Following is a news article I found this morning regarding the arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court on why same-sex marriage should or should not be legalized in that state. Emphasis and comments are my own.
(Trenton, New Jersey) The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning in a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The justices peppered attorneys on both sides of the argument about the legal implications of opening up gay marriage, and whether the court or the legislature was the best venue to decide the issue.
Lambda Legal Attorney David Buckel told the court that barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the state constitution and "creates second class citizens".
Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida told the justices that the legislature should be allowed to decide who can marry. DeAlmeida said New Jersey already grants same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage through its domestic partner law.
He also told the court that the state's ban on gay marriage is based on the "historical tradition" that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"But there are other historical facts," interjected Justice Deborah Poritz.
"For a long time women were property in the marriage relationship. For a long time women could not make the claim of rape against the husband. There have been lots of ways in which the traditional ways of marriage, and the relationship in marriage, have changed. So why should we just simply defer to 'it's historical.'?" Indeed, this has been one of the biggest arguments all along. Sort of a "don't kick a sleeping dog" mentality. How can we justify "It's always been that way" as a reason to discriminate?
Arguments lasted just over an hour.
"The families we serve have finally had their day in the state's highest court, and if we win these families will be stronger for it," Buckel told reporters outside the court.
"New Jersey is a unique state and more than ready to fulfill the New Jersey Constitution's promise of equality and liberty for the over 16,000 same-sex couples who live here."
The lawsuit began in 2002 when seven same-sex couples represented by Lambda filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry.
In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.
Lambda immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.
About 40 gay rights activists from groups such as Garden State Equality and the National Organization for Women waved black and orange signs reading "Marriage Equality'' and chanted slogans including, "Two, four, six, eight, we're the state that doesn't hate.''
"We've been waiting 34 years to get married," said Chris Lodewyks and Craig Hutchison, plaintiffs in the case. "All these years we've been through so many of life's joys and sorrows together - it really is long past time that we should be able to marry."
Lodewyks and Hutchison and the other couples involved in the case were all in court Wednesday to hear the arguments.
Not far from where gay activists were rallying protestors from conservative groups held their own demonstration. They gathered to pray and sing hymns and "God Bless America.''
John Tomicki, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition to Rescue and Protect Marriage, said marriage is sacred and should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
"That's where our culture and history has been for thousands of years,'' Tomicki said.
Generally it takes several weeks or even months for the court to deliver its opinions after the arguments are heard.
1 comment:
Unfortunately the win was a squeaker-more unfortunate (disgraceful, reallly) that we actually had a need to vote and a choice to pass it- but this year the law to uphold civil rights for people who are homosexual was ratified. (yes I did vote). Keep fighting!
Post a Comment