Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 10, 2013, 03:22 PM   #1
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Judge Clears Way for Gay Marriage to Start in NJ

Christie will appeal to no avail.

I sent Christie a tweet asking him to gay marry me.


Quote:
A New Jersey judge denied the state's appeal to halt same-sex marriages, clearing the way for couples to begin marrying starting Oct. 21.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson said on Thursday that offering gay couples the opportunity to enter into a civil marriage would not "cause the State to suffer irreparable harm."

She added that delaying the issuance of marriage licenses would, however, hurt gay couples by making them "suffer many hardships of constitutional magnitude."

Jacobson ruled on Sept. 27 that New Jersey must allow gay couples to marry. The state currently offers gays the opportunity to enter into a civil union, but the judge found them to be unequal and unconstitutional.
__________________
The distance in time between 1980 and now is the same amount as the distance in time between 1980 and WWII.
rdowns is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 03:26 PM   #2
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Christie will appeal to no avail.

I sent Christie a tweet asking him to gay marry me.


Good for NJ. Now perhaps Snooki and JWoww can get married, since they've basically inseparable for the past few years.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 03:29 PM   #3
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
So that makes 13 States plus DC that has gay marriage.

Sanity slowly prevails...much too slowly, but it is what it is.
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 04:00 PM   #4
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
So that makes 13 States plus DC that has gay marriage.
Actually it would make NJ the 14th. From wikipedia...

Quote:
Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in several jurisdictions within the United States and is recognized by the federal government for such purposes as immigration.[1] As of September 2013, thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, several counties in New Mexico, and six Native American tribal jurisdictions[n 1] have legalized the issuing of marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Additionally, same sex marriage is currently being litigated in New Jersey in the case of Garden State Equality v. Dow and for the rest of New Mexico in Griego v. Oliver. In both cases a judge ruled for same-sex marriage at the trial court level, with both now going through the appeals process.
likemyorbs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 04:33 PM   #5
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Actually it would make NJ the 14th. From wikipedia...
Great!

I'm very glad to be wrong!

Thanks for the correction.
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 05:27 PM   #6
haxrnick
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
So that makes 13 States plus DC that has gay marriage.

Sanity slowly prevails...much too slowly, but it is what it is.
Only 44 more to go!
haxrnick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 05:53 PM   #7
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by haxrnick View Post
Only 44 more to go!
So we have 58 States now!? Where was I when this happened!?
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 05:59 PM   #8
LIVEFRMNYC
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Texas is next ......
LIVEFRMNYC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 06:29 PM   #9
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by haxrnick View Post
Only 44 more to go!
Uhhhh....no?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC View Post
Texas is next ......
Once we get all the illegals legalized and turn Texas blue then it will be quite possible!
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 06:47 PM   #10
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Uhhhh....no?

----------



Once we get all the illegals legalized and turn Texas blue then it will be quite possible!
Then we better get Wendy Davis all the help she can get! She'll need it for this coming year's race, seeing that the Republican frontrunner already has a near $50 million war chest to play with.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 07:08 PM   #11
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by haxrnick View Post
Only 44 more to go!
That's an Obama joke, right?
Mac'nCheese is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 07:14 PM   #12
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese View Post
That's an Obama joke, right?
Ohhhh....wow you're good. I would have never caught that.
likemyorbs is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 07:42 PM   #13
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Ohhhh....wow you're good. I would have never caught that.
It's a gift.

http://youtu.be/EpGH02DtIws
Mac'nCheese is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 08:15 PM   #14
haxrnick
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seattle
Was wondering how long it would take.
haxrnick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2013, 10:09 PM   #15
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by haxrnick View Post
Was wondering how long it would take.
So now that you had your little jab at Obama, how do you feel about gay marriage?
likemyorbs is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 12:05 PM   #16
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Can someone explain this to me please? Christie doesn't think that one judge should be able to force the state to recognize gay marriage. Isn't that the a major part of a judge's job, to determine when a state is doing something unconstutional and force them to change it? Just because you don't agree with the judge's ruling, it doesn't give you the right to question the judge's authority. You can appeal it, but it's completely childish to question a judge's well established authority.

Quote:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's administration says a single judge shouldn't be able to force the state to recognize gay marriage.

That's one of the arguments in legal papers filed Friday by the state in support of its effort to delay implementation of a judge's order last month that gay marriage be legal in the state as of Oct. 21.

The brief for an appeals court comes a day after Judge Mary Jacobson turned down New Jersey's request to delay the effective date of her order while the state Supreme Court decides whether she was right.
likemyorbs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 12:37 PM   #17
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Can someone explain this to me please? Christie doesn't think that one judge should be able to force the state to recognize gay marriage. Isn't that the a major part of a judge's job, to determine when a state is doing something unconstutional and force them to change it? Just because you don't agree with the judge's ruling, it doesn't give you the right to question the judge's authority. You can appeal it, but it's completely childish to question a judge's well established authority.
Apparently, they were attempting the same thing that the same-sex marriage opponents did with Prop. 8 and Vaughn Walker: challenged his authority over his striking down Prop. 8 in the 9th Circuit, because they believed that his being gay would have clouded his impartiality in presiding over the case. That didn't work, either.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 12:46 PM   #18
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Apparently, they were attempting the same thing that the same-sex marriage opponents did with Prop. 8 and Vaughn Walker: challenged his authority over his striking down Prop. 8 in the 9th Circuit, because they believed that his being gay would have clouded his impartiality in presiding over the case. That didn't work, either.

BL.
This may be a bit off topic. But what do you think would have happened if in the 90's instead of passing DOMA, they actually passed an amendment to the US constitution that banned gay marriage? That way no one would be able to say that states denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional since there is a constitutional amendment about it. And we all know that in the 90's an amendment like that would have been easily ratified. What kind of impact would that have had on gay rights today?
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 01:00 PM   #19
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
This may be a bit off topic. But what do you think would have happened if in the 90's instead of passing DOMA, they actually passed an amendment to the US constitution that banned gay marriage? That way no one would be able to say that states denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional since there is a constitutional amendment about it. And we all know that in the 90's an amendment like that would have been easily ratified. What kind of impact would that have had on gay rights today?
It would have had a HUGE impact, no doubt. But also in looking at what started to happen in the 90s, I'm not too sure that it would have passed. Yes, a lot of people would have still been "in the closet" at that time, but I honestly do think, as funny as it sounds, the 3rd season of MTV's The Real World was the catalyst for what we have today, as it woke up people back then who would become the people to affect that change today. It didn't help that it was shot in San Francisco, either. With that season, it (gays and gay rights) stopped being a joke you'd see in a Police Academy movie, and started to get real, especially around a person that people couldn't help but like (who died during that season).

My point: because of that, and how close it brought people around that issue, I don't think every state would have ratified such an amendment; California in particular. I can't remember the political makeup of each state at that time, but I'd say that California wouldn't have ratified that amendment; finding 12 other states to do the same back then would have been a hard sell.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 01:11 PM   #20
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
I can't remember the political makeup of each state at that time, but I'd say that California wouldn't have ratified that amendment; finding 12 other states to do the same back then would have been a hard sell.

BL.
Exactly. Being that gay marriage is now legal in 14 states, a constitutional amendment would be impossible today. But in the 90's, I'm more than positive they could have easily passed such an amendment. If this happened, it would have destroyed the gay rights movement for at least 30 years until there are at least 38 states willing to repeal that amendment. And being that currently most states have an amendment in their own constitutions banning gay marriage, it would be decades before a repeal of the rhetorical amendment would pass.
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 01:26 PM   #21
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Exactly. Being that gay marriage is now legal in 14 states, a constitutional amendment would be impossible today. But in the 90's, I'm more than positive they could have easily passed such an amendment. If this happened, it would have destroyed the gay rights movement for at least 30 years until there are at least 38 states willing to repeal that amendment. And being that currently most states have an amendment in their own constitutions banning gay marriage, it would be decades before a repeal of the rhetorical amendment would pass.
But on the other side of that, the Constitutionality of such an amendment would have been hard to uphold, especially in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments. If such an amendment were to be ratified, lawsuits challenging the ban would pop up everywhere, based on the 9th amendment alone.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 02:46 PM   #22
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
But on the other side of that, the Constitutionality of such an amendment would have been hard to uphold
But isn't that the point of the amendment? To modify the constitution in order to make something constitutional which previously wasn't?
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 03:01 PM   #23
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
But isn't that the point of the amendment? To modify the constitution in order to make something constitutional which previously wasn't?
Depends. Interpreting the 14th as they possibly could regarding Prop. 8, civil unions =/= marriage, so marriage would have to be allowed for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. From there, per the 9th Amendment, that right would preempt any Amendment to ban same sex marriage in the US Constitution, so the constitutionality of such an amendment would come under the scrutiny of SCOTUS.

Additionally, marriage was ruled as a right under the 10th Amendment, then it would be up to the individual states to come up with their own rules regarding it (which is what we have now). Since SCOTUS didn't touch on that in either ruling this year, I don't think such an Amendment would have survived back in the 90s, just based on how the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments could be interpreted.

It isn't really fair to take rulings now and apply them back then, but surely with the 9th and 10th, there would be some play into who should have jurisdiction over marriage. That's probably why DOMA was just a separate law, and not part of the Constitution itself. It would be interesting to see the state-by-state breakdown of which ones supported or opposed DOMA. that would be a good indication of if an amendment banning same-sex marriage would have survived then.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 10:04 PM   #24
haxrnick
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
So now that you had your little jab at Obama, how do you feel about gay marriage?
I personally don't really care. But that's probably the Libertarian side of me.
haxrnick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2013, 11:31 PM   #25
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Depends. Interpreting the 14th as they possibly could regarding Prop. 8, civil unions =/= marriage, so marriage would have to be allowed for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. From there, per the 9th Amendment, that right would preempt any Amendment to ban same sex marriage in the US Constitution, so the constitutionality of such an amendment would come under the scrutiny of SCOTUS.

Additionally, marriage was ruled as a right under the 10th Amendment, then it would be up to the individual states to come up with their own rules regarding it (which is what we have now). Since SCOTUS didn't touch on that in either ruling this year, I don't think such an Amendment would have survived back in the 90s, just based on how the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments could be interpreted.

It isn't really fair to take rulings now and apply them back then, but surely with the 9th and 10th, there would be some play into who should have jurisdiction over marriage. That's probably why DOMA was just a separate law, and not part of the Constitution itself. It would be interesting to see the state-by-state breakdown of which ones supported or opposed DOMA. that would be a good indication of if an amendment banning same-sex marriage would have survived then.

BL.
I'm pretty sure the 21st amendment shows that later ones can contradict earlier ones without being unconstitutional, so I don't think your analysis means anything.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC