Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zeeb · Oct 25, 2006, 03:32 PM

Cool, I didn't expect this. I wonder what the backlash will be like? The legislature apparently will decide on whether to call the union a "marriage" or relabel it. thoughts?

New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions - CNN.com

TheWOAT · Oct 25, 2006, 03:33 PM

Aren't different states drawing different conclusions on this matter? When will the USSC step in?

Dakar² · Oct 25, 2006, 03:34 PM

I don't care what they call it.

Chuckit · Oct 25, 2006, 03:37 PM

The Supreme Court does not "step in." If somebody somehow has a grievance against these laws and tries to appeal them, then the Supreme Court might take a stance. In all likelihood, though, that stance would be "This is none of our business."

kmkkid · Oct 25, 2006, 03:41 PM

New Jersey!

ironknee · Oct 25, 2006, 03:57 PM

rock on NJ...good news for folley

TheWOAT · Oct 25, 2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The Supreme Court does not "step in." If somebody somehow has a grievance against these laws and tries to appeal them, then the Supreme Court might take a stance. In all likelihood, though, that stance would be "This is none of our business."

Ooops. I guess I knew that but temporarily forgot.

I agree that their initial stance may be that, but if there are multiple states with multiple interpretations, then would it not be their duty to determine how/if these marraiges are to be recognized by each state?

BRussell · Oct 25, 2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Ooops. I guess I knew that but temporarily forgot.

I agree that their initial stance may be that, but if there are multiple states with multiple interpretations, then would it not be their duty to determine how/if these marraiges are to be recognized by each state?

The current law of the US is The Defense of Marriage act, which says that states don't have to recognize other states' gay marriages. The Supreme Court hasn't judged whether that law is unconstitutional.

Chuckit · Oct 25, 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

The current law of the US is The Defense of Marriage act, which says that states don't have to recognize other states' gay marriages. The Supreme Court hasn't judged whether that law is unconstitutional.

I strongly doubt the court would find that law unconstitutional, at least in principle. There is no constitutional right to marriage or to have your preferences catered to by the law. (This is not to say I don't support gay rights. I do. I just don't believe the Constitution guarantees gay rights.)

nonhuman · Oct 25, 2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I strongly doubt the court would find that law unconstitutional, at least in principle. There is no constitutional right to marriage or to have your preferences catered to by the law. (This is not to say I don't support gay rights. I do. I just don't believe the Constitution guarantees gay rights.)

On the other hand, the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage technically, according to the Constitution, means that it's up to the states to regulate not the federal government.

Zeeb · Oct 25, 2006, 04:27 PM

It seems like this ruling could have a significant effect on the November elections. Whereas before the fear for Republicans was that the Foley scandal and Iraq could keep conservatives away from the polls, it will be interesting to see if this news is used to motivate them.

BRussell · Oct 25, 2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I strongly doubt the court would find that law unconstitutional, at least in principle. There is no constitutional right to marriage or to have your preferences catered to by the law. (This is not to say I don't support gay rights. I do. I just don't believe the Constitution guarantees gay rights.)

Hmm, I understand that point, but the defense of marriage act to which I was referring says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. That's a very different question from whether marriage is a constitutional right. States generally are required to recognize these types of contracts from other states, even if they don't allow such contracts themselves.

On the basic question that you raise, I personally believe in a very expansive constitution, one that carries with it rights that the founders never considered. Generally, if laws are designed for some people (heterosexual marriage), it should apply equally to others. On the other hand, it would definitely be better if we passed such laws ourselves rather than having the judiciary decide them.