Apparently, their supreme court didn't come right out and say yes to same-sex marriage, but ordered the legislature to rewrite marriage laws to accomodate it or to recognize same-sex civil unions. Yet, again, activist judiciary is sidestepping putting the issue to the voice of the people for a vote.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.
What gets me that in the same sentence as the finding that they found no right to it, they have the audicity to say their state's Constitution can no longer tolerate the lack of "unequal dispensation"
Here is the ruling: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf. Just reading through some of it makes me nearly sick to the stomach with how these judges are clearly wresting the law. The dissenting votes were not dissenting in terms of being anti same-sex marriage. They were dissenting because they didn't agree with the finding of the majority that there was no fundamental right to it... In other words, the dissenters to the ruling were actually the ones most in favor of saying same-sex marriage is a right and allowable under the law!
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I heard that on the radio during lunch and nearly fell out of my seat. I drives me crazy that the Judiciary in states like Jersey and Masschusetts is doing the job of the legislatures, creating rights that didn't exist before. If these rights have always existed because of their state constitution etc, why did it take 200 years to discover them?
Well, look at the ruling detail. Basically, the judges decided that because their State Constitution first paragraph "protect[s] against injuries and against unequal treatment of those who should be treated alike," the court is then giving creedence to the so-called complaints by those who are asking for same-sex marriage that the law has "relegated them to 'second-class citizenship' by denying them the 'tangible and intangible' benefits available to heterosexual couples through marriage." See page 35 of the ruling...
What a crock! The more I look at the garbage they have written in the ruling, the more I am sickened at the utter lack of morale fiber that seems to be prevelant in so much of the judiciary. Essentially, well, the law states this, but that was from before we had this situation and so it isn't really relevant and so we are free to define things as we want to...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."