BREAKING: NJ SUPREME COURT MANDATES GAY MARRIAGE (IN ALL BUT NAME)

The decision (PDF file).

The upshot, as reported to me by Andy the Squirrel (haven't dug into it yet myself--

Gay marriage is now mandated in NJ, imnposed, yet again, by judicial fiat.

However, the state is not required to call it marriage, unless it so chooses.

But in all saliet aspects, the court has mandated that gay marriage is "constitutionally required" in New Jersey.

Let me say something about the New Jersey Supreme Court: I do have some respect for their integrity. It would have been easy to put off this decision, in order to deny relevant information to the voter in the upcoming elections, had they so chose.

And I'm sure they were surely tempted to do so.

However, while their decision is, as usual, gravely mistaken, at least they did not compound that by corruptly withholding a decision they'd arleady made until, say, November 8th.

This is what you're voting for when you don't vote, folks.

October Surprise.

I can't wait for Chris Matthews et al. to fume that we shouldn't worry ourselves about such silly, unimportant issues... after they flogged the Mark Foley scandal for three flood-the-zone weeks.

MORE: Unlike Massachusetts, New Jersey Is Free To Export Same-Sex Marriages to Other States' Citizens: Massachusetts bars out-of-state citizens being married under the gay-marriage "law."

New Jersey does not.

Note that New Jersey enacted, legislatively (i.e., properly, with the consent of the governed), a civil-union law that wasn't quite marriage, but was pretty damn close to it.

Not enough, says the New Jersey Supreme Court.

This is what's coming -- unless you vote.

You smell that?

There's something in the air. It smells like... 2004.

By the way... If you think a mere state-constitutional ban against gay marriage protects you from the courts imposing this on you, think again.

Liberal courts have several times invalidated parts of their own state constitutions in finding in favor of liberal policies.

As Nevadans, who had a constitutional provision forbidding tax increases without supermajority legislative support. Not so fast, said the Nevada Supreme Court -- the constitution's preamble says the state will fund education and such, and that means it has to spend money -- a lot more money -- and that invaldiates the specific mandate against raising taxes with anything less than a supermajority. The general, "We the people" preamble trumps the specific constitutional provision in this case.

So-- they ruled you can raise taxes with a mere majority.

In Florida, an initiative passed that would have limited the Supreme Court's desicison to invalidate laws.

But they decided the initiaitive limiting their own power was, wonder of wonders, passed by unconstitutional means, as, they claimed, the public was "misled" about what the iniitiative meant, and didn't fully understand all the great benefits the SCOFLAw provides for them.

Hence-- ruled off the books by a vote of five liberals.

Only liberals could imagine that their own written constitutions are themselves unconstitutional, and they're not afraid to play that absurd trump card when they feel the cause is important enough.

posted by Ace at 04:00 PM

| Access Comments