NJ marriage equality decision expected TOMORROW

[greeneyedboy]

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/notices.htm

Expected Supreme Court Opinions for
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - Expected to be released at 3:00 p.m.

A-68-05 Mark Lewis, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris et al.
(Mercer County & Statewide)
Argued 2/15/06

Does the New Jersey Constitution require the State to allow same-sex couples to marry?

[joemurphy]

1. Timing isn't good. They couldn't hold off for 2 weeks?

I'm for gay marriage, but I'd also like Menendez to win the Senate.

[closeupready]

2. Well, maybe the decision is no?

But I agree that if they decision is yes, it would be better (if possible) to wait until after Election Day in order not to politicize it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Polls are showing the majority support it.

And a very large majority consider it a non-issue. Both Menendez and Kean have pretty similar views on the matter. They don't support gay marriage, but they do support some form of domestic partnership.

[Sgent]

6. Maybe

but any good decision (for our side), will result in the "runaway judges" with the "democrats that confirm them" being a major issue throughout the US -- not just NJ.

[Tesha]

11. Actually, the timing is as good as you're likely to get.

One of the justices (whom I gather is supportive of gay rights)
is forced to resign today due to her reaching the mandatory
retirement age of 70.

Tesha

[closeupready]

13. if the decision is in favor,

watch puke homophobes use the timing to press some sort of argument that she was losing her mind, or that she was out of touch, or that it's somehow "unfair" that this case was one that she got to retire on.

I do think that it's likely that she'll be voting in favor - what judge would want to retire on a negative note? I guess we'll see.

[greeneyedboy]

4. brace yourself for the wingnuts' attempt to divide our side.

i hope we will remember the lessons of 2004 and not throw our own under the bus in the mistaken belief that will make our candidates more popular.

[greeneyedboy]

5. see bluejersey.net for more

i like this take on it:
http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2948

[Rowdyboy]

7. My best guess....its too late to make much difference...Its New Jersey and

contemporary polls show that the idea of gay marriage doesn't freak out the good folk of the Garden State. Apparently, they're a bit more sophisticated than my fellow Mississippians...I'm VERY proud of my Democratic friends in New Jersey! Thank you guys for showing us how it cou;d be done!

If I felt it would hurt Bob Menendez in the LEAST, I would be furious. Instead, I'm really psyched . Things are going our way big time.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. I live in one of the "red" New Jersey counties.

Homophobia isn't really a concern. There isn't much of a fundie population at all. I'm friends with quite a few Republicans; they're all supportive of gay rights and quite socially liberal. Yet, they inexplicably vote Republican. Anyway, I'm not concerned this is going to affect the chances of our Dem candidates for US Congress.

[Rowdyboy]

9. See, thats all I really needed to know.....Our guys are on the right page,

the voters can deal with it and, yeah, sometimes they'll do stupid things, but....don't we all?

You make me feel much better.

[pnwmom]

27. I hope you're right. Because until I read your post

I was wishing those two legislators with the marriage bill had waited a couple of weeks before deciding to announce it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. In the locked GD thread on this...

another poster from "red" NJ agrees with me. NJ Republicans are social liberals with money who want big tax cuts. There is no sizeable fundy base. Also, the Republicans have done a really good job of pissing off the Italian community, which is HUGE, with their racist "mob" ad. Really dumb move, since that's one of the largest, most powerful voter blocks in NJ.

[pnwmom]

30. Hah! I didn't know about the racist mob ad.

As a former NJ resident, I can say that would be a pretty dumb thing!

[David Dunham]

10. Bad timing. A pro-same sex marriage decision will hurt Dems nationwide

The Repugs in the red states will use it to push the federal anti-gay marriage amendment.

[Tesha]

12. David: When would be an "okay" time for Gays to be granted human rights?

> Bad timing. A pro-same sex marriage decision will hurt Dems nationwide

David: When would be an "okay" time for gays to be granted
equal human rights?

And have you noticed how, somehow, it never ever seems
to actually be a "good" time for these sorts of tough
questions (such as the ERA, gay equality, true religous
freedom, etc.)

Tesha

[JudyM]

14. Some times are better than others. Right before an election is not a good

time if the "spectre" of gay marriage running amock is being used to mobilize rethug voters. Here in Virginia, where we have an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, you can bet that Allen's team will use that to get people to the polls, and that could be the kiss of death for Webb. With a race this close, it's all about who does a better job getting out the votes. I'm a strong proponent of full equality, but this decision will have clear national implications that will be played to the hilt by the rethugs.

[greeneyedboy]

15. the GOP will push the issue regardless. we should stay united.

1) who got all those amendments on the 2004 ballot? Republicans. they are going to do whatever they can to divide us on race, sex, orientation, etc., because it's the only way they can win. whatever we do, they are going to bring up wedge issues. fortunately for us, polls show that Americans favor full civil rights for LGBT people, and almost half favor marriage equality. (of the half who don't, most will never vote Democratic anyway.)

2) echoing what was said above: i know Republicans in NJ, including my grandma who has never voted for any non-Republican in her life, and she couldn't give a hoot about denying marriage equality. in fact, i think she'd be pleased if her two queer grandkids could marry their partners.

3) there are national elections every two years. it's absurd to suggest that queer people should wait until no national elections will be affected. this issue is not going away, so pick a side, pro- or anti-civil rights for all, and stick with it. as stated above, the GOP *WILL* use divisive issues to agitate their base; we need to run our own campaign and not cower in fear of theirs.

4) how many of you would give up your civil rights, hospital visitation rights, rights to have your spouse stay in the U.S., etc., to retain a Senate seat? because that is what some of you are asking others to do. ask if you want, but realize you are asking a HUGE sacrifice, and not promising much in return (beyond a majority of politicians who so far don't have the eggs/balls to take a stand for full civil rights. gee, thanks.).

5) as for the court cases, those take years, and who knows when they will slowly get to a final decision. so lament all you want about the timing of the announcements, but please do not blame the plaintiffs for pursuing their legal rights.

[Reverend_Smitty]

16. good points...

I live in NJ and this gay marriage issue is almost a non-issue...I haven't heard one negative bit about it in the local news. If it passes which I believe it will, some local wingnuts will be flapping their gums on the radio but will have little effect on the elections

[pnwmom]

32. I think those 2 NJ legislators should have waited a mere two weeks

-- as in, the day after the election -- to announce their new marriage bill. It wouldn't have hurt the cause one bit, and it might have helped Menendez in a very tight Senatorial race.

[pnwmom]

17. I agree with you JudyM. Two weeks before the election is NOT

a good time.

[TheWebHead]

22. decision is in...

4-3 in favor... Gavin Newsom, Mass '04 election reaction redux. Right before the election, the homophobes will beat this issue to a pulp to stir up their otherwise apathetic base.

[pnwmom]

23. It's not MA redux. It's VERMONT redux.

The NJ Court has given the legislature the option of enacting civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage, but do not use the word marriage.

"13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)
14. In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society's changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64)
15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)"

[JudyM]

29. I remember how this played out in '04. It's a great GOTV issue for rethugs.

I hope this year is somehow different.

[pnwmom]

31. The key difference right now is that all that is required is "equal protection"

That is, a civil union law would be an allowable choice. Marriage will be up to the legislature, not decreed by the Court, as in Massachusetts.

[JudyM]

33. I think there's more to it than that: NJ will have to recognize MA marriages

and any other states that end up legalizing it. This is the fear that is motivating rethugs in states like Virginia to specify in their constitutions that out of state marriages don't have to be recognized in VA. So we have that on our ballot and Allen's minions wil be out shouting that if we don't put 'marriage protection' in our constitution we'll be forced to honor MA (and possibly NJ) marriages.

[pnwmom]

34. Where is that in the NJ decision?

[JudyM]

35. It's implicit - if the state has no basis to not treat gays equally, how can

gays who are legally married in another state be denied those rights in NJ?

And the repurcussions extend to out-of-staters coming to NJ to marry or enter into civil unions. Last month the MA Supreme Court, interpreting RI law, agreed to allow RI gays to marry in MA because nothing in RI law (according to the MA court) prohibited gay marriage. NJ has no residency requirement, so since straight out-of-state couples can marry there,in 6 months, gay couples will have that privilege as well (unless the legislature goes for civil unions, then that would be what gays are entitled to).

[Maven]

18. Right, and if they had pushed it back a few months you'd say

"it'll hurt us in 2008" or "this is going to make the Dems' new agenda harder to accomplish" etc. etc.

Now is as good a time as any. OUR families can't wait until you think it's the "right" moment.

[LeftyMom]

19. Exactly.

There's never a bad time to be decent human beings and to treat our fellow man with the respect and dignity we all deserve. Human decency is more important than matters of political expediency.

[mitchtv]

20. You got that right, Harvey

Timidity has cost us plenty already.I am tired of the back of the bus, and being told to wait. Our time is NOW
Sorry all you timid Dems. I am tired of Dems like Feinstein blaming us for '04's debacle, BTW

[pnwmom]

24. I could have waited another couple of weeks, myself.

As an adult child in a gay family.

The decision is being misrepresented here. It's basically along the lines of the Vermont decision -- either a civil union or a change in the marriage laws could be the end result. It will be up to the legislature now.

[mitchtv]

25. Misrepresented? Maybe I misread

I took it as a Vermont style decision. I could live with that for now.But wait? You are much younger than I , is my guess. I have no more "time to wait"for my turn.

[pnwmom]

26. I'm old enough to have an adult daughter.

I grew up with a gay father when that was a very shocking situation to be in!

I hated to see the backlash after the MA court decision -- I think it set us back for years, and the country would have been better off, at that point in time, if MA had become a civil union state, like Vermont. Or if the decision had waited until after the election. But it's obviously too late to put that genie back into the bottle.

Young people today aren't interested in denying gay people rights . . . time is going to eliminate this problem. But I think we would have made more progress, faster progress, toward our goals without the backlash in 2004 that helped put Repubs in power all over the country.

Because what difference does the word "marriage" make really? None to me, or to my father (who was married to a female, my mother, first). Especially because the Federal law won't recognize either a civil union OR a same-sex marriage.

[closeupready]

21. Now do dems have the spine to, at a minimum, "have no comment"?

I mean, it would be nice if they supported it, but I remember 2004.