(no subject)
Feb 13, 5:19 PM EST
Gay marriage case going before NJ's highest court
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Advocates for and against gay marriage will be watching New Jersey on Wednesday when their debate - which touches on tradition, civil rights and the very definition of marriage - is argued before the state Supreme Court.
source of article
Feb 13, 5:19 PM EST
Gay marriage case going before NJ's highest court
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Advocates for and against gay marriage will be watching New Jersey on Wednesday when their debate - which touches on tradition, civil rights and the very definition of marriage - is argued before the state Supreme Court.
Activists on both sides of the issue are to hold rallies Wednesday outside of where the Supreme Court meets, and their rhetoric is expected to center on how their opponents' notion of "family" is misguided and potentially harmful to children.
In the courtroom, though, the arguments figure to be less about gay marriage as policy and more about who should decide whether to allow it: lawmakers or judges.
The state Attorney General's office, which is defending New Jersey's ban on same-sex marriage, argues the Legislature should make such important and controversial decisions.
"Because the accepted understanding of marriage has always been a union between people of different genders, it is inconceivable that the Framers of the Constitution intended to guarantee people of the same sex the right to marry as an element of personal privacy," state Deputy Attorneys General Patrick DeAlmeida and Mary Beth Wood wrote in a brief.
Supporters of gay marriage say the court is the appropriate venue. "Courts get involved when there is a problem with a constitutional line," said David Buckell, the lead counsel for Lambda Legal, which is representing the seven same-sex couples suing the state for the right to marry.
Denying marriages to two men or two women is akin to denying a man and a woman of different races the right to marry, Buckell argues. The last laws banning interracial marriage were struck down in 1967.
Robert F. Williams, a professor at Rutgers University School of Law in Camden and an expert on New Jersey's Constitution, said the court must interpret the first clause of the document, which declares, "all persons are by nature free and independent."
So far, both a Superior Court judge and a three-judge appellate panel have sided with the state in the case known as Lewis v. Harris.
Still, advocates think that in politically moderate New Jersey, they have a chance of seeing gay marriage allowed.
The state high court has been friendly to gay rights causes in the past. It was among the first states, in the 1970s, to strike down a ban on sodomy. It has ruled in favor of adoption rights for gay couples and found in a decision that was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court that Boy Scouts should not be allowed to meet in public schools because the organization discriminates against gays.
And New Jersey lawmakers - while never seriously considering allowing same-sex marriage - also have been quick to recognize same-sex unions. Lawmakers adopted a domestic partnership law in 2004, paving the way for the Garden State to now be one of seven that in some way formally recognizes gay couplings. The law extended some benefits of marriage, in areas such as taxes and hospital visitation, to same-sex couples.
The couples, all long-term partners, suing for the right to marry say the domestic partnership law doesn't go far enough.
"For us, being married to each other is the most valuable thing in the world," said Sarah Lael, of South Brunswick, who, along her partner of nearly 16 years, is among the plaintiffs. "It's the only language people understand."
Courts generally have not seen marriage as a fundamental right. Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont have the only high courts to find their states should treat same-sex couples the same way they treat heterosexual couples.
Massachusetts is the only one that allows gay marriage, though there's been a push for more than two years to amend the state constitution to ban the practice.
After Hawaii's gay marriage decision in 1999, the state Constitution was amended to allow the Legislature to ban gay marriage. And that's what lawmakers there did.
In 2000, Vermont created civil unions, which are like marriage in all but name and the fact that they're not recognized in most other states.
Gay-rights activists in New Jersey say that if they lose at the state Supreme Court, they will likely push for lawmakers to create civil unions, or at least expand the protections in the domestic partnership law.
Opponents say if the Supreme Court allows the unions, they will attempt to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. John Tomicki, chairman of the Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, said an amendment is already written.
"Marriage: Look in the dictionary," Tomicki said. "Look in the dictionary. It's one man and one woman, period. It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of definition."
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Gay marriage case going before NJ's highest court
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Advocates for and against gay marriage will be watching New Jersey on Wednesday when their debate - which touches on tradition, civil rights and the very definition of marriage - is argued before the state Supreme Court.
source of article
Feb 13, 5:19 PM EST
Gay marriage case going before NJ's highest court
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Advocates for and against gay marriage will be watching New Jersey on Wednesday when their debate - which touches on tradition, civil rights and the very definition of marriage - is argued before the state Supreme Court.
Activists on both sides of the issue are to hold rallies Wednesday outside of where the Supreme Court meets, and their rhetoric is expected to center on how their opponents' notion of "family" is misguided and potentially harmful to children.
In the courtroom, though, the arguments figure to be less about gay marriage as policy and more about who should decide whether to allow it: lawmakers or judges.
The state Attorney General's office, which is defending New Jersey's ban on same-sex marriage, argues the Legislature should make such important and controversial decisions.
"Because the accepted understanding of marriage has always been a union between people of different genders, it is inconceivable that the Framers of the Constitution intended to guarantee people of the same sex the right to marry as an element of personal privacy," state Deputy Attorneys General Patrick DeAlmeida and Mary Beth Wood wrote in a brief.
Supporters of gay marriage say the court is the appropriate venue. "Courts get involved when there is a problem with a constitutional line," said David Buckell, the lead counsel for Lambda Legal, which is representing the seven same-sex couples suing the state for the right to marry.
Denying marriages to two men or two women is akin to denying a man and a woman of different races the right to marry, Buckell argues. The last laws banning interracial marriage were struck down in 1967.
Robert F. Williams, a professor at Rutgers University School of Law in Camden and an expert on New Jersey's Constitution, said the court must interpret the first clause of the document, which declares, "all persons are by nature free and independent."
So far, both a Superior Court judge and a three-judge appellate panel have sided with the state in the case known as Lewis v. Harris.
Still, advocates think that in politically moderate New Jersey, they have a chance of seeing gay marriage allowed.
The state high court has been friendly to gay rights causes in the past. It was among the first states, in the 1970s, to strike down a ban on sodomy. It has ruled in favor of adoption rights for gay couples and found in a decision that was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court that Boy Scouts should not be allowed to meet in public schools because the organization discriminates against gays.
And New Jersey lawmakers - while never seriously considering allowing same-sex marriage - also have been quick to recognize same-sex unions. Lawmakers adopted a domestic partnership law in 2004, paving the way for the Garden State to now be one of seven that in some way formally recognizes gay couplings. The law extended some benefits of marriage, in areas such as taxes and hospital visitation, to same-sex couples.
The couples, all long-term partners, suing for the right to marry say the domestic partnership law doesn't go far enough.
"For us, being married to each other is the most valuable thing in the world," said Sarah Lael, of South Brunswick, who, along her partner of nearly 16 years, is among the plaintiffs. "It's the only language people understand."
Courts generally have not seen marriage as a fundamental right. Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont have the only high courts to find their states should treat same-sex couples the same way they treat heterosexual couples.
Massachusetts is the only one that allows gay marriage, though there's been a push for more than two years to amend the state constitution to ban the practice.
After Hawaii's gay marriage decision in 1999, the state Constitution was amended to allow the Legislature to ban gay marriage. And that's what lawmakers there did.
In 2000, Vermont created civil unions, which are like marriage in all but name and the fact that they're not recognized in most other states.
Gay-rights activists in New Jersey say that if they lose at the state Supreme Court, they will likely push for lawmakers to create civil unions, or at least expand the protections in the domestic partnership law.
Opponents say if the Supreme Court allows the unions, they will attempt to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. John Tomicki, chairman of the Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, said an amendment is already written.
"Marriage: Look in the dictionary," Tomicki said. "Look in the dictionary. It's one man and one woman, period. It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of definition."
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.