Comments on: New Jersey Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage

By: evil fizz

evil fizz — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:20:08 +0000

I heart Dahlia Lithwick. She’s awesome.

By: oudemia

oudemia — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:41:13 +0000

Quoting Lithwick:

If you care at all about states’ rights and state autonomy, read this decision. If you believe in judicial minimalism, read this decision. If you think judges should engage in careful scrutiny of state law, read this decision before blasting it as activism. This was a state court taking care of state business.
Memo to Karl Rove: Those who oppose this decision aren’t opposed to judicial activism. They are opposed to judges.

By: oudemia

oudemia — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:29:11 +0000

The Dahlia Lithwick take is interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152216/

By: norbizness

norbizness — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:53:41 +0000

Esme: In my brief time doing employment law, that was the first way that sexual orientation received protection: by arguing that a gay man harassed for being attracted to men would have been treated differently than a similarly situated heterosexual woman. Hell, it worked in Texas.

By: Esme

Esme — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:34:07 +0000

I recently read the most amazing argument, and I don’t recall where. Possibly Pandagon or Punkassblog. The concept was that because sexuality is not constitutionally protected, but sex is, then the argument for same sex marriage should actually stem from equal protection for the sexes. As a woman, I am given the capability, legally, to marry a man. Men aren’t given that capability. They can’t marry men. We’re denying men a legal protection for their relationships with men. And vice versa.

I’ve been wondering how well that would perform in court.

By: norbizness

norbizness — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:22:19 +0000

It is disappointing to hear Harold Ford and Corzine (and presumably many other Democrats in tight races) pre-emptively issue broadsides against full equality for the purpose of electoral convenience. It is understandable, given the chickenshit nature of our 1.3 party system and how courage rarely intersects with politics, but still.

By: DDay

DDay — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:13:55 +0000

I really like that allusion to Brown v. Board of Ed. Things take time and every step towards progress is good.

By: RonF

RonF — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:57:35 +0000

Apparently it’s not likely in N.J., but …

Say this happened in another state where the legislature might not be so inclined. The court here, whose job it is to interpret the law, has told the legislature, whose job it is to make the law, what to do. What would happen if the legislature told the court to stuff it, and refuse to enact any such law?

By: Asher Abrams

Asher Abrams — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:11:42 +0000

I second Kyra.

By: PhoenixRising

PhoenixRising — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:59:31 +0000

Is it a victory? Hell yes.

The majority agreed that the benefits and obligations of marriage must be extended to all couples who wish to take that responsibility for one another. That’s an unqualified triumph, because DP and civil union laws have not provided marriage in practice, they have provided a version of marriage-lite.

Note that this decision is quite distinct from the Vermont decision that mandated the legislature to ‘do something’. The something they did, civil unions, is not the equivalent set of benefits to marriage…someone who’s a VT lawyer correct me if I’m off, I’m working from my memory of the outstanding book ‘Civil Wars’, a reporter’s account of the process through which VT developed civil unions.

So the spin designed to say this isn’t marriage, is spin. From what I know about NJ politics, which is some but not all, it’s well within the realm of the possible that the Lege will decide that it’s cheaper to change the marriage license forms than to spend 6 months debating what to call the non-marriage status that contains all the rights and privileges of marriage and how to document it in all state laws.