james nunn | blog » Legal Issues

NJ Courts Rules on Same-Sex Marriage

James — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:20:36 +0000

Initial reading of the decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court (Lewis v. Harris [A-68-05]), it appears that the NJ legislature has 180 days to amend the marriage statutes to provide the option for same-sex marriages.

A copy of the decision is available here.

Update: Having read the majority opinion, here are a few extracts worthy of repeating.

“Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this Stateâ€™s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 [of the New Jersey Constitution]. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.” (pp.6-7)

No related posts.

First Amendment Spamming

James — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:58:00 +0000

I was just reading that the SCOTUS decided not to hear a case between White Buffalo Ventures and the University of Texas at Austin, which upholds the decision of the lower court that spamming is a breach of the First Amendment (as it relates to university email systems).

Now I'm listening to the testimony of Judge Alito on CSPAN.

Oh! The dryer has been repaired! Yay!!

No related posts.

Still waiting

James — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:49:00 +0000

I never really wanted to contribute to the liturgious society that we live in, however recent activities of a small group of people involved with a community organization which I have been involved have caused me to join this societal grouping. (You can read more about the details here.) I'm still waiting to hear from the court on a date. I guess the moral of this story is don't file court action over the at the end of the year.

No related posts.

The Supremes are Awesome

James — Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:48:00 +0000

Today the Supreme Court announced their decision in the Texas Sodomy case, and it was good news for all men and women in the US. In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned the case of two gay men caught having sex while the police were investigating a false report of a burglary. The case got all the way to the highest court, and was considered back in March.

IN another decision (5-4), the court also overturned a previous decision of the court in the matter of Bowers v. Hardwick, which had previously sanctioned the laws of the remaining thirteen states that had sodomy laws.

The decisions were celebrated by many people across the nation. On the other side, the conservatives, lead by the radical religious bigots, are complaining that this is the downfall of American society. Same old tune, time to change the channel.

For anyone who wants to understand how unfair the situation was, you have to read the opinions (yes, all of them). Justice Kennedy wrote an extraordinary opinion (for the majority) explaining that the court had considered many similar cases (not dealing with homosexuals, but state law restricting the rights of people based on a class, or grouping), and had found these laws to violate the constitution. He cited many examples of case law to back this up, and presented an extremely focused document.

Justice Scalia on the other hand, wrote what one would expect from a conservative justice. He argued about the morality issue (arguing that states have the right to legislate morality involving one group of people), and suggested that the majority of his fellow members of the court had succumbed to the gay agenda!

It's great reading, and worth the time. A good day!

No related posts.