Same-sex marriages must be allowed in N.J., judge rules

[Brett85]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is the kind of thing that's going to make it hard for Rand to make the case that gay marriage should be entirely a state issue, when activist judges won't allow this issue to be handled by the states and the people of these states. I hope that Rand will address what he would do to stop these activist judges, such as passing Ron's "We the People Act" that would strip jurisdiction from the federal courts on issues like marriage and abortion.

[Acala]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is the kind of thing that's going to make it hard for Rand to make the case that gay marriage should be entirely a state issue, when activist judges won't allow this issue to be handled by the states and the people of these states. I hope that Rand will address what he would do to stop these activist judges, such as passing Ron's "We the People Act" that would strip jurisdiction from the federal courts on issues like marriage and abortion.

Assuming the article is accurate, this was a State court, not a Federal court, applying State law (NJ Constitution), not Federal law.

[Brett85]

Assuming the article is accurate, this was a State court, not a Federal court, applying State law (NJ Constitution), not Federal law.

No, he was applying federal law. (Or claimed he was) The judge ruled that defining marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional due to the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Acala]

No, he was applying federal law. (Or claimed he was) The judge ruled that defining marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional due to the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Again, assuming the article is correct, the court ruled that the New Jersey Constitution required the equal treatment, not the Federal Constitution. The inequality of Federal benefits (which was in part due to a SCOTUS decision) was a fact pertinent to the decision, but Federal law was not applied.

[Brett85]

I guess you're right, after reading that again. But, I doubt if the "equal protection clause" in New Jersey's Constitution is any different at all from the equal protection clause in the U.S Constitution.

[Keith and stuff]

Don't worry, the US Supreme Court will make it the law of the land in all 50 states and federal land before long. This issue will soon be dead. Maybe in 2 years, maybe all the way until 6 years. At this pointed, it is still an interesting issue for Republicans to push in extremely religious or Republican areas but that is already changing.

BTW, I'm not saying I support government involvement in private or religious marriage. Obviously, government has no natural connection to marriage. But the handwriting is on the wall. It is easy to see what the Supreme Court is going to eventually do. Heck, look at what it has already done with so many judges appointed by Republicans.

[69360]

Don't worry, the US Supreme Court will make it the law of the land in all 50 states and federal land before long. This issue will soon be dead. Maybe in 2 years, maybe all the way until 6 years. At this pointed, it is still an interesting issue for Republicans to push in extremely religious or Republican areas but that is already changing.

I think the government should be out of marriage all together. But that won't happen. So somebody needs to take it to scotus and get it over with so liberals can stop using it as an off track wedge issue against republicans.

[Acala]

I guess you're right, after reading that again. But, I doubt if the "equal protection clause" in New Jersey's Constitution is any different at all from the equal protection clause in the U.S Constitution.

I just looked and I can't even find the equal protection clause in the NJ Constitution. I just skimmed it, but I'm guessing the courts sort of read it into the NJ Constitution.

[Brett85]

Don't worry, the US Supreme Court will make it the law of the land in all 50 states and federal land before long. This issue will soon be dead. Maybe in 2 years, maybe all the way until 6 years. At this pointed, it is still an interesting issue for Republicans to push in extremely religious or Republican areas but that is already changing.

If that happened it would completely kill Rand's chances to win the GOP nomination. A federal marriage amendment would be seen as the only way to overrule a Supreme Court decision that mandates gay marriage in all 50 states, and Rand wouldn't support that and wouldn't get the support of voters in Iowa. That's why I'm suggesting that he introduce Ron's "We the People Act" to make social conservatives in Iowa realize that he wants to do something about activist judges interferring in the marriage issue. I'm really not sure why Rand hasn't introduced that. When Ron introduced it, it was really popular with social conservatives.

[Smart3]

The court is correct. The Civil Unions bill there was supposed to provide the exact same rights and protections as marriage. With DOMA gone, that is no longer the case.

Up next is New Mexico, court-wise.

[Brett85]

The court is correct. The Civil Unions bill there was supposed to provide the exact same rights and protections as marriage. With DOMA gone, that is no longer the case.

Up next is New Mexico, court-wise.

So basically, now that DOMA is gone, a state can't allow civil unions. They have to either allow full gay marriage or not give any recognition at all to gay relationships. That's what it sounds like you're saying.

[James Madison]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is the kind of thing that's going to make it hard for Rand to make the case that gay marriage should be entirely a state issue, when activist judges won't allow this issue to be handled by the states and the people of these states. I hope that Rand will address what he would do to stop these activist judges, such as passing Ron's "We the People Act" that would strip jurisdiction from the federal courts on issues like marriage and abortion.

Gay marriage isn't a government issue at all. Judges don't have jurisdiction. Problem solved.

[Cabal]

Gov. Christie to Appeal N.J. Judge's Gay Marriage Ruling (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/09/28/gov-christie-to-appeal-nj-judges-gay-mar)




New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is fighting a judge’s ruling that the state must allow same-sex couples to get married.

Christie wouldn’t comment Friday on the judge’s ruling, the Associated Press reports, but a spokesman said his administration would appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“Gov. Christie has always maintained that he would abide by the will of the voters on the issue of marriage equality and called for it to be on the ballot this Election Day,” said spokesman Michael Drewniak. “Since the Legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination.”

[VoluntaryAmerican]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is the kind of thing that's going to make it hard for Rand to make the case that gay marriage should be entirely a state issue, when activist judges won't allow this issue to be handled by the states and the people of these states. I hope that Rand will address what he would do to stop these activist judges, such as passing Ron's "We the People Act" that would strip jurisdiction from the federal courts on issues like marriage and abortion.

The majority of the people in NJ want gay marriage to be legalized. Christie vetoed an attempt, but that doesn't change the fact that in the near future it will most likely be legalized in NJ.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I just looked and I can't even find the equal protection clause in the NJ Constitution. I just skimmed it, but I'm guessing the courts sort of read it into the NJ Constitution.

I just looked and I can't even find the equal protection clause in the NJ Constitution. I just skimmed it, but I'm guessing the courts sort of read it into the NJ Constitution.

The words "equal protection" are never mentioned.

I think the judge maybe relied on Article 1 Section 1... but yea it seems activist driven.


Gay marriage isn't a government issue at all. Judges don't have jurisdiction. Problem solved.

Marriage has been a government issue for awhile. Where have you been?

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't think any of this is inevitable at all.