Whoa! Wait, the 21st Century?
“Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying 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. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statues to include same-sex couples or create a parrallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples.”
Decision, Supreme Court of New Jersey
October 25, 2006
…and in case you’re wondering, the Court ruled that although New Jersey doesn’t have to call it “marriage”, it’s got to a least be a proper civil union; the existing “domestic partner” provisions in New Jersey law “Do Not (Constitutionally speaking) Cut It”.
Of course, I’m paraphrasing.
Bill Standley wrote:
Law by decree is repugnant on its face. Even a 15th century monarch would not have the audacity to invent new law by fiat. (Well, he might have the audacity, but he wouldn’t really do it. Such acts have consequences, y’know…)
I’m afraid that Pat’s right on this one.
Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 9:48 am ¶
Tom Chappell wrote:
Well, it’s quite a bit different when the decree is that the State must no longer be taking rights away from some group. The Church is still allowed to restrict the Sacrament of Marriage however they like.
Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 6:24 pm ¶
Jeff Lorenzini wrote:
Well, there goes the neighborhood!
Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 11:15 am ¶