Comments on: NJ Court: Equal Protection for Same-Sex Couples http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/ Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:47:01 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Black Looks http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/comment-page-1/#comment-185235 Black Looks Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:31:20 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/#comment-185235 [...] burial in the end. Those depressing stories were balanced out somewhat yesterday by the news of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the fact that a black lesbian couple was among the plaintiffs whose willingness to [...] [...] burial in the end. Those depressing stories were balanced out somewhat yesterday by the news of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the fact that a black lesbian couple was among the plaintiffs whose willingness to [...]

]]> By: SteveS http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/comment-page-1/#comment-9303 SteveS Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:12:47 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/#comment-9303 Hillary Clinton, who was against gay marriage in 2000, now says that her opinion has changed, 'evolved' as she words it. She now supports full equality but says if you want to call it marriage, then you'll just hit a problem, so she's basically saying exactly what the NJ Supreme Court says. She also says that when the inevitable gay marriage bill comes to NY, she won't fight it. http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17379741&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6 Hillary Clinton, who was against gay marriage in 2000, now says that her opinion has changed, ‘evolved’ as she words it. She now supports full equality but says if you want to call it marriage, then you’ll just hit a problem, so she’s basically saying exactly what the NJ Supreme Court says. She also says that when the inevitable gay marriage bill comes to NY, she won’t fight it.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17379741&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

]]> By: Bruce/Crablaw http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/comment-page-1/#comment-9213 Bruce/Crablaw Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:24:26 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/25/nj-court-equal-protection-for-same-sex-couples/#comment-9213 I think that Aravosis got a little sloppy. Bush's position was that he would have opposed civil unions as a governor of Texas but that states should be free to have civil unions, but only if they choose to. The NJSC's position is that same-sex civil unions with the tangible benefits of marriage are the rock-bottom requirement, and that New Jersey may (but need not) provide for "marriage" for same-sex couples additionally To me these sound very different. I suspect strongly that the majority opinion, which in this case was more cautious and conservative than the pro gay-marriage dissent/concurrence, will be the majority opinion in the Maryland case of Deane v. Conaway, but that the dissent in that case will be a true conservative opinion (i.e. for the State against the Plaintiffs.) The New Jersey Supreme Court has a reputation as a radical court; while its politics are slightly more conservative than Maryland's, its jurisprudence is far more progressive than Maryland's Court of Appeals. I may be wrong, we shall see. I think that Aravosis got a little sloppy. Bush’s position was that he would have opposed civil unions as a governor of Texas but that states should be free to have civil unions, but only if they choose to. The NJSC’s position is that same-sex civil unions with the tangible benefits of marriage are the rock-bottom requirement, and that New Jersey may (but need not) provide for “marriage” for same-sex couples additionally To me these sound very different.

I suspect strongly that the majority opinion, which in this case was more cautious and conservative than the pro gay-marriage dissent/concurrence, will be the majority opinion in the Maryland case of Deane v. Conaway, but that the dissent in that case will be a true conservative opinion (i.e. for the State against the Plaintiffs.) The New Jersey Supreme Court has a reputation as a radical court; while its politics are slightly more conservative than Maryland’s, its jurisprudence is far more progressive than Maryland’s Court of Appeals. I may be wrong, we shall see.

]]>