October 25, 2006
Will They Or Won't They?
Only the hairdresser knows for sure...
As I write this, the New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling -- expected today -- on whether or not the courts will cram same-sex marriage down Jerseyites' throats. Doesn't anyone else find it ironical that the only way same-sex marriage (SSM) "wins" is when it's foisted upon us, against out wills, by a bunch of guys wearing dresses?
New Jersey could become the nation's gay wedding chapel should the state's highest court rule in favor of same-sex marriages, adversaries on the issue agree.
The New Jersey Supreme Court is poised to release its highly anticipated decision Wednesday in a case brought by seven gay couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry, said Winnie Comfort [see here now, enough of that!], a spokeswoman for the state judiciary.
The entire New Jersey Supreme Court -- which used to be called the Court of Errors and Appeals, until somebody noticed -- was appointed by ersatz Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (before she became the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and it went to her head), and by Gov. Jim McGreevey (and we all know how well that turned out). If the appointees reflect the appointers, we can expect it now comprises seven bisexual adulterers who wring their hands over global whaling.
It's hard to imagine such a court not leaping (gracefully) at the chance to rule in favor of SSM. After all, one can't trust voters to make such decisions, as time and again, they have decided the wrong way. The court, by contrast, knows what is best for voters; and they're going to give it to them, good and hard.
Consider that this same court ruled against the Boy Sprouts when they tried to expel a homosexual member (oddly enough, for not being "thrifty"); however, most of the current membership joined the club after that case was resolved. (I mean joined the court, not the Boy Sprouts; three of the justices wouldn't be permitted, being girls; and the other four probably can't fit into the uniforms.)
Massachusetts is the only state in the union that currently (as of Wednesday morning, 6:00 am) "allows" SSM; and by "allows," I of course mean judicially required the legislature to vote for it. But Massachusetts also has a law preventing people of the same gender from other states, countries, or planets getting hitched if the marriage would be illegal in their home worlds. And I'll lay you eight to one you can't repeat that three times fast.
That is, a California same-sex couple cannot fly to Salem (on plane or broomstick) and get married, because such marriages are agin' the law in the Golden State; so Gavin Newsom and Kinky Friedman are out of luck (I refer, of course, only to their political aspirations, I hasten to assure you and avoid litigation).
But New Jersy has no such law. If the court rules that the Garden State (see, I know these nicknames backwards and forwards) must allow same-sex couples, threesomes, lobster quadrilles, and the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir to marry each other, then folks will flock (if that is the word I want) to Jersey from the four corners of the globe, just to marry, go home, file for divorce, and sue their home states for violating the fundamental right to apply New Jersey law in Wyoming. The idea is to start up a cascade of lawsuits that will start by forcing same-sex marriage and end by outlawing popery.
I don't know whether New Jersey has a citizens initiative process in its constitution; but if it does, it probably gives preference to recently deceased voters over those who have been dead for longer; so the full electorate (living, dead, and undead) could well be too liberal to pass a defense-of-marriage initiative anyway. So why did I even broach the dreary subject? (If they don't have one, I suggest they submit a citizens initiative to enact a citizens initiative.)
In every state where such initiatives have gone to ballot, they have passed, usually overwhelmingly. It's on the ballot in several states for November, and we'll see how it fares; but I'm taking wagers.
In any event, I think we all have a pretty good idea what the Jersey girls and boys on the court will decide. It's not a question of "will they or won't they," but more like "will they really let their hair down and end the announcement by mooning the state?"
Enquiring voters want to know -- how they shall be required to vote.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 25, 2006, at the time of 6:54 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1390
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will They Or Won't They?:
» Yet Another Reason to Hate New Jersey from damnum absque injuria
The New Jersey Court of Errors - yeah, the same jokers who think it’s OK to ignore election laws to get Frank Lautenberg back in the Senate - has joined the Kool-Aid drinkers and unanimously invented a “right” to gay marriage - though... [Read More]
Tracked on October 26, 2006 12:01 PM
The following hissed in response by: Xrlq
If the appointees reflect the appointers, we can expect it now comprises seven bisexual adulterers who wring their hands over global whaling....
Who's the bisexual? I thought liking men only was one of the things the two appointing governors agreed on. Maybe the Court of Errors will invent a right to gay marriage for men only.
But New Jersy has no such law. If the court rules that the Garden State (see, I know these nicknames backwards and forwards) must allow same-sex couples, threesomes, lobster quadrilles, and the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir to marry each other, then folks will flock (if that is the word I want) to Jersey from the four corners of the globe, just to marry, go home, file for divorce, and sue their home states for violating the fundamental right to apply New Jersey law in Wyoming.
That's where DOMA comes in. Without it, the chance of such suits prevailing would be about as good as the chance that I can move back to Kalifornia and sue my new/old home state for violating the fundamental right to apply Virginia law - specifically Virginia law as it applies to the carrying of concealed weapons - in California. With DOMA, their chances are even worse.
The above hissed in response by: Xrlq at October 25, 2006 7:48 AM
The following hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz
I know what Karl Rove Wants to see.
The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn
They give the state legislature 180 days to "get it right".
The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn at October 25, 2006 12:44 PM
The following hissed in response by: sanddog
This is troubling....
13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)
Are they claiming gays have a right to a church wedding?
The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn
Far be it from the NJ courts to in any way intermingle the state and the church. Of course the same sex marriages can call their relationship abything they want (though I think 'precious' has already been spoken for), thats part of the first amendment. But any church that denied the same sex couple the right to "sanctify their relationship in religious ceremonies" would be denying them the same sex couple their right to religious freedom and thus must be crushed.
This may be showing my Lutheranism, but I think the justices could do with a bit of instruction regarding the term "Sanctify". I don't think it means what they seem to think it means.
The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn at October 25, 2006 1:32 PM
The following hissed in response by: MTF
I don't know whether New Jersey has a citizens initiative process in its constitution; but if it does, it probably gives preference to recently deceased voters
Sadly, it doesn't. And you can bet the court would never permit any initiative to dull the point of any rhetorical knife they choose to use in jabbing the body politic. Like this decision.
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved