N.J. Attorney General Harvey urges high court to rebuff gay union claim

[Thom Little]

Attorney General Peter Harvey urged the New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday to reject claims that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

.......

"This case presents the question of whether the New Jersey Constitution demands that the long-standing definition of marriage be changed by judicial fiat to grant plaintiffs a right that has never been recognized in our state: the ability to enter into a government-sanctioned, same-sex marriage," Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida wrote.

"The power to define marriage rests with the Legislature, the branch of government best equipped to express the judgment of the people on controversial social questions such as the recognition of same-sex marriage," he added.

David Buckel, a lawyer with the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said, "The state is still misunderstanding how our democracy works."

"The courts are there under our system of checks and balances to make sure the Legislature hasn't crossed the line under the constitution of our state. That's what's happened here," Buckel said.




http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1136614058291050.xml&coll=1

[FogerRox]

1. Harvey is toast-- now he is showing his true colors

I know hes not getting another term from Corzine- & Harvey knows it too. in NJ the Harvey runs the elections-- his Division of Elections is likely very corrupt.

Harvey dont sound like a DEM to me---------

[sallyseven]

2. The powere to detrmine who can marry and who can't

is in the hands of each individual. No laws should be made to make it illegal.

[sallyseven]

3. The powere to detrmine who can marry and who can't

is in the hands of each individual. No laws should be made to make it illegal.

[FogerRox]

4. well its seems this black man dissagrees with you and me on that-- LOL

[LostinVA]

9. Loving vs. Virginia -- does the ass remember THAT???

[JusticeForAll]

6. I know nothing about this story

or the person behind this story, (on edit.. "outside of reading this story") but many AG's are "hiding" behind their states' Constitution regardless of the fact many of these documents are contradictory in terms of equality for all residents/people.

Terry Goddard, of Arizona, is an example of a great Democratic AG, but is taking a "professional" but pathetically wimpy stance of "upholding the Constitution" rather than going the extra mile and actively encouraging and informing people and the Legislature that our state Constitution is probably outdated and needs to begin providing equality for all, but in the meantime will continue to uphold it until the Legislature gains some sense...

With that said...no matter how great they are, or how in one turn they say they disagree with the Constitution, but sworn to uphold it...Have some fricking balls to also stand for CHANGING what is WRONG, Democratic AGs...

[MasonJar]

5. Are all the states going belly-up when it comes to integrity?

[Jersey Ginny]

7. NJ is actually moving in a very positive direction

Jon Corzine is a supporter of Garden State Equality, who is the primary advocate for Marriage Equality in NJ. The state just passed by a 35-0 vote legislation giving G/L couples the rights of inheritance and the rights to make funeral decisions in the absense of a will. That was a BIPARTISAN vote and the most significant "landslide" for a G/L issue in American History, to my knowledge.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. A little over 39 years ago there were similar legal arguments . . .

and it sounded something like this:

"This case presents the question of whether the constitution demands that the long-standing definition of marriage be changed by judicial fiat to grant plaintiffs a right that has never been recognized: the ability to enter into a government-sanctioned, inter-racial marriage."

"The power to define marriage rests with the legislature, the branch of government best equipped to express the judgment of the people on controversial social questions such as the recognition of inter-racial marriage."

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (where U.S. Supreme Court ruled that inter-racial marriage is constitutional and that to deny such marriage is a violation of the right of due process and equal protection u/ the 14th amendment to our federal constitution).

These same legal arguments may be true of same-sex marriage; however, same-sex marriage has additional legal arguments in its arsenal.