The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court’s vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
The decision mirrors the one made in 1999 by Vermont’s highest court, which prompted its legislature to create civil unions for same-sex couples, with the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.
The New Jersey high court held that state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from receiving the “financial and social benefits and privileges” of marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution and served no “legitimate governmental purpose.”
The biggest problem this decision faces is that the issue is now handed back to politicians for possible resolution. Anyone else old enough to remember when you could expect leadership — instead of opportunism and reaction — from politicians on a controversial issue?
Just wanted to compliment our participants, this morning.
Whenever I post about a controversial topic, I wonder how many comments I’m going to have to edit for violating our comment guidelines. Even the [very few] wingnuts acted fairly responsible.
Maybe I’m being too sensitive; but, the newspaper that carries my blog — just pulled automatic commenting, limited the number of articles allowed to comment on, and now requires editorial checking of every comment beforehand — because of offensive remarks.
I’m glad we don’t face that — here.
41. Hate to be the one to break your bubble, but censoring happens on D. Uncensored as well. It’s very rare, however.
RBG
35. “Then there are also the famous gay penguins and other homosexual animals and it doesn’t seem likely that culture is forcing gay penguins to mate with the opposite sex.”
“That all ended when Scrappy, a single female newly arrived from SeaWorld in San Diego, caught Silo’s eye.
“Silo and Roy stopped spending as much time together or building a nest,” said John Rowden, curator of animals at the zoo.
Silo promptly moved in with Scrappy, building a new nest with her. Zookeepers were at a loss to explain Silo’s sudden conversion.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html
RBG
36. So science still has no real understanding why there are homosexuals? But they sure are willing to impose all the social implications and influence upon a heterosexual society, including developing children, nevertheless. Reminds me exactly of a time when the social scientists and PCers insisted upon imposing their PC views that both boys and girls be raised equally influenced by both girl toys and boy toys. What a laugh that turned out to be, as every parent raising small kids well knows.
RBG