New Jersey court rules gay marriages can begin Monday

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
By Joseph Ax

NEW YORK | Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:09pm EDT

(Reuters) - "Same-sex couples in New Jersey will be able to wed starting on Monday, after the state's highest court unanimously denied Governor Chris Christie's request to put gay marriage on hold while the state's appeal is heard.

The governor had asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to freeze a state judge's ruling allowing gay marriage until the top court hears the case in January and issues a final decision.

But in a signal that the court may be prepared to accept gay marriage permanently, all seven judges on the court ruled that the state had "not shown a reasonable probability it will succeed on the merits."

New Jersey on Monday will become the 14th state to permit gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia.

In a statement, Christie's spokesman reiterated the governor's position that gay marriage should be subject to a voter referendum but said Christie had ordered local officials to begin allowing gay marriage in accordance with the ruling.

Hayley Gorenberg, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who represents the gay couples, rejoiced at the news: "Take out the champagne glasses - wedding bells will soon be ringing in New Jersey."

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson in Trenton ruled three weeks ago in favor of gay couples who had challenged the state's civil union law, finding that it unfairly restricted federal benefits that are guaranteed for married couples.

Jacobson's decision made New Jersey the first state to lift a gay marriage ban as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June to strike down the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court's ruling prompted a flurry of court filings from advocates in states across the country.

Next week, gay rights advocates will argue for marriage in New Mexico Supreme Court. A federal judge in Michigan this week set a February trial date for a gay marriage case there.

From a legal perspective, however, New Jersey was a prime target, since the state Supreme Court already ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights as heterosexual married couples. That led the legislature to create civil unions as a way of ensuring equal treatment.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the New Jersey plaintiffs went back to court arguing that civil unions no longer guaranteed equal rights because couples in such unions were deprived of federal benefits available to married couples, such as tax breaks and Social Security survivor benefits.

"The state's statutory scheme effectively denies committed same-sex partners in New Jersey the ability to receive federal benefits now afforded to married partners," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court.

In asking for a stay, the New Jersey attorney general's office argued that the state would suffer harm if gay marriage were not put on hold pending the appeal.

But the court said the state had failed to explain how it would be injured, while gay couples had shown they would miss out on crucial benefits until marriage was permitted.

"Like Judge Jacobson, we can find no public interest in depriving a group of New Jersey residents of their constitutional right to equal protection while the appeals process unfolds," Rabner wrote.

Meanwhile, local officials were already preparing for a flood of same-sex couples seeking licenses on Monday. In Jersey City, the city clerk had begun to accept applications on Friday, according to a city spokeswoman.

The Democratic-controlled state legislature passed gay marriage legislation last year only to have Christie, considered a leading candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, veto the bill."---http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/us-usa-gaymarriage-newjersey-idUSBRE99H0VB20131018
 
Long time coming, Magical. :)
Lots of people fighting the good fight, thanks for posting this article.
 
Long time coming, Magical. :)
Lots of people fighting the good fight, thanks for posting this article.

Thanks! Yes! 14 states and counting. That Supreme Court decision that ruled DOMA unconstitutional set a legal precedent that state courts can now pursue also. A gay couple here in Oregon filed a lawsuit the other day against the state claiming discrimination against them by denying them marriage rights and benefits. I've always said if this thing doesn't get resolved by popular vote then it will by the courts. Looks like that's coming true.
 
Thanks! Yes! 14 states and counting. That Supreme Court decision that ruled DOMA unconstitutional set a legal precedent that state courts can now pursue also. A gay couple here in Oregon filed a lawsuit the other day against the state claiming discrimination against them by denying them marriage rights and benefits. I've always said if this thing doesn't get resolved by popular vote then it will by the courts. Looks like that's coming true.

People who are against gay marriage, if for no other reason, should be concerned that not allowing gay people to marry, is unnecessarily bottle necking the court system. I say ''for no other reason,'' because clearly they lack moral tolerance and integrity to view it any other way!

This stuff bugs me, because it's so so SO unnecessary.

But, change doesn't happen over night, when it comes to these matters. It's nice to see progress being made, however! :)
 
i have a friend who had to move out of the country because his california marriage was not recognized by the federal govt. Luckily it is working out fine for them, but i am sure there are many others who have been terribly hurt by similar circumstances. If people could just leave each other's personal lives alone and focus on what is important we would be so much better off.
 
People who are against gay marriage, if for no other reason, should be concerned that not allowing gay people to marry, is unnecessarily bottle necking the court system. I say ''for no other reason,'' because clearly they lack moral tolerance and integrity to view it any other way!

This stuff bugs me, because it's so so SO unnecessary.

But, change doesn't happen over night, when it comes to these matters. It's nice to see progress being made, however!

By your logic then, you yourself "clearly lack moral tolerance and integrity to view it any other way."

IOW, you're in favor of relativism, but you also want your own particular view to take over - which contradicts your favoring relativism.
Which clearly shows that people who argue that they have "moral tolerance and integrity" are just blowing hot air.


And now will come the barrage of accusations of how I am against gay marriage and yadda yadda yadda and expecting me to defend things I have never said ...


:shrug:
 
What is that which is important?
basic human rights related to food, water, housing. These problems should be solved first, and then let everyone dither about the other stuff. If someone wants to poke around in some gay person's personal life after they are provided the same basic rights as everyone else, i would be less offended. I have "moral tolerance" to moral views that are non-threatening to human rights. Preach all day about how gay people will go to hell in your philosophical afterlife if you must, just as long as you also insist upon their human rights in this life.
 
basic human rights related to food, water, housing.

The problem is that humans cannot guarantee those, it is simply not within human power to do so. We do not have that kind of control over nature. We have tried, and ruined the economy and the environment in the process.


These problems should be solved first, and then let everyone dither about the other stuff.

And given the above, nobody should ever dither about the other stuff anyway.


If someone wants to poke around in some gay person's personal life after they are provided the same basic rights as everyone else, i would be less offended. I have "moral tolerance" to moral views that are non-threatening to human rights. Preach all day about how gay people will go to hell in your philosophical afterlife if you must, just as long as you also insist upon their human rights in this life.

Perhaps modern humans tend to have sensibilities that they cannot actually afford, hence so many problems.
We take our relative safety, the relative stability of having food and shelter for granted - and then suffer the consequences of confusion for doing so.
 
The problem is that humans cannot guarantee those, it is simply not within human power to do so. We do not have that kind of control over nature. We have tried, and ruined the economy and the environment in the process.
Natural disasters will happen but the greater disaster would be not to try and eliminate poverty worldwide. Why do you equate trying to meet basic needs of the global population with destruction of environment and the economy? One does not necessarily beget the other, unless you think it is a fruitless endeavor from the start.



And given the above, nobody should ever dither about the other stuff anyway.






Perhaps modern humans tend to have sensibilities that they cannot actually afford, hence so many problems.
We take our relative safety, the relative stability of having food and shelter for granted - and then suffer the consequences of confusion for doing so.
Woe unto us all wynn, all is lost!
 
Natural disasters will happen but the greater disaster would be not to try and eliminate poverty worldwide. Why do you equate trying to meet basic needs of the global population with destruction of environment and the economy?

That equation takes place only in your fancy ...

Certainly the latest attempts to "meet the basic needs of the global population" have led to destruction. But maybe there in fact exist ways to meet those needs without bringing on a universal crisis.


Woe unto us all wynn, all is lost!

More fancy ...
 
The problem is that humans cannot guarantee those, it is simply not within human power to do so. We do not have that kind of control over nature. We have tried, and ruined the economy and the environment in the process.
i disagree that we have tried. Maybe like one hand pushing the other trying. Please explain these attempts to meet the needs leading to destruction. And don't put a for profit company like monsanto passing off ge crops designed for the wrong environments, with crops that have no seeds so farmers can buy seeds every year, into that category. We don't have anyone to blame but ourselves. Of course there will always be things out of our control, so there is no guarantee, but we could guarantee not to poison each others water or food for our own profit, for example.
Perhaps modern humans tend to have sensibilities that they cannot actually afford, hence so many problems.
We take our relative safety, the relative stability of having food and shelter for granted - and then suffer the consequences of confusion for doing so.
absolutely. I mean we can't all have a yacht. It isn't reasonable for everyone to expect all the same stuff.
 
i disagree that we have tried. Maybe like one hand pushing the other trying. Please explain these attempts to meet the needs leading to destruction.

To provide food and shelter for the entire human population requires enormous use and relocation of resources. This introduces agricultural, political, technological, logistic and other problems that need to be solved somehow. Doing so costs time, money, natural and other resources and causes pollution. Meanwhile, people die of starvation.


We don't have anyone to blame but ourselves.

In what sense?


Of course there will always be things out of our control, so there is no guarantee,

Maybe the real threats are not tsunamis, droughts, wildfires, pests, but anger and greed.


but we could guarantee not to poison each others water or food for our own profit, for example.

That can probably come only at the cost of significantly reducing one's living standard.


I mean we can't all have a yacht. It isn't reasonable for everyone to expect all the same stuff.

The question is, what is reasonable to expect?

Is it really reasonable to expect that people who live in the middle of a desert nevertheless have enough food every day?
 
To provide food and shelter for the entire human population requires enormous use and relocation of resources. This introduces agricultural, political, technological, logistic and other problems that need to be solved somehow. Doing so costs time, money, natural and other resources and causes pollution. Meanwhile, people die of starvation.
The things humans do that don't provide anything good and are even harmful also cause pollution and take up vast resources. Might as well do something good with all that hard work.

In what sense?
this -
Maybe the real threats are not tsunamis, droughts, wildfires, pests, but anger and greed.
--
That can probably come only at the cost of significantly reducing one's living standard.
it will be interesting to see a time when people who use 6 times the resources of someone else tell them they are only allotted one child or whatever.
The question is, what is reasonable to expect?
it is related and only 9 minutes - http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html i personally am not even saying people all get the electric light if that isn't possible. Food, air, water, shelter. We can worry about who gets a washing machine later.
Is it really reasonable to expect that people who live in the middle of a desert nevertheless have enough food every day?
if someone doesn't take the water from the stream for a golf course they might. Humans not being able to migrate is, of course, mostly a human-imposed problem these days. It seems there will always be someone who wants to live in a house over the piranha infestation, but in general people prefer to eat than stay in one spot. There is definitely a debate going on as to what population the earth can sustain, because some people say that whole 5 or 10 billion number (can't remember) that was made popular is inaccurate. I can't say how many can eat and breathe, but obviously, when some small percentage of people use up most of the resources, that is morally unfair, if in doing so they pollute or divert the air and water and food of others.
 
IOW, you're in favor of relativism, but you also want your own particular view to take over - which contradicts your favoring relativism.
Which clearly shows that people who argue that they have "moral tolerance and integrity" are just blowing hot air.


And now will come the barrage of accusations of how I am against gay marriage and yadda yadda yadda and expecting me to defend things I have never said ...

Intolerance for intolerance isn't intolerance. It's standing up for the tolerance of those who the intolerant won't tolerate, namely gay people. Tolerating bigotry and homophobia is empowering intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant. So why are you defending bigotry against gay people? Do you have the same sort of tolerance for racism?
 
Intolerance for intolerance isn't intolerance. It's standing up for the tolerance of those who the intolerant won't tolerate, namely gay people. Tolerating bigotry and homophobia is empowering intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant. So why are you defending bigotry against gay people? Do you have the same sort of tolerance for racism?

Whew, what imagination you have!!
 
i personally am not even saying people all get the electric light if that isn't possible. Food, air, water, shelter.

Perhaps even this is too much.


if someone doesn't take the water from the stream for a golf course they might.

But why should they?


percentage of people use up most of the resources, that is morally unfair, if in doing so they pollute or divert the air and water and food of others.

How morally fair is it to ask people to build their self-esteem on something else than they currently do, on something that doesn't involve much use of material resources?

How morally fair is it to ask people to change what they deem worthy in life?

How morally fair is it to ask people to change their current beliefs about the purpose of life?
 
Perhaps even this is too much.
Better to aim for the stars and hit the moon as they say.
But why should they?
I mean if someone doesn't divert drinking water to water the golf course, perhaps there would be enough water for the morongo indians in Palm Springs. And they shouldn't take the water for the golf course because survival trumps golf. If someone wants to pay the Indians to live somewhere else so they can use the water, that would be fine, as long as the Indians want to move. And include a share of the gross, not the net profit. That is not how we do, or at least did, things in america.
How morally fair is it to ask people to build their self-esteem on something else than they currently do, on something that doesn't involve much use of material resources?
how well is the commercialism building our self-esteem?
Also, how morally fair is it to ask slave owners to pay people to pick cotton??? Seems pretty fair to me.
How morally fair is it to ask people to change what they deem worthy in life?How morally fair is it to ask people to change their current beliefs about the purpose of life?
survival trumps pleasure.
 
How morally fair is it to ask people to change what they deem worthy in life?

Quite morally fair. We are always being asked to "support the troops" "fight breast cancer" "recycle" etc. Most people can deal with such requests.

How morally fair is it to ask people to change their current beliefs about the purpose of life?

Same. It's always fair to ask.

But why should they? (not waste water)

Because some people care for more than just their own immediate needs.
 
survival trumps pleasure.
I'm not completely convinced of that.

Would you rather live a thousand years in misery or enjoy one hundred years of pleasure? Answer honestly, it's not meant to be set up as a false dichotomy...
 
Back
Top