Comments

  1. MiddleoftheRoader says

    One of the main arguments in the NJ case is that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the NJ State Constitution. Some state Supreme Courts have accepted a similar argument (MA), and others have rejected it (NY and MD). If the NJ Supreme Court decides that it violates the NU State Constitution to deny marriage (whether that decision incorporates some reasoning from the Windsor case, or not), that decision would not really be legal precedent for any other state and it would have minimal (if any) impact on the many cases that claim the denial of marriage violates the federal (US) Constitution. Still, every win counts, regardless of the theory it’s based on.

  2. Kevin says

    In this case though Middle,if the NJ Supreme court ruled against marriage equality,they would not only be ignoring the DOMA ruling but the findings of their own comminsion which found New Jersey’s Civil unions to be seperate and unequal.

  3. says

    The argument in the NJ case is that the equal-protections-and-benefits mandate of the 2006 NJ Supreme Court decision is not being fulfilled since CUs are clearly unequal to marriage. They were always unequal (separate is not equal), but in light of the Supreme Court decision, where marriage is federally recognized but CUs are not, they are hugely unequal. The only rational–and easy!–remedy, obviously, is for NJ to have marriage; the state’s argument that CUs should be equal enough but if they’re not talk to the federal government is bogus. (And everyone knows it’s all a cover for Gov. Big’s political ambitions; they know their arguments are illogical.) Surely the case will have implications for other states with CUs, though NJ is especially clear cut.

    The absurdity is none of this would need to be happening now except for Christie’s career, which is basically holding gay couples in NJ hostage.

  4. Jonathan says

    So what they’re saying is that the Obama administration position was correct. Civil unions/domestic partnerships are inherently separate and unequal, but denying all benefits of marriage to same sex couples is a position, that while likely unconstitutional, offers a state a more rigorous defense. You cannot argue that marriage equality is inherently harmful when you offer an all but in name solution.

Leave A Reply