NJ Supreme Court rules in support of same-sex unions

Interestingly enough, all the major news sites, including the New York Times, are calling it a “4-3 decision.” I feel that is misleading: When you think “4-3 decision on same-sex unions” you draw the natural conclusion that three Justices on the New Jersey Supreme Court do not believe their state’s constitution calls for legally-equally unions for all citizens. But that’s not true. Everyone on the Court agreed on the need for same-sex unions with the same legal privileges as marriage. The “dissenting” opinions went a step farther in feeling that those unions should go by the name of marriage, while the majority didn’t feel it was within the scope of their power to dictate the name.

Boo news media. Hooray New Jersey.

You can start making fun of us again in: Five…

Four…

Three…

Two…

One…

NOW!

Maybe three judges took the wrong exit?

Ba-dum-dum.

But that’s not true. Everyone on the Court agreed on the need for same-sex unions with the same legal privileges as marriage. The “dissenting” opinions went a step farther in feeling that those unions should go by the name of marriage, while the majority didn’t feel it was within the scope of their power to dictate the name.

I actually laughed out loud at that.

New Jersey, hooray for us.

Welcome to the club, New Jersey!

Excellent news. I eagerly await the cries of judicial activism.

You didn’t have to wait long:

Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, said he would attempt to have all seven justices impeached.

My love of suspense is frustrated, but my love of laughing at frothing bigots is amply satisfied.

Hooray for New Jersey. Freedom marches on.

What’s great about this is that he’s decided they’re all wrong.

The “Everybody is crazy but me!” strategy in action.

I can’t wait for Season 6 of the Sopranos to come out on DVD and listen to all the gay jokes again. Funny stuff.

It’s real simple: Give it to the people that live there and let them vote on it. Split it up into a couple of different sections.

  1. Should same-sex relationships be recognized, yada yada
  2. Should same-sex relationships be called marriage?
  3. Should same-sex relationships have the same legal rights as a “standard” marriage?

Yada, Yada, Yada.
Let the people decide because it’s been a really long time since a politician actually represented the average citizen.

Except that that’s a terrible idea, because lots of people (a majority in a lot of places) just plain hate gay people. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

Sorta illustrates the difference between a democracy and a republic, eh?

I always remember the bit from Heinlein’s “Friday” where he mentions that the people of California, having discovered that those with college degrees make more money than those without, vote to grant everyone in the state a BA.

As a general rule, while having the masses vote on big issues may well sound good, in practice you are likely to end up with lowest common denominator policy.

We’re talking New Jersey. It’s a pretty liberal state. This really doesn’t belong in the Supreme Court but rather the Legislature.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here FIDGAF. Is it that equal marriage rights shouldn’t be an issue dealt with by the judiciary, or is it that it’s something that each state should decide for itself, or what?

Jersey represent!

Good for NJ. I wish this country would get past crap like this.

Isn’t that the product of the very democracy you were lauding in the “pay taxes to vote” thread though?

Die, by the very weapons you adore!