As Traditional Values Hang in the Balance New Jersey Courts Open the Gates to Same-Sex Marriage

6 thoughts on “As Traditional Values Hang in the Balance New Jersey Courts Open the Gates to Same-Sex Marriage”

1. I hate to say this as an opponent of 43 and supporter of “I”, but doesn’t the NJ decision help 43’s backers, because Colorado’s liberal court could hand down the same kind of decision unless the state constitution keeps it from doing so?

   It seems to me that the NJ decision destroys the 43 backers’ argument that it is “totally unnecessary” to ban gay marriage in the state constitution if you’re opposed to same-sex unions.

   In the eyes of Colorado conservatives and Republicans, the Colorado Supreme Court is very partisan and quite willing to make laws that are backed by the left.

   There is no faith that the Colorado Supreme Court would be objective or fair in ruling on such a case. Thus, if a majority on the court believes in same-sex unions and gay marriage, they would find a way to follow New Jersey’s Supreme Court.

   Tell me I’m wrong, because I’m discouraged by the thought that Colorado voters will show themselves to be as hateful as a cult.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Just found this at wsj.com:

      Republicans have seen positive economic news, the North Korean nuclear test and even the Foley scandal tarring the GOP all fail to permanently knock Iraq out of the headlines, and the war has been the midterm campaigns’ dominant issue. Now the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to endorse the right of homosexual couples to all the privileges given married heterosexuals — if not the “marriage” label itself — seems to be the last big October news event one party can use to attack the other. It may be bad news for the socially conservative Republicans, but as the Washington Post notes, it was “the bad news they were hoping for.” Gay marriage played a prominent role in 2004 following the Massachusetts judicial and legislative action on the matter, and while it had been dormant since, President Bush and others seized on it yesterday.

      “We believe in family values. We believe values are important. And we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization,” the president said yesterday about himself and Republican House candidate Jeff Lamberti during a fund-raising lunch in Des Moines, Iowa, where gay marriage is neither a ballot initiative nor an issue dividing candidates. “Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” he said, “and I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.” That perceived threat to heterosexual marriage is energizing conservatives at a time when turning out the Republican base could make the difference, the New York Times notes.

      Log in to Reply

   2. If the courts in Colorado were to come along and say that same-sex couples have to be treated the same under law as opposite-sex couples because of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, then it simply does not matter if a ban on same-sex marriage is in state statute or state constitution. It would still be struck down.

      One thing the Radical Right keeps ttying to sell to voters (and with a lot of success) is that putting things in the state constitution will protect them from the courts. It won’t. The only thing that putting something in the state constitution does (besides junking it up) is make it harder for the legislature to get rid of it.

      Under the current situation, we have a ban on same-sex marriage in this state; for better or worse, it’s already in law. Passing Amendment 43 does not change this, it only repeats what is already in law.

      It’s a pointless Amendment. It serves no purpose to spell out (possibly unconstitutional) discrimination in the state constitution.

      Vote NO on 43 and let’s move on to a real issue.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Sorry, but I think you’re wrong.

         See the piece on the home page about the Grand Junction paper changing its endorsement on 43 because of the NJ decision.

         Things are moving quickly.

         Log in to Reply

         1. The Sentinel’s move was idiotic.

            I believe you’re correct – the State Supreme Court can’t rule on the State Constitution based on the U.S. Constitution; that ruling has to come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

            The NJ Decision wasn’t based on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, though – it was based on an Equal Rights clause in the NJ State Constitution.  It has no applicability here in Colorado – we have a much weaker Equal Rights clause.

            Log in to Reply

         2. There are many instances of the State Supreme Court ruling a state constitutional provision to be unconstitutional. Anti-gay Amendment 2 from 1992 is a good example.

            Congressional term limits was struck down by the SSC.

            A couple of anti-reproductive-rights initiatives were struck down in the late 90’s

            There are a just a few that popped into my head right away.

            Log in to Reply