As most of you by now know, the Garden State’s Supreme Court has given state lawmakers “180 days to rewrite” state laws to give gay people “marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.“
In his post earlier, Robbie (whom, some have suggested, I would marry if we lived in the Bay State) pretty somewhat summarized my initial thoughts. Offering a different take than his co-blogger, Robbie was “not pleased” with the court’s decision, disliking “it when a court tells a legislature which laws it has to pass.“
That said, I am delighted that the New Jersey legislature will be addressing state recognition of same-sex unions. I would rather that this had come about as it had in Connecticut rather than by judicial mandate.
On the one hand, I’m pleased that the legislature will be dealing with the issue. On the other hand, I don’t think courts should mandate which issues state legislatures put on their calendars. It seems a clear violation of the separation of powers.
Finally, because a court has mandated this, it strengthens the hand of those supporting state referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Whenever one state court mandates gay marriage, it leads to a backlash against gay marriage in other states. While this ruling may be good for same-sex couples in the Garden State, I fear this may hurt same-sex couples in other states.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
UPDATE: It seems James Taranto at “Best of the Web” is sympathetic to my argument: “we’d also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.” Read his piece on the decision for a thoughtful conservative reflection on gay marriage and civil unions.
I support both gay marriage and a strong GWOT. So for me, in a weird way, today’s decision is a win-win.
Because yet another State Supreme Court has examined the anti-gay-marriage arguments and found them wanting, if not downright irrational, the pro-gay-marriage arguments have picked up a yard on the intellectual playing field. People have to take their arguments that teensy bit more seriously. And gays are, I hope, on track for civil unions (at least) in another State.
At the same time: If a few more conservative voters feel motivated to turn out in 13 days and limit the Democrats’ gains to only 1 house of Congress (or less) – that’s a win for the GWOT. I’ll take that as well!
I fail to see your misgivings. The Court’s hanging their hat on “equal protections” might actually be the stronger position in the long-run since they also didn’t give the Legislature any third-option…it MUST be full and equal to marriage, or marriage-itself. Since the dissenters were “FOR” gay marriage-only, there’s no maneuvering-room to create a watered-down “almost-marriage” civil unions; it must have all the rights and priviledges…all the shouting can be about is the “label”. In the long-run, the finding that society and the Law must treat all equally before the Law is much more powerful an arguement at the Federal-level than a “right to marry” which is not an enumerated, separate right. It’s not that there’s a “right to marry”, of which there are many variations and historical models…it’s that “all are equal” that was their guiding principle that makes this a strong statement.
That about sums up my initial thoughts on this, Dan. I just learned of it about 20 minutes ago (long day at work). The basis of their reasoning seems flawed to me given that they acknowledge there is no right to same-sex marriage. If that is so, how can gay couples be given equitable rights when they are not legally married in New Jersey? Does it stop there? Very weird.
Oh btw, don’t let Kevin at QC hear that about Robbie. Then again, never mind. Pardone moi whilst I go pop some corn…
It’s pretty interesting that conservatives don’t seem to understand or want people to have the right to equal protection under the law. so much for all the freedom loving.
Where do you get that notion, Kevin? Certainly not from my writings.
Nor my comments on GP.
A disconnected, disjointed shot from Kevin is good for a chuckle.
I notice that Sullivan hasn’t said anything about THIS:
(InstaPundit)
Of course, the particularly egregious part about this decision is that the NJ Constitution completely lacks an equal protection clause in any of its various incarnations from the creation of the 14th Amendment onwards.
This makes it even more troubling that an entirely atextual right was reviewed under strict scrutiny, when the New York and Washington Courts did not apply strict scrutiny to their textually evident equal protection rights.
(1) Given what he said, Harold Ford doesn’t deserve any gay person’s vote, period. His opponent probably doesn’t, either.
(2) Some of the stranger wording of the NJ ruling seems to indicate that, if the legislature enacts civil unions rather than full same-sex marriage, plaintiffs might still have reason to pursue relief. It says that the ruling simply does not address the question as to whether full marriage is required.
We can’t let the courts legislate. Irregardless of whether abortion is right or wrong look what has happened with Roe v. Wade. After 30 plus years of Roe, it’s still a hot button issue. We don’t want this to happen to gay marriage. States should decide what they want.
My home state of Connecticut, with a Republican Governor made Civil Unions legal. The major gay rights group here, Love Makes a Family, almost blocked the legislation. We’re still sane in Connecticut and there’s no growing backlash (except for Love Makes a Family which is still pushing for gay marriage).
Lets look at the bigger picture and the long term here…we are going to win in the end….evangelicals are going to lose…period. Every day people who are against full equality for gays die and more who will end up supporting equal marriage rights are born…we will outlast the religous fanatics…so let them have their little backlash…the battle is theirs the war is ours.
#11: I disagree. There is an objective concept of right and wrong. When the majority wants to enact something that is wrong, it doesn’t magically become right. In that case, the majority should be thwarted.
6-7: Because, any time a ruling comes from a court these days that conservatives don’t like, there’s all this whining about “legislating from the bench”. It simply uses the courts as a scapegoat for a decision with which they don’t agree. Look what this attitude has led to: in the US congress and in state legislatures, conservatives are introducing laws that they want to be free of passing constituitional muster. How can you say you believe in America and what it stands for, yet your actions are trying to break our system of checks and balances?
Sorry, but this how other democracies drifted into fascism and totalitarianism: have the populace ignore how the governments were being run and create scapegoats for all the ills that plague it.
#13: Who decides? Who gets to decide what is “objectively right or wrong”? You? God? The Courts?
If you believe in democracy, then the voters get to decide, and if you disagree you’re free to try to change their minds.
If you believe in representative democracy, the elected legislators (and elected executives) get to decide, and you get to work for their defeat in the next election if you disagree with them.
Otherwise what you have is dictatorship. If you think that isn’t “objectively wrong”, then your sense of right and wrong is so screwed up that nothing else you say matters, IMHO.
#15: Which part of my post do you disagree with? Here are your choices:
(1) There is an objective concept of right and wrong.
(2) When the majority wants to enact something that is wrong, it doesn’t magically become right.
(3) If the majority wants to enact something that is wrong, it should be thwarted (prevented from imposing that which is wrong).
#10 – “Given what he said, Harold Ford doesn’t deserve any gay person’s vote, period. His opponent probably doesn’t, either.”
Oh, so what you’re saying, kdogg, is that even though a demoncRAT with liberal leanings has blasted the NJ opinion, we shouldn’t bother voting for him – but EVEN THOUGH HIS OPPONENT HAS NOT MADE A STATEMENT, we should not vote for him either because he has an (R) after his name.
Ford’s throwing-the-gays-under-the-bus tactic is noteworthy only when one considers that his candidacy is going into free-fall and that an African-American straight male can play his own version of the racism card to try to appeal to “mainstream” Tennessee voters.
(Sigh) Didn’t these people learn their lesson with Mark Foley? Or are they just as stupid as they perceive TN voters to be?
Peter’s Prediction: it’s gonna be a Corker of a race for the Tennessee senate and a long night for Ford. Corker by 5 – you read it here first.
I guess the name fits for the campaign. FORD = Fix Or Repair Daily.
Regards,
Peter H.
If the local and National G/L activists get all wrapped-up in “gay marriage or nothing” to the point where they alienate the good-will of the NJ electorate over civil unions being “unacceptable”, they’ll just play into the hands of the bigots and haters who want to block both. The battle now is not about “rights”, it’s now ONLY about a label…let’s quietly just keep it that way. Making a big fuss will just alienate those of good-faith who just aren’t ready for “gay marraige”, but feel that all relationships deserve protection. Since the State Court set a very-high standard by stating that civil unions must be exactly the same as marriage, what’s the fuss? Connecticut’s civil unions are somewhat watered-down compared to marriage there. New Jersey’s court sent a strong message that it must be “equal”, and I think that in the long-run this is the precedent that will open other doors…not that there’s some unwritten right to marriage in the Constitution, it’s that “we” must all be treated equally.
For those whom the word “marriage” is vitally important; lobby quietly and firmly, educate the public…ovoid screeching at TV cameras, waving obscene placards or burning things…including bridges. If the G/L activists kick this one to the curb over a word…they deserve what they get when the backlash to their obstanance kicks them in the teeth.
#17: Oh, so what you’re saying, kdogg, is that even though a demoncRAT with liberal leanings has blasted the NJ opinion, we shouldn’t bother voting for him – but EVEN THOUGH HIS OPPONENT HAS NOT MADE A STATEMENT, we should not vote for him either because he has an (R) after his name.
That’s not what I am saying at all. I think you don’t quite get my agenda, and I readily admit that I have one. 🙂 I want to dissuade people from voting for two-party establishment candidates at all, because I want to move towards a day when we have other choices entirely.
Loweeel, you are right that the equal protection concept is atextual as it pertains to the NJ State Constitution, however, I would point out this language from today’s decision:
“Although our State Constitution nowhere expressly states that every person shall be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, we have construed the expansive language of Article I, Paragraph 1 to
embrace that fundamental guarantee.”
Seems like they are standing on precedent there. I think the idea of an explicitly textual argument is an entirely different debate. For me at least, I think the state supreme court has the right to construe it’s own constitution as it sees fit, and if that means it reads equal protection where the text doesn’t explicitly say it, then that should be a good thing to all citizens.
“While this ruling may be good for same-sex couples in the Garden State, I fear this may hurt same-sex couples in other states.”
Talk to your GOP interest groups and tell them to stop putting up refs. Then talk to the GOP and ask them not to give so much support to them.
The people of NJ support gay marriage/civil unions. The court looked at the Constitution and ruled that lesbians and gay men in that state are entitled to equality. If other states can’t get their acts together, NJ should wait?
#17: “EVEN THOUGH HIS OPPONENT HAS NOT MADE A STATEMENT, we should not vote for him either because he has an (R) after his name.”
No. We should not vote for him because he supports a onstitutional amendment to ban SSM. It’s on his website http://tinyurl.com/y68854 :
“I also support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
Some of the Republicans in New Jersey don’t seem to be handling this well. Some of their legislators are trying to impeach the supreme court justices. Something like this was tried in Massachusetts a few years ago and went nowhere.
The GOP is putting $5 million into electing Tom Kean Jr. I think the problem for him is the NJ voters are going to hear Dobson, Perkins, and company blasting and blustering about this ruling, along with Brownback and other usual suspects, and they will probably associate Kean with GOP elements which repulse them.
I don’t think this will make a big difference in who controls Congress.
#1 Sad to say, most of the amendments banning benefits for gay couples were already going to pass in most states, even without this ruling.
#2 I have never believed that all kinds of social conservatives were going to sit out the election. The media, which tends to push anti-gay viewpoints in order to exploit and cause drama, may claim Republicans will win because of gay marriage, but I think those voters are going to vote no matter what.
#3 The Foley scandal probably blunted a lot of the GOP’s impact on this issue.
So anyway, if I had to guess, I’d say the Republicans will keep the Senate, with about 52 seats. The Democrats will get the House with maybe a 3 seat majority.
Here is one example, from Time Magazine (whom I have not cared for in recent years, especially since they ran a very bizarre cover story on “gay youth” which left the implication that gay teens today had easy lives and also included paragraphs and paragraphs boasting of ex-gay organizations and their efforts to brainwash teens):
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1550823,00.html
The media will do what they can to make gays the cause of any election loss. They did this in 2004. They did this with Mark Foley. They are trying it again with New Jersey.
While I am glad about the NJ court ruling, I am dissapointed that again, the EQUAL RIGHT for MARRIAGE has been side steped and left to the legislature. Yes, give us all the rights and privileges of marriage without the title. I’m sure some gays and lesbians may be happy with the “equal” rights bit but without the word “marriage” we are still not equal, our relationships not as important or as meaningful to receive that title (to the majority, that is). It’s the principle of it.
And to Gregs comment in #15 of “If you believe in democracy, then the voters get to decide, and if you disagree you’re free to try to change their minds.”
Yes, let the majority of voters decide that my relationship is worthy of their recognition. Please…..We would still have segregation if the voters were left to decide. Equal civil rights is the just and right thing to give us, nothing more, nothing less. This disparaging treatment of the LGBT community has got to end, along with all of the excuses.
Seems like opponents of SSM in NJ would be angry with any statement contrary to their belief.
From what I’ve read of the actual decision, it doesn’t seem as if the court legislated from the bench. Rather, I interpreted the decision in the 90-page text to clarify the question of the law, then put into the hands of lawmakers the responsibility of making the law match the state’s constitution.
As I told a friend, it’s definitely nice to see the “establishment” treat us like human beings.
There are at least three separte issues in the whole “gay marriage” debate:
1. Redifining marriage (as in specifically marriage)
2. Various legal advantages (and disadvantages) conferred by marriage
3. Imposition by the courts
It seems the NJ court tried to skirt the third issue by first telling the legislature what they had to do, then throwing it back on the legislature. I find it disingenuous. At any rate, if nothing else, it will motivate voters.
I’m not sure the push for gay marriage has hurt the overall cause for gay partnership rights. Yes, it has provoked a terrible backlash, but in some states it has been completely successful (for now) and in others it has generated increased support for civil unions as a compromise. Demanding more than you’re realistically going to get is standard bargaining procedure. You bargain down to a compromise which is still more than you would have achieved otherwise.
Plus, the genie is now out of the bottle–gay marriage is now a reality. Its effects can be observed. People are already growing used to an idea which would have been outrageous a few years ago.
As for how it is achieved, if the cause is just, and I believe it is, I am indifferent to whether it is comes by vote or judicial fiat. To believe otherwise is to favor process over principle. Was Lincoln truly within his rights to free the slaves? Were the post-Civil War civil-rights ammendments invalid because they were passed by a rump Congress not truly representing Southern interests? Do I care? No, not really. Was there a backlash against these actions? Absolutely.
Should we have waited until Southern opinion evolved to embrace black equality before enforcing civil rights, in some cases by judicial activism? We’d still be waiting.
“We would still have segregation if the voters were left to decide.”
Well no, segregation was ended by the Legislature.
If you want to live in an absolute monarchy, let me suggest Saudi Arabia.
HAROLD FORD, JR. COMMENTS ON THE N.J. GAY MARRIAGE DECISION:
I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there’s a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage – I am voting for it.
Isn’t it Ironic…while I hope Ford wins by a landslide…it’s strange, that 40yrs ago…the ONLY thing Mr Ford would be running for in Tennessee would be, “HIS LIFE” from the KKK……but, now that he HAS his RIGHTS..it’s FINE & DANDY, A-OK to trample on the RIGHTS of others. While the struggle for Blacks Civils Rights are /were Different…..there are TOO MANY similarities to dismiss. Hopefully Mr Ford will SEE BEYOND his BIBLE and realize this – sometime in the very near future! Maybe he needs to READ UP on the MANY quotes of CORRETTA SCOTT KING pertaining to Gays and Lesbians!
Has anyone noticed how Andrianna Sullington’s schoolgirl crush on Harold Ford has allowed him to alternately ignore and rationalize Harold Ford’s opposition to SSM?
Parsing Comment #30:
1. “Harold Ford’s opposition to SSM is tantamount to supporting the Klan over the Civil Rights movement.”
2. “I hope he wins in a landslide.”
We’re all holding our noses this November, but that seems almost like battered wife syndrome.
V the K…Id rather have a dem win over the GOP anyday…..that’s another “seat” in the house….Sure I do NOT agree with Ford on his stance regarding SSM…but his GOP opponant is against it too…so the Dem is the “less” of 2 evils. I don’ think anyone (party affiliation aside)who was FOR SSM could win in Tennessee period! Fine with me…Tennessee is just another state added to my list, that I will NEVER VISIT or SPEND my tax dollars in.
The court has every right to put a timeline on this. They COULD have simply said, the law does not prevent gays from marrying. You people act like the court is just making up the law. They are interpreting existing laws. The court COULD and probably should have said, the law doesn’t prevent gays from marrying so they can marry. End of story. It mediated by even allowing the legislature to have time to fix the issue. This isn’t judicial activism or fiat. If the law says gays should receive the benefits of marriage, there shouldn’t be a holding period at all on them receiving them. The court interpreted that law as saying they should receive them and so that should be immediate. The fact there is even a 180 days period to me seems a bit unfair.
It amazes me how conservative gays never seem to be happy when gay rights are advanced in any way. The court was interpreting laws already created by the legislature. They aren’t making it up as they go along.
Harold Ford’s comments are despicable. He could have kept his mouth shut. He would never get my vote. There are two possibilities: either he really believes this crap – in which case he should just change party affiliation – or he is simply pandering to pick up the odd homohater vote. If it’s the latter, then I don’t want to hear him whining about the Corker ads that pander to the racist vote. I would also suggest to him that many of the white homohaters he’s pandering to aren’t all that likely to vote for a black man.
#33: Ah, you’re a partisan tool. Got it.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that Harold Ford is simply a despicable human being, pure and simple. Think about all the people in the black civil rights movement who toiled (and sometimes gave up their lives) so Harold Ford could live in a world where he could run a competetive campaign for the US Senate in a southern state. And then he says this. Simply stunning, and nauseating.
#33: Ah, you’re a partisan tool. Got it.
Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 1:16 pm – October 26, 2006
I may be partisan when it comes to this brand of GOP…but you sir are the TOOL! The GOP had thier chance and BLEW IT for ALL AMERICANS….country before party!
country before party!
If the Democrat left believed in this principle, they wouldn’t be rooting for America to lose a war for the sake of their own political power, much less leaking classified information that helps the enemy.
I just read that our wonderful ex-governor, Jim McGreevey, has stated that if gay marriage does become law in NJ, that he and his partner will get married. Hmmm. Not that Jim McGreevey had any principles to begin with. But since he was opposed to gay marriage, I don’t understand why he would get married. I guess that only applied to other NJ residents, and not him. Typical. I’m still waiting for the hundreds of thousands or so he bilked out of us NJ Taxpayers for his sleaze in office.
Courts should decide if a law is violates a state or federal constitution. However, the US Supreme Court should not create law – as they did in Roe V. Wade. The democratic party has in many ways become hostage to the abortion rights movement. The abortion rights advocates give millions of dollars to the democrats because they are so afraid of abortion becoming illegal that any law or action that they would otherwise support, is opposed because of the ‘slippery slope theory’. For example, parental notification for underage girls having an abortion. In all other matters a parent is responsible for their child except if that child wants an abortion. It doesn’t make sense.
I’m not saying yey or nay to abortion – that’s not my point. But look at what Roe did to the Democratic party. Do we want that to happen with the Republican Party? That is why Connecticut’s civil union has gone on peacefully, while ‘liberal’ Massachusetss still suffers.
“I notice that Sullivan hasn’t said anything about THIS:”
No, but he has been bleating about being Jesus to Hugh Hewitt’s Pharisee. See here.
George W. Bush:
“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” he said at an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa.
“We believe in family values, we believe values are important and we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization,” he said, echoing a theme that served Republicans well in the 2004 elections.
I’d rather the state get out of the business entirely of blessing certain relationships, but if it does give my wonderful relationship with my boyfriend the same status as that of my parents, or that of him and Laura, it simply isn’t going to destroy a fundamental institution of civilization. It isn’t going to harm family values at all.
If conservatives on this site want people like me to vote Republican — and it’s not out of the question that I someday would do that — they’ll have to get their leaders to focus on truly reducing government, and not to say stupid stuff like this.
In the 2004 campaign, Bush seemed willing to support civil unions. But after the election, in his State of the Union Addresses, he repeated his views about marriage, and didn’t say a word about civil unions. Again, he had an opportunity to say something positive about the ruling, such as saying that this could be an opportunity for NJ to have civil unions. But once again, he simply stated his opposition to marriage.
What everyone is failing to see is the gay agenda in our public schools. Check out http://www.nonjgaymarriage.org this site will enlighten both NJ voters and national voters to the true agenda of the homosexual movement which is an assault on our schools. They want to teach little children(as young as five) how to have homosexual sex and that homosexual sex is perfectly normal. I don’t know how anyone could support legally raping and brainwashing our children in their schools. This is a scary thing and it must stop