anything yet?

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:04:39 PM


  13. Its not up yet, that I can find.

    Posted by: Jersey | Oct 25, 2006 3:05:56 PM


  14. LEGAL!!! HOT DAMN!

    Posted by: rejoicing | Oct 25, 2006 3:12:31 PM


  15. A not small victory: from skimming the decision, it's ALL RIGHTS of straight couples, and whether it's called "marriage" or something else is for the legislature to decide.

    Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 3:14:06 PM


  16. Rejoicing

    please repeat.....all of it or as much as you can

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:14:23 PM


  17. Holy crap! They affirmed gay marriage!

    Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 3:14:56 PM


  18. Kip

    Thanks for the info

    ^5 and cheers all around

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:16:04 PM


  19. NO--they did not affirm gay marriage. In fact the decision says explicitly that "Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution."

    What the decision does do is say that the NJ legislature must legalize same-sex marriage OR civil unions within 180 days.

    Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 3:20:04 PM


  20. here is a link to the ruling:

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf

    Posted by: Gryphon773 | Oct 25, 2006 3:20:15 PM


  21. Well, it's more like Vermont than Mass. There will be a strengthening of DP laws.

    Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 3:22:45 PM


  22. "Held: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Art.1, Para. 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, 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."

    CONGRATULATIONS my brothers and sisters.

    Posted by: rudy | Oct 25, 2006 3:24:59 PM


  23. Hell, call it "mutual partnership flying spagheti ufos" for all I care. The rights themselves not the word is what is important.

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 25, 2006 3:25:04 PM


  24. Reading a little more: "We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. 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."

    So they are leaving it to the NJ legislature to decide, but if they opt for civil unions the court is also leaving the door open for a second case that could declare civil unions insufficient.

    Posted by: Kip | Oct 25, 2006 3:25:55 PM


  25. In all but name only... a bit weird.

    Posted by: Anon | Oct 25, 2006 3:26:22 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Army Releases Barry Winchell Murder Conspirator, 5 Years Early« «