New Jersey judge orders legalization of gay marriage. Christie protests.

posted at 11:31 am on September 28, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Our story comes to us from the Garden State. Say it with me now… we’ve seen this movie before.

A state judge today ruled to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey, saying gay couples would be denied federal benefits if the state kept allowing only civil unions.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson granted an emergency request by six gay couples, ordering state officials to begin officiating same-sex marriages on Oct. 21.

“Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey constitution,” the judge wrote in a 53-page opinion.

New Jersey’s history with same-sex marriage has been rather… complicated, to say the least. But then, when it comes to politics, everything in Jersey winds up being complicated. On the surface it looks like a stereotypical, liberal blue state. Our friend Fausta – a resident of the Garden State – once described New Jersey as being sharply divided in its politics between liberal Democrats and really liberal Democrats. And yet they somehow keep managing to elect Republicans on a fairly regular basis. (Their own brand of Republicans, true, but still…)

Of course, this puts Governor Chris Christie, himself in the midst of a reelection bid and continually in the media spotlight as a potential 2016 candidate, in a bit of a sticky spot. He’s been walking a typical line on the subject for some time now, insisting that gay marriage is a state rather than federal question, and that he would support it only if it was the will of the voters of his state, choosing instead to back civil unions. In fact, he vetoed a bill legalizing gay marriage last year, so he was clearly going to have to jump into this one. And sure enough, he fired off an immediate response.

But Gov. Chris Christie, who opposes gay marriage, vowed today to appeal the ruling all the way to the state Supreme Court.

“Governor Christie has always maintained that he would abide by the will of the voters on the issue of marriage equality and called for it to be on the ballot this Election Day,” said Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak. “Since the Legislature refused to allow the people to decide expeditiously, we will let the Supreme Court make this constitutional determination.”

This is pretty much in line with everything Christie has done and said on the subject to date. If he wasn’t willing to accept a bill passed by the legislature, preferring instead to call for a statewide referendum, he was hardly going to jump on board with a directive from a single judge. And this wasn’t even a federal level ruling. The judge in question is a Mercer County superior court judge. And while it’s not illegal for a judge at that level to issue such a ruling, it was obvious from the moment it happened that this was going to get bounced up the chain.

Exit question time. Assume for a moment – particularly given the left leaning nature of the government system in Jersey – that this decision is challenged, put on hold, and heard all the way up to the State Supreme Court and is upheld. Is this Chris Christie’s golden ticket out of tight spot in terms of the 2016 primary race? In that scenario, the state winds up with gay marriage and the Left-leaning majority is appeased. It becomes, “settled law” in the state and the matter is taken off the Governor’s plate. But when it comes up in the primary, Christie has a built-in answer.

Hey, I fought it every step of the way. I even vetoed the only bill to reach my desk. But the darned activist judges did an end around on me.

Far fetched? Or the Best Thing Evah for the Governor?

Update: (Jazz) Doug has a collection of legal beagle opinions on this at Outside the Beltway, including some which seem to indicate that the judge may be running beyond her limits here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

i live in massachusetts. we have had gay marriage for many years.
although i am not enthusiastic about it it has had nada affect on me.

gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson has NO power or authority to order this mess.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM

You’ll note that in Democratic majority states, where EVERY VOTE COUNTS!….legislatures appear to have a hard time in letting the PEOPLE vote on gay marriage.

GarandFan on September 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

“Hey, I fought it every step of the way. I even vetoed the only bill to reach my desk. But the darned activist judges did an end around on me.”

and that a very large end to go around.

CycloneCDB on September 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I’m betting that Christie will cave after making a token effort to overturn this moronic local “judge”. It’s what squishes do.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 28, 2013 at 11:47 AM

So by this rationale why is prostitution not legal?
Why are incestual marriages not legal?
Polygamy?
Why is the age of consent so high when sexualization is scientifically proven to start for some at age 12?

If we now have unlimited “sexual”/”civil” rights… why do they only seem to apply to homosexual marriages?

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

I’m betting that Christie will cave after making a token effort to overturn this moronic local “judge”. It’s what squishes do.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 28, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I Don’t deny that he’s a squish – But Christie really has no power here and neither does the New Jersey legislature. The judge, with a wave of his hand, just said that the state constitution forbids banning gay marriage because it violates civil rights.

The only thing they can do now is amend the state constitution and we see how that turned out in California.

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM

i live in massachusetts. we have had gay marriage for many years.
although i am not enthusiastic about it it has had nada affect on me.

gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

THen you must not be a parent, business owner,or a Christian adoption agency..

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

IMPEACH the judge. Simple.

astonerii on September 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

We’ve seen this movie before. Didn’t like it then either.

David Blue on September 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

So by this rationale why is prostitution not legal?
Why are incestual marriages not legal?
Polygamy?
Why is the age of consent so high when sexualization is scientifically proven to start for some at age 12?

If we now have unlimited “sexual”/”civil” rights… why do they only seem to apply to homosexual marriages?

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

The problem is that it won’t be limited to homosexuality. Once you protect “bedroom fetishes” “alternative sexualities” and sexuality in general; then all those other things will eventually come down the pipe under the equal protection banner. It only takes the psychological, medical and legal community to redefine what is “sexuality” and what is detrimental to the population.

If marriage is a civil right, and it is no longer about procreation; then there is absolutely NO LEGAL reasons to deny polygamous groups or incetuous couples the right to marry.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Democracy. Ain’t it great?!

Akzed on September 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Democracy. Ain’t it great?!

Akzed on September 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM

What democracy?

bgibbs1000 on September 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Christie really has no power here and neither does the New Jersey legislature. The judge, with a wave of his hand, just said that the state constitution forbids banning gay marriage because it violates civil rights.

The only thing they can do now is amend the state constitution and we see how that turned out in California.

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Huh?
He can order his AG to obtain a temporary injunction until the case is heard by the State Court of Appeals, and the State Supreme Court if necessary.
No sense trying to bail out the guy.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM

i live in massachusetts. we have had gay marriage for many years. although i am not enthusiastic about it it has had nada affect on me. gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

That’s the height of selfishness.

Adults Holding Traditional Values Cannot Adopt in Massachusetts

On May 15, 2013, the Boston Bar Association held a forum with the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth. The DCF speakers confirmed that they are “weeding out” adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to wholly accept and support LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) self-identification by a child in their care.

Akzed on September 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Huh?
He can order his AG to obtain a temporary injunction until the case is heard by the State Court of Appeals, and the State Supreme Court if necessary.
No sense trying to bail out the guy.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM

True… I just don’t think the outcome will be any different than in California. Though he should certainly try. (Really not trying to bail the guy out!)

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

If marriage is a civil right, and it is no longer about procreation; then there is absolutely NO LEGAL reasons to deny polygamous groups or incetuous couples the right to marry.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

So you are saying that polygamous groups and incestuous couples can’t procreate? And that all marriages between a man and a woman must be for the purpose of procreation? Should we make that a law? Kind of like the China one child policy, except that if you don’t have at least one child, you get fined?

Mr. Arkadin on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Akzed on September 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM

It’s not just that. Parents have been ordered by a judge that they can’t opt out their 6 year old learning that homosexuality is normal.

A Massachusetts judge ruled that two homosexuals can be listed as BIOLOGICAL parents and the non-bio parent can automatically become the parent without adoption. This completely terminates the actual bio parent who isn’t a partner rights. In most states, you can’t terminate parental rights without due process. Not so in Massachusetts.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Remember when the left cried “Judicial activism”? Good times.

nobar on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

So you are saying that polygamous groups and incestuous couples can’t procreate? And that all marriages between a man and a woman must be for the purpose of procreation? Should we make that a law? Kind of like the China one child policy, except that if you don’t have at least one child, you get fined?

Mr. Arkadin on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Yeah, that is a great jump and not even what I said.

No, I am saying the state currently doesn’t want incestuous couples to procreate hence why they don’t sanction their relationship. I am saying that they don’t want to encourage polygamy relationship, because they are bad for women and children. If marriage is NOT about procreation and just about whom you Looooooveee; then the state has no basis to deny the groups/couples licenses. Their need for a license will fall under equal protection since marriage to someone you loooove is now considered a Constitutional right.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Oh good. Now more couples can pay the marriage tax.

sadatoni on September 28, 2013 at 12:07 PM

So you are saying that polygamous groups and incestuous couples can’t procreate? And that all marriages between a man and a woman must be for the purpose of procreation? Should we make that a law? Kind of like the China one child policy, except that if you don’t have at least one child, you get fined?

Mr. Arkadin on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Soooo much stupid in one post.

Harbingeing on September 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM

gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

They teaching your kids why John has 2 mommies in school?

Look I think no one here outside of religious beliefs has an issue with marriage BUT… when they force you to accept it as normal, make businesses cater to them when they dont want too… stuff like that is what turns me off to it.

watertown on September 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM

So by this rationale why is prostitution not legal?
Why are incestual marriages not legal?
Polygamy?
Why is the age of consent so high when sexualization is scientifically proven to start for some at age 12?

If we now have unlimited “sexual”/”civil” rights… why do they only seem to apply to homosexual marriages?

I don’t know why prostitution isn’t legal. It’s an act by two consenting adults that doesn’t harm anyone else (at least not any more than many other legal activities, such as paying your mistress with diamonds and places to live instead of cash) and should be completely legal and regulated, like it is in most of Nevada.

Same goes for polygamy… although polygamy isn’t really illegal, you just only get to choose one person to be you spouse under the eye of the law, but there’s nothing against a man being in a relationship and living with several women at once.

Incest has a high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.

The age of consent is 16 (in most states… 17 or 18 in others) because a 12 year old is always still a child, but a 16-18 year old is more mentally mature, supposedly. I wouldn’t mind seeing this be 18 across the board, but it is a states issue and not a federal issue.

Any other questions you’d like answered by common sense?

CoffeeMan on September 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

You do bring up a good point and have to agree that now that the door is open we might as well accept those other types of groups too. What people want to do inside the house aint none of my concern. Its just when you start teaching it as okay that is where it becomes and issue.

watertown on September 28, 2013 at 12:20 PM

No comments for yet another, Christie thread.

mobydutch on September 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM

If we now have unlimited “sexual”/”civil” rights… why do they only seem to apply to homosexual marriages?

Well how soon before the “snuff sex” crowd demands equal rights and Obamacare demands the Catholic Colleges comply?

Don L on September 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson granted an emergency request by six gay couples, ordering state officials to begin officiating same-sex marriages on Oct. 21.

Why, where, and how was this an ‘emergency’? Do they turn into pumpkins on Oct. 22 if they’re not ‘married’ before then?

Liam on September 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM

i live in massachusetts. we have had gay marriage for many years.
although i am not enthusiastic about it it has had nada affect on me.
gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

The Manson Family murder spree had nada affect on me.

whatcat on September 28, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Because California! —Regular Right Guy… Full Caf Americano

Mornin Mojo on September 28, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Incest has a high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.
CoffeeMan on September 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Major problem with your rationale. If your criteria for being able to get married requires couples produce “genetically un-problematic” children, you’ve pretty much made it illegal for just about everyone to get married. Besides, it’s already been tried and we fought a war about 70 years back to end the notion.

whatcat on September 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Within 5 years this entire country will be run by a corrupt, amoral left wing judiciary.

rplat on September 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM

And while it’s not illegal for a judge at that level to issue such a ruling, it was obvious from the moment it happened that this was going to get bounced up the chain.

Patently false, and the usual Republican cowardice here.

No judge has the power to legislate from the bench.

The judge in question *should* be impeached immediately for attempting to do so.

Of course he won’t be…because conservatives still don’t fight for some reason.

Judicial legislation will continue until one of three things happen…

1) Such judges are impeached
2) The elected branches of government tell the courts they’ve exceeded their authority and as such their rulings are not binding, like President Jefferson before them.
3) Conservative judges also start legislating from the bench.

I like #3 the best as it is the most likely to yield positive results the fastest. Imagine, for example, if judges started ruling that the income tax was unconstitutional (the 16th amendment can’t stop a judge interested in legislating from finding a reason that the current particular implementation is “unconstitutional”).

18-1 on September 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM

New Jersey judge orders legalization of gay marriage.

Sure, why not. As soon as a judge somewhere says something it must be so right? SCOTUS’ ruling in the Prop 8 case did not toss out Prop 8, it simply meant that the plaintiffs in that case, and only that case, won. But suddenly you have gay marriage in California.

Judges should start off all of these rulings with “Abracadabra” because they are supposed to just change society like magic or something. Since when is it a state court’s responsibility to insure it’s residents get federal benefits anyway? Shouldn’t this case have been in federal court?

Rocks on September 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM

…including some which seem to indicate that the judge may be running beyond her limits here.

An ultra-liberal activist judge exceeding her authority? Say it’s not so!!!

RoadRunner on September 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Judicial tyranny – what a surprise.

It’s not like this has ever happened before in an effort to ‘fix’ an ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ country and damn the State or Federal Constitution.

SCOTUS’ ruling in the Prop 8 case did not toss out Prop 8, it simply meant that the plaintiffs in that case, and only that case, won. But suddenly you have gay marriage in California.

With the SCOTUS ruling re Prop 8, they came to the conclusion that the organizations who got Prop 8 on the ballot (where a majority of Californian voters passed the amendment to the State Constitution defining marriage as only between one man and one woman), and attempted to fight the State Supreme Court’s ruling to invalidate a legal vote of the people of California, did not have sufficient standing to appeal the State Supreme Court’s ruling. According to SCOTUS, only the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State of California had standing to defend the vote against the ruling of the State Supreme Court.

Since the office holders of those positions in California are all progressive fascists – they declined to contest the ruling invalidating a legal election – setting a precedent that has a huge slippery slope.

The Roberts court simply punted on making a hard and politically divisive decision…which seems to be the MO for the Roberts court.

Athos on September 28, 2013 at 2:57 PM

This is very much the logical outcome from the Windsor decision in New Jersey. The New Jersey courts already ruled that gay couples must have access to the exact same benefit as married couples through the civil union process. But the reasoning of Windsor grants Federal benefits to gay couples who are married, and (as far as I’m aware) does not extend to gay couples who have a civil union.

In New Jersey, the Windsor decision made it a very real difference between being “married” (which is still unavailable to gay couples) and having a civil union. That would seem to be contrary to the prior decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which required that they be treated the same.

After Windsor I would expect the New Jersey Supreme Court to hold that civil unions cannot meet constitutional muster (under the New Jersey constitution), because of the denial of Federal benefits.

Revenant on September 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Within 5 years this entire country will be run by a corrupt, amoral left wing judiciary.

rplat on September 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Then they REALLY better take away our guns.

Cleombrotus on September 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM

There’s a simple solution: refuse to implement the judiciary’s decision.

Stoic Patriot on September 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM

The judge, with a wave of his HER hand (wouldn’t you know it), just said that the state constitution forbids banning gay marriage because it violates civil rights.

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Of course, she conveniently forgot to include her explanation of exactly HOW defining two men having serial sexual relations as “marriage” is a civil right.

Cleombrotus on September 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Same goes for polygamy… although polygamy isn’t really illegal, you just only get to choose one person to be you spouse under the eye of the law, but there’s nothing against a man being in a relationship and living with several women at once.

First, you don’t know what your are talking about. Utah makes it illegal to even LIVE with someone you hold out as your spouse if you are already married. Look up the dang code.

1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

Incest has a high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.

Not the state’s place. If marriage is a Civil Right than so is producing children with whom you want. Procreation is even more a Civil Right than marriage.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Revenant on September 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Windsor shouldn’t even have had standing. In order to have standing, you have to prove that the law would have harmed you directly. Windsor was a residence of a state that at the time didn’t recognize gay marriage. She wouldn’t have been able to claim hers anyways. She was married overseas, and there is NO Constitutional provision that says we have to recognize unions overseas, or all polygamist Muslims would have standing to have their spouse immigrate.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Christie protests.

Uh, yeah – PUBLICLY, “progressive Republican” Christie protests … PRIVATELY, “obama-liberal” Christie (the real Christie) is thrilled at the opportunity to hand obama and liberals another “win”.

Why does Christie still pretend, when everyone knows that he will do exactly what obama tells him to do, as he always does?

Pork-Chop on September 28, 2013 at 4:07 PM

I don’t know why prostitution isn’t legal. It’s an act by two consenting adults that doesn’t harm anyone else (at least not any more than many other legal activities, such as paying your mistress with diamonds and places to live instead of cash) and should be completely legal and regulated, like it is in most of Nevada.

Same goes for polygamy… although polygamy isn’t really illegal, you just only get to choose one person to be you spouse under the eye of the law, but there’s nothing against a man being in a relationship and living with several women at once.

Incest has a high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.

The age of consent is 16 (in most states… 17 or 18 in others) because a 12 year old is always still a child, but a 16-18 year old is more mentally mature, supposedly. I wouldn’t mind seeing this be 18 across the board, but it is a states issue and not a federal issue.

Any other questions you’d like answered by common sense?

CoffeeMan on September 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM

what “common” sense? You’ve spouted typical backwards thinking… I’m being progressive here -

Again, if sexuality is a penultimate CIVIL right then anyone who’s entered puberty has a right to a sexual life. Period. End of dicussion.

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with having children (dontcha know) so your incest argument has no merit (and is very much a geno-phobic statement…)

Glad you’re with me on prostitution though.

Skywise on September 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.

CoffeeMan on September 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Actually it is not very high.

CW on September 28, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Equal protection should be equal protection….it is not a slippery slope argument. If two people (or six) want to get married…with this mindset…there should be no limitations.

CW on September 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Windsor shouldn’t even have had standing. In order to have standing, you have to prove that the law would have harmed you directly. Windsor was a residence of a state that at the time didn’t recognize gay marriage. She wouldn’t have been able to claim hers anyways. She was married overseas, and there is NO Constitutional provision that says we have to recognize unions overseas, or all polygamist Muslims would have standing to have their spouse immigrate.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Windsor was married in Canada, and then returned to live in New York. New York then subsequently allowed gays to marry. But, due to the definition of marriage in DOMA, Federal law did not recognize the marriage that was recognized by the state of New York. Windsor had standing because the Federal definition of marriage directly impacted her legal rights (because of her potential Estate Tax liability).

As for polygamy, New York law (or the law of any state) does not recognize it as valid.

Revenant on September 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Yet another individual black-robed tyrant passing a law that the majority don’t want.

cajunpatriot on September 28, 2013 at 5:00 PM

I can’t wait for the next funny gay movement commercial spoof, “I Can’t Believe It, They Want To Lower The Age of Consent!”

hawkdriver on September 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Remember when the left cried “Judicial activism”? Good times.

nobar on September 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

…they still do …if it rarely…. occasionally doesn’t go their way….they just find another judge among the multitudes!

KOOLAID2 on September 28, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Another great day for freedom and the Constitution, and another disappointing comment thread on Hot Gas to celebrate it.

*sigh*

alchemist19 on September 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Windsor was married in Canada, and then returned to live in New York. New York then subsequently allowed gays to marry. But, due to the definition of marriage in DOMA, Federal law did not recognize the marriage that was recognized by the state of New York. Windsor had standing because the Federal definition of marriage directly impacted her legal rights (because of her potential Estate Tax liability).

They were both married in Canada. The United States does not have to recognize marriage OUTSIDE of its jurisdiction. At the time, New York state did not recognize gay marriage therefore her residency mattered. DOMA didn’t effect her because DOMA is a federal mandate against the commerce clause in the UNITED STATES. DOMA wouldn’t have effected her anyways as New York state or ANY state does not Constitutionally have to recognize marriage outside of the United States. DOMA violated the UNITED STATES commerce clause. If she has standing than A Muslim moving to UTAH with mulitple wives has standing. After all, they were legally married in a Muslim country.

I love how gay marriage apologists can’t make the very logical jump to this kind of stuff. Shows are frickin subjective this all is.

As for polygamy, New York law (or the law of any state) does not recognize it as valid.

Revenant on September 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM

In 1990, Neither did gay marriage until some judges in Mass. decided it did.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Another great day for freedom and the Constitution, and another disappointing comment thread on Hot Gas to celebrate it.

*sigh*

alchemist19 on September 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Yes, because again freedom involves asking the government to sanction a private relationship.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 5:50 PM

First, you don’t know what your are talking about. Utah makes it illegal to even LIVE with someone you hold out as your spouse if you are already married. Look up the dang code.

Utah had to renounce polygamy in order to be accepted into the United States. Utah had to accept the federal definition of marriage in order to become a state. There has always been a federal definition of marriage even before DOMA. Now we have judges telling states that they have to accept their definition of marriage?

monalisa on September 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Utah had to renounce polygamy in order to be accepted into the United States. Utah had to accept the federal definition of marriage in order to become a state. There has always been a federal definition of marriage even before DOMA. Now we have judges telling states that they have to accept their definition of marriage?

monalisa on September 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Yep, Of course. And it will take ONE judge to find a legal right to polygamy under “equal protection.”

The normalization is already here. With gays, it was Will & Grace; now we have Big Love and Sister Wives.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Another great day for freedom license…

*sigh*

alchemist19 on September 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Cleombrotus on September 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Yep, Of course. And it will take ONE judge to find a legal right to polygamy under “equal protection.”

The normalization is already here. With gays, it was Will & Grace; now we have Big Love and Sister Wives.

melle1228 on September 28, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I do not understand this “equal protection” argument. Equal protection accrues to the individual. If the Windsors were sisters or if Ms. Windsor was single…estate taxes would apply. The issue should have been abolishing the estate tax. Preferential tax treatment is not a right but a benefit and the federal government practices it all the time. The estate tax discriminates against family members who cannot marry (yet!) and the unmarried.

monalisa on September 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Our story comes to us from the Garden State. Say it with me now… we’ve seen this movie before.

So has Elton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJEDwXbFN0

BillH on September 28, 2013 at 8:39 PM

The fat man doth protest too much, methinks.

Jaibones on September 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

The longer a judge’s opinion the more likely it is wrong and full of BS, especially a trial court judge like a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.

Plus, it is a request for a emergency order, not an order after a full hearing of the facts and the law.

slp on September 28, 2013 at 10:55 PM

i live in massachusetts. we have had gay marriage for many years.
although i am not enthusiastic about it it has had nada affect on me.
gerrym51 on September 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Lucky for you you’re not a Christian baker, or photographer, or catering hall manager, or a child being denied the benefit of an actual mother or father. So, yeah.

Maddie on September 28, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Another great day for freedom and the Constitution, and another disappointing comment thread on Hot Gas to celebrate it.
*sigh*
alchemist19 on September 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

So go share the joy with the folks at HuffPo and GOProud. No one’s forcing you to post here, idiot.

Maddie on September 29, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Meant to correct this earlier. I said commerce clause. I meant full faith and credit clause.

melle1228 on September 29, 2013 at 3:46 AM

Another great day for freedom and the Constitution, and another disappointing comment thread on
Hot Gas to celebrate it.
*sigh*
alchemist19 on September 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Have a good cry in the car sodomite.

Murphy9 on September 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM

“Incest has a high chance of producing genetically problematic children, therefore is illegal.”

It depends upon the closeness of the biological relationship and genes. Further, if birth defects are to be assiduously avoided, that would ban amniocentecis and the adoption of Russian FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) babies. It is already illegal for Anglos to adopt American Indian babies.

Well how soon before the “snuff sex” crowd demands equal rights and Obamacare demands the Catholic Colleges comply?

Don L on September 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM

If you are referring to “snuff films”, that’s a myth and always has been. It was based upon a bogus Brazilian XXX-Rated film that was spectacularly featured in Time Magazine in 1976.
If you are referring to “erotic asphixiation” (see. DSM-V: Fetishistic Disorder 302.81) aka “the choking game”, it’s as much a “Paraphilac Disorder” as (fill in the blank, I would but it will be ‘moderated’ and deleted here).
Two consenting adults: What they do in private is no ones business.
As for “Sister Wives” – when are Americans going to wake up to that NON-Christian cult called the “church of lds”?
Just Curious
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM