Skip to comments.Key same-sex 'marriage' case dismissed
Posted on 11/05/2003 10:41:44 PM PST by scripter
In another hard-fought battle over the definition of matrimony, a New Jersey court dismissed a case brought by seven homosexual couples demanding the state create a right to same-sex "marriage."
Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg's opinion said nothing can be found in the state constitution to justify a right to same-sex "marriage."
"The right to marry has always been understood in law and tradition to apply only to couples of different genders," she wrote. "A change in that basic understanding would not lift a restriction on the right, but would work a fundamental transformation of marriage into an arrangement that could never have been within the intent of the Framers of the 1947 Constitution.
The decision was the second on homosexual marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Lawrence v. Texas in June, which declared the state's prohibition of sodomy unconstitutional.
Opponents of that decision fear it will open the door to same-sex marriage, but last month a three-member panel of the Arizona appeals court recognized the state legislature's right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
"New Jersey Judge Feinberg properly followed her role in applying the law instead of making law," said Benjamin W. Bull, chief counsel of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, or ADF, the country's largest public-interest religious-liberty legal alliance.
Attorneys funded and trained by ADF joined with an alliance of attorneys from the Center for Marriage Law and the New Jersey Family Policy Council to defend traditional marriage.
Feinburg said, however, change is possible in the legislature, and her opinion urges state lawmakers "to carefully examine and consider the expanded rights afforded to same-sex couples in other jurisdictions."
Lambda Legal, the homosexual advocacy group that argued the case for the couples, said it will appeal the ruling. The group expressed optimism it will ultimately prevail.
"More than anything, this ruling propels us forward to higher courts where both sides have always known it will be decided," said David Buckel, Lambda senior staff attorney. "Today's ruling speeds up the clock toward the day lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey can seek the protections they need for their families from the state's high court."
The state appeals court is the next step. If rejected there, the case could end up in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The closest the U.S. has come to same-sex marriage is Vermont's civil-union law, a legal registration providing the same benefits and rights as married couples. This year, California's legislature expanded its domestic partner law to grant virtually all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without requiring a marriage-like ceremony in court. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries that treat a same-sex couple's relationship exactly as one between a man and a woman.
Thirty-seven states have passed laws that bar them from honoring same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction. However, some analysts believe if the New Jersey homosexual couples prevail and are granted licenses, their unions would have to be recognized in all other states under the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause."
State court rejects same-sex marriage
Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case
High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?
California Senate OKs 'virtual gay marriage'
'Gays' heading to Canada for mass wedding
U.S. 'gay' activist touts Canadian 'marriage'
Canada set to legalize 'gay' marriage
'Gay' wedding licenses issued in Toronto
'Virtual gay marriage' bill passes
Canada 'gay' marriage to spark border rush?
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links|
|Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)|
|Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search|
|All FreeRepublic Bump Lists|
LOL, this is New Jersey, the land where the state Supreme Court laughed at the law and spat in everybody's face so a Democrat (the dottering old Lautenberg) could keep a Senate seat in Democrat hands. The judges do exactly what they are told to do.
Too bad she's not on the SCOTUS in place of Ruth or Sandra.
Yep - we need more of 'em.
I urge you folks to go read the other thread ^ on this topic. It has way more detail. Such as:
The judge ruled that there is nothing in the state constitution that guarantees same-sex unions as a right and said the appropriate forum to change marriage laws is the Legislature.Wonder why all that was left out of this article?
Although she rejected arguments made in the lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg urged state lawmakers to take action that would give gay couples rights that other states have granted.
"The court commends the Legislature to carefully examine and consider the expanded rights afforded to same-sex couples in other jurisdictions," the opinion said. "The appropriate avenue for a change in the meaning of marriage is the Legislature where social changes of the magnitude contemplated ... are best addressed."
Wonder why all that was left out of this article?
That's a very good question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.