For those questioning the timing of the NJ gay rights decision

[Jersey Devil]

Several posters yesterday questioned why the NJ Supreme Court decided the case when it did and lamented the fact that it didn't wait a few weeks, until the elections are over. Well, personally I believe the courts should never consider politics when deciding the rights of individuals and should never shrink from granting those rights whenever it believes they must be granted in order to render true justice.

However, as a practical matter, the timing of the decision was no doubt caused by the fact that Chief Justice Debra Poritz turns 70 today, the mandatory retirement age for New Jersey judges, and it was to be her last decision as a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

May we all go out in the style of Chief Justice Poritz, a Republican I might add. Godspeed, Justice Poritz, and may your retirement be happy and fulfilling.

[cwydro]

1. well said

[donco6]

2. Here's to the Chief Justice!

:toast:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Ever consider the fact that she's a Republican might've been why?

What better way to illustrate to the base why Republicans need to be in office?

[rodeodance]

5. they left the issue up the people of NJ.

[cautiouslywaiting]

6. I don't know...

Either way, we're all finally beginning to get the rights we deserve.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

7. Actually, it was the REPUBLICANS calling for "gay marriage" on this one.

The Democrats WIMPED out and prefered to have it called something else. Hardly what you would expect Republicans trying to mobilize the fundie base to do.

"CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ has filed a separate CONCURRING and DISSENTING opinion, in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join. She concurs in the finding of the majority that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. She dissents from the majority's distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage. She also dissents from the majority's conclusion that there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of "liberty" guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 1. She is of the view that persons who exercise their autonomous liberty interest to choose same-sex partners have a fundamental right to participate in a state-sanctioned civil marriage.

JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN's opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join.
<snip>
To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways. It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage. If the State proceeds with a parallel scheme, it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage.28 It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships. The constitutional relief that we give to plaintiffs cannot be effectuated immediately or by this Court alone. The implementation of this constitutional mandate will require the cooperation of the Legislature. 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.

For the reasons explained, we affirm in part and modify in part the judgment of the Appellate Division. JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which JUSTICES LONG and ZAZZALI join."

[pnwmom]

8. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if the Republican

jurists were hoping to prevail and thereby toss a grenade into the election now.

Would there have been an outcry if another group of judges had "defied the will of the people"?

As it was, according to the NYT, the winners/losers of this decision were somewhat vague and less likely to influence the outcome of the election.

[rodeodance]

4. Thank you.

[meganmonkey]

9. Don't muddle this up with

facts.

It is much more important to perpetuate the political game-playing bullshit that serves only to push the Dem party further to the right...


Need I add this? :sarcasm:

[William769]

10. I concur.