Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Jersey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Could someone provide a reference for the transcrip for the "N.J. Supreme Court Oral Arugments" section

Thanks

"Selected quotes"

[edit]

Are they really useful? 68.39.174.238 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Background material

[edit]

I snipped the following from the beginning of Background for being off-topic. Preserving it here in case parts merit use somewhere else. Also wondering what the source might be:

Before the 21st century; gay people in most western and Islamic countries were severely discriminated against and consensual sexual acts were unlawful in most states and punishable by a death sentence as recent as the 1950s and 1960s in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Beginning in 1960; anti-gay laws were done away with or decriminalized throughout the Western World. The first same sex marriage in modern times in the western world took place in Copenhagen, Denmark on 1st October 1989 with the legal marriage of Axel & Eigil Axgil, along with ten other couples in Copenhagen.
Today being a gay person in nearly all Islamic Countries is still punishable by death/ Even where there is no Government Law against being gay; Gay people can be arrested, tried and given a death sentence by the Religious Courts--even if one is not Islamic--such happened in the now famous Queen Boat case in Cairo in which many were arrested simply because they were thought to be gay. About the same time a seventeen year old private university student received a 17 years sentence in prison including 2 years hard labor, for posting a personal profile on a gay dating site. He stood accused of "offences" to the public good, the honor of society, and a contempt to moral principles and social tradition. He sentenced by the Jahah court in Cairo by A'laa Deen Shoja'a under the supervision court chief justices Rida Shazzli and Mohamed Moheb in 2004. In 2005 Iran executed by hanging two teenage boys who were in love with each other because they admitted to being gay. It is also illegal in Jamaica where every day 15 gay people are murdered and where letters and articles appear in the "Gleaner" justifying these crimes against humanity; admitting that you are gay anywhere in the Caribbean is like signing your own death warrant so it is not a place to go on honeymoon.
In the Americas; many of the laws which discriminated against gay people and punished them with death sentences go back to the founding days of the English and Spanish Colonies. These laws were based chiefly on religious canons and superstitions. Many gay people were often accused of consorting with the Devil or being a witch. The first capital offense and execution for being gay and having consensual sex between two people of the same sex in the New World took place in 1566 in what is today Paris Island,South Carolina where a French translator and Guale Indian Chief were in love with each other and had consensual same sex. The chief was released. The translator was taken to St. Augustine, Florida and tried for sodomy and garroted secretly because he was 'a sodomite and a Lutheran' according to Johnathan Katz's Gay American History.
It is strange that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote against cruel and unusual punishments in the US Constitutition, wrote into the revised colonial Laws of Virginia that those who were guilty of 'sodomy' should be punished not with death but in the case of a woman---have a hole one and one-half inch in diameter cut into her nose and if a man that he be castrated. As we can see this is cruel and unusual and makes no logical sense for such treatment during the age of Enligthenment/ Jefferson equated Sodomy with rape, bestiality, polygamy. However, at least a gay person would escape with their life. In England from 1492 to 1890; gay people could be sentenced to transportation (the lightest sentence) or drawn and quartered , boiled in Oil or and then hung and burned or given hard labor with a lengthy jail sentence. A century later; the situation had improved somewhat but still was bad. Oscar Wilde was sentenced to hard labor at Reading Goal (pronounced 'redding') which greatly injured his health and left him a broken man. He was forbidden to see Bossie, his life partner, again but did in France briefly where Napoleon had made life more confortable for gay people in his codes. In 1950; England decriminalized gay people and in the 21st century recognized same sex marriages while the United States lingered in the past on these issues.
Later other States enacted laws that dealt with acts against Nature which were rather arrogant ignorant laws that did not recognize that homosexuality occurs in all life forms and is just as natural as is heterosexuality. Yet as late as 2005; a man was arrested in North Carolina for 'crimes against nature" even after such laws were ruled invalid.
The Hawaiian Supreame Court ruled in 1996 in Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341 that it was unconstitutional to not allow same sex marriages. This had the effect of putting up a wall of defenses on the Continent among State Legistlatures. Sadly, Hawaii,(aways traditionally has been one of the most unbiased and non-discriminatory places on earth from the time it was a Nation to a State) through the efforts of the Christian right wrote discrimination into their constitution to restrict marriage between a Man and a Woman, only.


On 26 June 2006; the US Supreame Court ruled in Lawrence vs Texas that consensual sex between consenting same sex people is legal and that all Laws throughou the United States which are to the contrary are unlawful and unconstitutional. This ruling opened the way for legal recognitition of same sex marriages.

— edgarde 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Shouldn't the merge be to Domestic partnerships in New Jersey, since that is the outcome? Redirect from here, of course. — edgarde 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DPNJ is the shorter article, only 2 paragraphs, whereas SSMNJ has a good deal of legislative & judicial history. The real problem is the name: the new status will be civil unions; I'm not sure whether domestic partnerships will continue to be an option there or not.
On a larger scale, there's a problem with naming many US state DP/CU/SSM articles--no consistency in titling, and some, like NJ, are listed under two different titles. Personally, I'd like to see them all merged, state by state, under a standard format/title: maybe "Same-sex unions in [state]"?
There also ought to be, I think, at least a stub article of the same heading for each of the 50 states, plus territories, where developments could be noted as they happen. But that's a huge project I'm not about to undertake alone.  :-) Textorus 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Domestic partnerships in New Jersey should remain its own article, for now at least. I do not know whether that law was repealed, amended or left alone by the civil union bill. It should be noted that the domestic partnership law applies to opposite-sex couples over a certain age, so I am not sure it belongs in an article about same-sex marriage anyway. Obviously further research is required, and I do not think the domestic partnerships article is hurting anybody as things stand now. Neutron 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the bill, and I found a few relevant provisions relating to domestic partnerships, which probably should be added to that article, but I think it would be "cleaner" to wait until the governor actually signs it rather than adding it now and having to update it in 2 days. Section 91 of the bill states that as of the bill's effective date, no new domestic partnerships may be registered except between persons who are at least 62 years old. Interestingly, the original version of the bill stated that persons 62 or older entering into a domestic partnership would have to be of the opposite sex, but that was removed. So now a same-sex couple aged 62 or older would have a choice between a civil union and a domestic partnership, and an opposite-sex couple aged 62 or older would have a choice between marriage and domestic partnership (the latter is already the case), but for those below 62, civil union will be the only option for same-sex couples. Section 91 also preserves domestic partnerships that have already been entered into, and permits existing domestic partners (of the same sex) to enter into civil unions, which automatically terminates the domestic partnership. Section 94 of the bill establishes the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, one of the specific tasks of which will be to "review the “Domestic Partnership Act,” P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-1 et seq.) and make recommendations whether this act should be repealed." I think these provisions support keeping the domestic partnership article, with editing to reflect the new provisions. Neutron 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great info, Neutron! That really clarifies things. Why don't you put this into the DP article, with link to the legislation? So if DP remains a separate option in NJ, I guess the article should stand. But then should the other article be renamed "Civil Unions in New Jersey"? Textorus 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge, they are two seperate concepts. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information from a mail sent out by Garden State Equality:

What if we're domestic-partnered in New Jersey? Do we have to do anything to end our domestic partnership before we get a civil union?

No, you don't have to do anything to end your existing domestic partnership. According to the new civil union law, when you get a civil union, your domestic partnership is automatically superceded by the civil union. If you and your partner choose not to get a civil union but instead prefer to stay with the far fewer protections of your existing domestic partnership -- why anyone would prefer that, we don't know -- your domestic partnership will be unaffected. For same-sex couples, once the civil unions law takes effect, only civil unions and not domestic partnerships will be available. As you may remember, New Jersey's domestic partnership law enacted in 2004 also allows opposite-sex couples older than 62 to register as domestic partners. Such opposite-sex couples will still be able to register as domestic partners, even after the civil unions law takes effect.

--John Kenneth Fisher 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the Merge tag, as DP's will continue to be available in NJ. However, shouldn't we be renaming SSMNJ to "Civil Unions in New Jersey" now? There's probably another tag somewhere to use for that idea, but I don't feel like tracking it down right now, and don't feel bold enough to rename the article myself. Anyone else care to "be bold"?  :-) Textorus 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided renaming of DP article

[edit]

Heads up: GLGerman has mistakenly renamed DPNJ to CUNJ. I don't know how to fix that. Here's the message I left on GL's talk page:

GL, you should not have renamed this article as "Civil Unions in New Jersey" because the state will continue to offer domestic partnerships. Existing same-sex DP's are not required to sign up for civil unions; they can remain as domestic partners. Also, no new same-sex DP's will be allowed, but DP's will still be available only for opposite-sex couples over age 62. So the article needs to remain as a separate category of legal relationship. Go read the discussion of this issue on the talk page for "Same-sex marriage in New Jersey" to get a better understanding of what has just taken place in that state's laws.

Textorus 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other side, Textorus, there is the new law for civil unions after Corzine signed it now and that´s so the future in New Jersey and not domestic partnerships; so it´s better to have an article over "civil unions in New Jersey".
There should not be two articlse over "domestic partnerships in New Jersey" and over "civil unions in New Jersey"; that can be part in one article of the legal status für gay partners in New Jersey; and the articlename should be "civil unions in New Jersey"GLGerman 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)GLGerman[reply]

Proposed merger with Civil unions in New Jersey

[edit]

It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in New Jersey and Civil unions in New Jersey into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in New Jersey. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.

This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".

I gather merging articles relating to gay unions in New Jersey has already been through the mill. Notwithstanding this the New Jersey articles are a good example of the sometimes narrow line between same sex marriage and civil unions. The proposed title would also cover the domestic partnerships already covered by the Civil unions in New Jersey article and the lead from the same article would be perfect for the proposed Recognition of gay unions in New Jersey article.

In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. Caveat lector 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost"

[edit]

The article currently says that parties to a civil union will have "almost 100 percent of the rights" of married couples under state law. I do not understand the "almost", as the Supreme Court made clear that same-gender unions (under whatever name was chosen by the Legislature) had to carry all of the rights of marriages, and that is what the Legislature did. Is that incorrect? What rights are missing? Neutron 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone has changed it from "almost 100 percent" to "almost all", which is better writing, but it does not answer the question. I am going to take out "almost" unless someone can provide a source showing that some right under state law (which is what the sentence is about) has been withheld. I am also wondering about the last sentence in that paragraph, about people not understanding civil unions and therefore treating them differently. While it is most likely true, the sentence seems to be written in a POV manner and it is unsourced. I am going to leave it alone for now and just put a "fact" tag on it. It probably should be in a different paragraph as well. Neutron 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they don't get to tell people they have been allowed to join each other in a marriage. That's a pretty damn non-negligible right that married couples have under state law, that civil union...ed... people are denied. --John Kenneth Fisher 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civil unions have all of the state-level rights as a marriage, but are denied over a thousand rights/benefits/recognition under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It's technically impossible for a state to offer civil unions with ALL (or even "almost all") of the rights of marriage. But regarding NJ individually, yes, being legally "civil unionized" is synonymous with "married," legally, at the state level. *However,* there are reports of the civil union law not working well in its implementation so it could also be misleading to say it has all of the state rights. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

I changed the format of the article so that the two main separations are now legislative activities and judicial activities. I believe this will flow better, and also removes some redundant information. Brianga 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Not true

[edit]

I removed this section

"This was the first time in the history of the United States that the highest court of any state had ruled unanimously in favor of the rights of same-sex couples."

This is not true information as Baker v. Vermont (1999) was the 1st state to rule unanimously in favoer of such rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.251.2 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing California from list

[edit]

In the Recognition of out-of-state relationships section, I've removed California from the list because California same-sex marriages were not included in the Formal Opinion issued by the NJ attorney general in February 2007, which is what that section is discussing. It is misleading to add California there, when same-sex marriage was not legalized at the time the Formal Opinion was written.

However, I've added a parenthetical paragraph to say that presumably CA marriages will be recognized in the same way as those from other jurisdictions. I think this is the most accurate way to present the information.Textorus (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of foreign CU's, etc.

[edit]

I've just reverted an edit by Zaimot who says foreign CU's are not equivalent to New Jersey's because they are nationwide, yada yada.

Here's why I reverted that change: the point is not whether they are equivalent in some philosophical, abstract sense - rather, the point is that the state of New Jersey recognizes those foreign CU's and DP's as equivalent to their own, and extends New Jersey benefits and protections to those couples.

All of which I made very clear when I added this recognition subsection in July 2007,[1] and again when I updated it slightly (and fended off another misguided edit) in May 2008.[2] As I wrote it - and I worked very hard to get it right - I specifically named the Attorney General who wrote the binding ruling on this issue, gave a link to that ruling, and quoted the precise wording that he used.

Since then, however, who knows how many smart people have run through this article willy-nilly changing things in this section, removing the AG's name, removing the link to the actual document, and adding or subtracting countries and states that were not named in that document (which amounts to original research unless verified by a reliable third-party source). The consequence is that the article even as reverted today is unreliable and not a true reflection of what New Jersey's stated policy/law is.

I'm not going to fight over this; if people want to make sheer crap out of this article, based on their own personal interpretation of the law, have at it. I have other, more rewarding things to do. But you can see my links above with the actual words of the legal ruling by the AG of NJ; if somebody thinks all that is worth restoring, be my guest. Textorus (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed foreign country civil unions that were equated as equal to New Jersey civil unions.

[edit]

It is one thing to say that civil unions performed in other countries will be recognized as civil unions in New Jersey (as was stated regarding international same-sex marriages). However, it is incorrect to state that New Jersey civil unions are therefore equal to civil unions in other countries. They are definitely not, from the simple fact of the different systems of government. Because the United States is a federation of states, laws in one state are not necessarily recognized in another. Furthermore, since neither same-sex civil unions nor same-sex marriages are recognized at the federal level, gay couples who marry or enter a civil union in the United States still miss out on over 1,000 federally-recognized marriage benefits.

In all of the aforementioned international countries, the civil unions apply throughout the entire country and are generally all equal to marriage except in name.

In Denmark, for example, which was the first country in the world to recognize same-sex partnerships in 1989, civil unions are equal to marriage expect in name: Inheritance rights, adoption, artificial insemination of lesbian couples paid for by the state, etc. All are guaranteed at the national level. If you are in a civil union in New Jersey and then move next door to Pennsylvania, you're two single people without any rights. So it's not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaimot (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zaimot, you are reading your own personal interpretation into the words there, and that's original research. The words are an exact quote from the ruling promulgated by the NJ Attorney General, and per MOS:QUOTE should remain exactly as he wrote them. See my comment immediately above. But if you and everybody else wants to reinterpret and rewrite the actual words of NJ law, why you just go right ahead, big fella. Only you are putting bad, incorrect information out there for anyone who comes along and reads this. But hey, man, if it doesn't bother your conscience, well that's fine with me. I've done the right thing here, repeatedly; so have it, bro. Textorus (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should GSE v. Dow be given its own article?

[edit]

It's a rather significant case with huge potential ramifications, I think it's notable enough to deserve its own article where it can be expounded upon with more context and detail. Spaceboyjosh (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just did a major rewrite of the intro and was surprised to find that the case did not have its own article. I think the section on the case in this article is already long enough for a full standalone article, though I have not read it very carefully to see what more development or editing it might need. Neutron (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time for article move?

[edit]

Should this article be moved to Same-sex marriage in New Jersey, as has happened for all the other states where SSM is legal? Or should it wait until the final ruling is in, since the current situation is provisional? - htonl (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gov Christie has dropped the challenge of the lower court's ruling. That means same-sex marriage is legal - permanently - in New Jersey. The article should be moved. Source (NBC News): http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/21/21058974-chris-christie-drops-challenge-to-same-sex-marriage-in-new-jersey

Yes. Unfortunate that this was moved so suddenly and clunkily with a C&P move, but absolutely, yes, this does need to be moved, just as other similar articles were moved when same-sex marriage was fully legalized in a certain state. See Same-sex marriage in Minnesota, which moved to that namespace shortly after legalization in August of this year. Moncrief (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is very aggravating - "Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey started on October 21, 2013, when Governor Christie withdrew the state's appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court of a lower court ruling on the constitutionality of same sex weddings." Same sex unions have been recognized in New Jersey since Feb 19, 2007 when the Civil Union Act signed by then governor Corzine came into effect. Please make sure to change this, as it does not reflect facts or reality. Same sex marriage is legal in New Jersey, and Governor Chris Christie's Office has dropped the rulings appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.212.190 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved, primarily to deal with the issue of copy and paste moves. If it needs move back etc, drop me a line and I'll come and help. Nick (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Looks great. And thank you to you and whoever else helped with shortening the intro. Looks great now! Moncrief (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Jersey&oldid=1210190976"