"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

NJ Judge Orders Officials to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

A New Jersey judge has reportedly declared that officials should recognize same-sex marriages.

Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court cited the Supreme Court's decision that struck down DOMA. Jacobson reportedly wrote that civil unions don't go far enough because it doesn't afford “certain federal benefits that legally married same-sex couples are able to enjoy.”

“If the trend of federal agencies deeming civil union partners ineligible for benefits continues, plaintiffs will suffer even more, while their opposite-sex New Jersey counterparts continue to receive federal marital benefits for no reason other than the label placed upon their relationship by the state,” she wrote. ”This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution.”

You know, this is the last thing New Jersey Governor Christ Christie wanted. But to be fair, he has vowed to appeal. I'm not sure how much I trust Christie on this or the judges on the state Supreme Court. Wait, I am sure how much I trust them. I don't.



*subhead*Fiat.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

17 comments:

Pat said...

Its always judicial fiat when you disagree with the judge, isn't it? I read her 53-page reasoned opinion. So, which part of her analysis do you think is wrong? And I suspect an appeal wont win, because her opinion is already consistent with what higher courts in NJ have held - that same sex couples should have the same rights and obligations as straight couples.

Pat said...

Its always judicial fiat when you disagree with the judge, isn't it? I read her 53-page reasoned opinion. So, which part of her analysis do you think is wrong? And I suspect an appeal wont win, because her opinion is already consistent with what higher courts in NJ have held - that same sex couples should have the same rights and obligations as straight couples.

Proteios1 said...

my favorite...'for no reason other than the label placed upon their relationship".
Thats all marriage is to these people. I guess marriage....holy matrimony... is another minor issue we need to obsess about as clearly people are out of touch with reality.

I would expect more out of people who ascribe to the theory of evolution. We wouldnt be here if the natural law wasnt clear...no OBVIOUS, that male and female are the required combo.

Rick Zimmerman said...

In New York 2 Knights of Columbus voted for same sex marriage. Why are they not thrown out of this Organization. Our fellow Catholics? giving aid to Government. It is time to CALL OUT those so called Catholics. Communion No More.

paladin said...

Pat (the commenter at 2:13/2:24... not Pat Archbold),

I think you'd need to be something other than a moral relativist, in order to understand any good answer to your question(s).

RobJ said...

Liberals and progressives love to claim "inevitability" and the "right side of history," but they fail to acknowledge that their victories are the result of their own tyrannical abuse of power.

Sound too strong? In this case, we have a state judge...
who refuses to follow a state law...
and justifies it by citing the action of federal agencies...
which are making up a bunch of new rules...
because the US Supreme Court...
which yaps about respecting precedent when it comes to killing babies...
tossed aside thousands of years of precedent with respect to marriage.

The game is always fixed, and we always lose.

Mary De Voe said...

Judge Mary Jacobson must deliver EQUAL JUSTICE not equality. Gay-marriage without consummation of the marital act does not exist, it is not real.
"because the US Supreme Court...
which yaps about respecting precedent when it comes to killing babies...
tossed aside thousands of years of precedent with respect to marriage." excellent thought.

@RobJ: "

Mary De Voe said...

Sorry RobJ.
If Judge Mary Jacobson wields her gavel, then perhaps the same sex couple could conceive and bring forth our constitutional posterity. Patriotism in a nutshell, or womb.

Pat said...

I read it again. Her reasoning is sound. The highest court in NJ, in Lewis v Harris (2006), told NJ to go and create a system where same sex couples have the same rights as opposite-sex couples. So NJ created civil unions but NJ's system of civil unions causes inequality, exactly what the Court in Lewis told NJ not to do.

Thousands of federal benefits accrue to married str8 people in NJ BUT NOT to civil unioned people in NJ.

How can reasonable minds disagree with her reasoning?

RobJ said...

Pat (not Archbold),

You cite the NJ high court decision as if it was a serious, well-considered conclusion that respected the law and legal precedent. If you really don't see what's going on, I'll diagram the process for you.
...
Step 1: Liberals want something like abortion, homosexual marriage, open borders, you name it.
Step 2: Liberals know they can't get what they want because it's not popular.
Step 3: Liberals use the courts to issue legal decisions full of penumbras and shadows that completely disregard existing law. These decisions slowly but surely undermine the status quo.
Step 4: Liberals denounce anyone who disagrees with what they want as racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever, it doesn't matter, just to shut them up.
Step 5: Once popular opinion is more evenly divided, liberals then start shouting that the penumbra-filled court decisions from Step 3 are now Sacred Precedent, and that they only lead to one possible logical conclusion, which is the full enactment of what the liberals wanted in step 1.
Step 6: Judges reach the Inevitable Conclusion that is on the Right Side of History and give liberals everything they wanted from Step 1.
Step 7: Liberals find something else that they want. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Pat said...

RobJ, Your last post can only mean that you find no flaw in the legal reasoning and its just easier for you to believe in a conspiracy. A conspiracy. Seriously?

RobJ said...

It's not a conspiracy, it is an effective tactic used by the Left to achieve their agenda. They use the judiciary as a trump card any time their agenda is unpopular. Harry Blackmun was proud of his majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade because there was no serious justification for it...he just made it up as he went along.

Pat said...

RobJ; No. We were talking about civil gay marriage. But you're unable to discuss that without apparently referencing (1) conspiracy theory, (2) some entity you call "the Left", (3) a long-dead judge unrelated to the topic and (4) an irrelevant court decision. Please take a vacation.

RobJ said...

Pat, you made a good point. Harry Blackmun is long dead, and so are about 50 million babies. Sorry I went off-topic. Since you want me to spend time studying New Jersey, a state in which I do not reside, I'll do some research.

Here's a topical article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/27/nj-gay-marriage/2884263/. Let's see, does it mention that the New Jersey constitution enshrines homosexual marriage? No? Well, does it describe a New Jersey law that allows homosexual marriage? No? Oh, but it does speak of being "on the right side of history." Never heard that before. Plus "equal protection of the law." I'm guess the people who wrote the New Jersey and US Constitutions had homosexual marriage in mind when they wrote about equal protection. They just forgot to mention it.

I happen to live in a state that prohibits homosexual marriage in its constitution. In a year or two, the US Supreme Court will invalidate that constitutional amendment (which passed by...what's that word...ummm...oh yeah, a *vote*), and homosexual marriage will be the law of the land. As Bob Dole might say, I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. Pretending that judges use logic to reach their conclusions, instead of using their conclusions to shape their logic, is just…well, pretending.

Pat said...

RobJ. You're just wrong about how law works. And as for voting - no, we shouldn't put our fellow man's civil rights up to the vote of the majority.

RobJ said...

Pat, I don't know you, but you sound very young and idealistic. When you get a little bit older and gain some experience, you will have a better understanding of my perspective.

Pat said...

RobJ, I'm 48 years old. I have 3 degrees, including a law degree from an accredited US law school where I was editor of the law review. I won't say I'm an expert in law - specifically domestic relations law (I'm a securities lawyer by practice), but I'm proficient in it, having spent over 25 years in law. Plus, I read the paper every day, I follow legislation, court decisions and discus these matters with friends and colleagues. In general, I enjoy hearing thoughts like yours and engaging in the sharing of ideas, but again, there's a well-reasoned judicial decision that's being discussed and you're unable to challenge her reasoning -- because her reasoning is SOUND. You just don't like what it says.

I feel like I'm in an earlier century and we're talking about a 50 page document that explains why we should give women the right to vote, and rather than intellectually challenge the words on the page,you're saying you just dont like it and its all a conspiracy by the left to give women the vote.

I know I won't change your mind, but I pray that the 14 year old student who happens upon this blog will think twice and burn some brain cells before adopting your view of the world.

Post a Comment