NJ Judge to Hear Gay Marriage Case on DOMA Ruling

[RandySF]

A New Jersey court case headed for oral arguments this week is among the first to test what a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down key parts of a law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage means in states.

Even though the ruling will affect only New Jersey directly, it's being watched closely for broader implications.

"I think every challenge now and every court hearing is going to be amplified until it seems more clear whether we're going to have a patchwork in the states or a national policy,'' said Bill Duncan, director of the Orem, Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation, which opposes allowing same-sex couples to wed.

The hearing Thursday in Superior Court in Trenton is based on a lawsuit from two years ago, when six couples and their children argued that New Jersey's civil union law didn't fulfill a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling that said gay couples had to have the same legal protections as married couples. The civil union law was intended to give same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage.


http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/NJ-Judge-to-Hear-Gay-Marriage-Case-on-DOMA-Ruling-219170651.html

[Swede Atlanta]

1. I agree with the bigoted hateful Bill Duncan......

the cases that will now be brought in various states where same-gender marriage is prohibited either by legislation or by constitutional amendment will begin to answer the question of whether or not we want a patchwork or a national position on this issue.

Mr. Duncan and his allies know, or should realize, that there will never be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. First of all, "family matters" such as marriage, divorce and child custody have always been matters of state law. There has been an intersection with federal law in terms of certain standards on child care and treaties with nations on child custody, etc. But the nation has moved beyond enshrining this discrimination into our constitution.

Secondly, a fundamental right such as the one to marry should not be held hostage to the wishes of the residents of a state. The federal system was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority. We see this in ensuring each state has a minimum of one representative and equal representation in the Senate. The Founding Fathers were fearful of the tyranny of the majority. The rights of individuals should never be subject to the whims of the masses.

Those who chastise "activist judges" in this matter need to remember that it was just those activist judges who slammed the first wrecking ball into the wall of segregation with the holding in Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, etc. There are likely voices that say that even those decisions, etc. represented over-reach by the courts but I'll bet those same voices loved the decision in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

Why should a same-gender couple who lives in one state be treated any differently in this nation than those living in another state? It makes absolutely no sense. This isn't an issue of state's rights because I submit the various states have no compelling interest in whether same-gender couples marry or not. It is clear that the world does not come to an end when same-gender marriage is allowed.