<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV>OK, I have downloaded and partially read the NJ Supreme Court decision on
marriage. I recommend anyone concerned about it read the actual decision, or at
least the accurate 2-page syllabus summarizing the decision. Both are available
at this link:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf">http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I note that U.S. Supreme Court justices Scalia and Alito both commented at
a recent public forum that media coverage of court decisions distorts the entire
judicial process and meaning of cases. They are correct -- and going straight to
the source is the best remedy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The decision is in some respects a rather conservative one. The court
acknowledged that those who drafted the provisions of the state constitution
could not possibly have considered a right to marriage for same-sex couples as a
protected right -- it was not even on their radar screen. But, the state
LEGISLATURE has for many years been in the forefront of state laws protecting
gay men and women from all kinds of discrimination. The court therefore found
that to discriminate against such individuals when they form couples is not
tenable. There is substantial acknowledgment that the courts should not simply
create new rights.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the other hand, it is interesting that the court was unanimous in
leaning toward same-sex couples having a right to "the benefits of marriage." In
Massachusetts, three of seven justices dissented from the idea that any
constitutional right was at stake at all. In New Jersey, the only dissent was
justices who thought there IS a constitutional right to marriage, period, under
the state constitution.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would probably agree with the initial local state court decision, which
said that there is no discrimination in defining marriage as between a man and a
woman. I haven't read that decision in full, but it is referenced in the state
supreme court decision.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It seems this court decision does reflect a steady trend in the state
involving all three branches of government, and therefore, presumably, the
thinking of a substantial majority of state residents.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The court essentially said that the traditional definition of marriage
doesn't have to be changed, but since the state grants substantial benefits to
couples who marry (man and woman), equal protection requires that same-sex
couples be granted the same benefits, under whatever name it may be called.
Chances are, the legislature will expand the Domestic Partner law it already
passed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't agree that homosexuals are a class of persons being discriminated
against. They are simply people who don't want what every INDIVIDUAL man or
woman has a right to, to enter into a marriage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Still, I think we will end up with James Watkins proposal, that the
government should license domestic partnerships, no matter what the foundation
of the partnership, and leave marriage to the church. (There will be "gay
marriages" performed in Metropolitan Baptist churches and some Episcopalian
churches, not in other Episcopalian churches, nor in Southern Baptists
churches.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>P.S. The distorted analysis in these cases arises in part from the language
used by the clerks who are the front line in granting or denying licenses.
Apparently they are telling same-sex couples that state law <EM>prohibits</EM>
issuing marriage licenses to such couples. There is no prohibition in state law.
State law does not <EM>provide</EM> for any human relationship to be licensed as
a marriage other than a man and a woman. That is not discrimination, any more
than the state is discriminating against bad drivers as a class when it denies
licenses to individuals who fail their road test.</DIV></BODY></HTML>