Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Jersey vs. Wisconsin

When the lawsuits start here, that's what the title may as well be.

A ruling by the Massachusetts high court in 2003 introduced same-sex marriage to the United States. But activists on both sides viewed the New Jersey decision as even more significant because the Garden State, unlike Massachusetts, has no law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.

New Jersey – one of only five states without a law or a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman – could become a destination for homosexual couples from around the U.S. who would return home and sue to have their marriages recognized.

A whole new meaning to the term "destination spot..."

And a whole new meaning to the term "equal benefits and privileges"

"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said.

The spinners propagandists here were prepared:

"The people of Wisconsin aren't for gay marriage, but they don't want to rip away any semblance of legal protections from their neighbors," [said] Mike Tate of the "Vote No" bunch.

Undermining Tate's blustery baloney is current New Jersey law:

Under existing law, same-sex couples can enjoy some of the legal rights of marriage, such as health care for the partners of state workers and the right to inherit possessions if a partner leaves behind no will.

And "Vote Yes for Marriage" was vindicated:

"We are saddened that the Supreme Court of New Jersey continues on a parade of legislating from the bench," said John Tomicki, executive director of League of American Families.

You can bet that Screechin'Shirley Abrahamson has already cut-and-pasted the language from the SCONJ for use in an upcoming decision.

And Althouse, who is in favor of gay "marriage" concurs that the SCOWIS could easily impose this fiction on Wisconsin:

. . the judges do not, I think, provide the kind of assurances that would undercut the argument proponents of the amendment make that it is needed to thwart some future state supreme court case finding a state law right to same-sex marriage. . . .

[Less convoluted translation: the SCOWIS is inclined to rule in favor of Homosex "marriage."] HT: Marquette Warrior

1 comment:

steveegg said...

What the New Jersey Lawgivers-In-Black did was justify the second sentence, especially because there is an additional class of people granted constitutional protection in Wisconsin that isn't granted constitutional protection in New Jersey.