The Gay Legal Rulings Thread

[viper37]

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html

does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html

does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?

[Caliga]

He thinks that you're into rednecks.

[viper37]

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html

does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?

http://news.yahoo.com/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage-133757426.html
Alright so now I need to find a English or Welsh man who wants to marry me next year so I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.

If all you want to do is get out of New York to be married, it seems New Jersey is a tad closer... no?

[garbon]

I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.

[Eddie Teach]

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html

does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?

Have someone in mind?

[DontSayBanana]

Oh, since I haven't seen anybody else mentioning it, I see Christie's finally realized that he's coming up on an election year- he dropped his appeal on the gay marriage issue this morning, and still managed to get a backhand swipe at the judiciary into it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/21/gay-couples-wed-as-nj-recognizes-nuptials/3141655/

"Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law," the governor's statement said. "The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court."

[DontSayBanana]

Have someone in mind?

derspiess, duh!  Er, actually I forget which one is in North Jersey, DGuller or derspiess.

[Eddie Teach]

Guller's in Jersey, Spiess in WKRP land.

[DontSayBanana]

Guller's in Jersey, Spiess in WKRP land.

Figures I'd get it backwards.  D is for Lysdexia.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with Christie

[viper37]

I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.

ah, sorry.  I'm not up to speed with US marriage laws.

[DontSayBanana]

I agree with Christie

You've got it backwards.  Christie tried to make it a fig leaf- voters want gay marriage, they have to say so.  The court told him not only that a referendum isn't necessary to codify every single right given to citizens, it was actually already done by the decision that resulted in NJ granting civil unions in the first place (they came about because The Powers That Be™ told NJ they needed to give homo couples an equivalent option to marriage.  All that happened was that the issue was revisited and it was decided that civil unions weren't doing that job.

If he had succeeded in getting that challenge all the way to SCOTUS, they look at very, very narrow topics when they do hear a case.  They basically would have looked at that: civil unions were implemented to equivocate marriage, they did not, so marriage needed to be opened up to homo couples.  That's a pretty hard topic to argue, and Christie would have ended up being the Republican governor that brought a case to SCOTUS that opened the floodgates across the country.

Long story short, he took a known loser way too far, and he found himself without a way to withdraw gracefully.  It's all politicking with that dude.

[grumbler]

You've got it backwards.  Christie tried to make it a fig leaf- voters want gay marriage, they have to say so.  The court told him not only that a referendum isn't necessary to codify every single right given to citizens, it was actually already done by the decision that resulted in NJ granting civil unions in the first place (they came about because The Powers That Be™ told NJ they needed to give homo couples an equivalent option to marriage.  All that happened was that the issue was revisited and it was decided that civil unions weren't doing that job.

If he had succeeded in getting that challenge all the way to SCOTUS, they look at very, very narrow topics when they do hear a case.  They basically would have looked at that: civil unions were implemented to equivocate marriage, they did not, so marriage needed to be opened up to homo couples.  That's a pretty hard topic to argue, and Christie would have ended up being the Republican governor that brought a case to SCOTUS that opened the floodgates across the country.

Long story short, he took a known loser way too far, and he found himself without a way to withdraw gracefully.  It's all politicking with that dude.

I think you have it somewhat wrong; Christie couldn't pretend that he hadn't vetoed the legislature's law recognizing gay marriages, so he used euphamisms in his statement about  "the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches."  It was really the court substituting its judgement for his judgement.

But you are correct in that this was a quixotic, partisan-motivated quest on his part.  Once the USSC had ruled that the feds had to recognize gay marriage but not necessarily civil unions, the jig was up on the old NJ law.

[merithyn]

Illinois should be bringing it to a vote again in January. At least, I hope they will. I'd much rather this be voted into law than forced on the state by judges. Not because I necessarily care, but the end-result will change how the population feels about it, I think.

The conservative down-staters are fighting this tooth and nail, and I think it would be better if their legislators do the deed. They're more likely to accept it sooner than if a judge declares it necessary.