The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that New Jersey must extend all the rights of marriage to gay couples. But the justices left it to state lawmakers to decide whether to provide those rights in the form of marriages, civil unions or something else - and gave the Legislature 180 days to reach a decision.So much for Mike Tate and Fair Wisconsin's claim that gay marriage would never happen here even if we do not pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. They have been fighting a dishonest campaign from the start, and the New Jersey case demonstrates why.
Several Democratic lawmakers said they will push for full marriage rights.
But some Republicans, the minority party in both houses of the Legislature, said they will seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, vowed to have the justices impeached.
"Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.
Speaking of a little dishonesty, note how the Associated Press writer refers to former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey,
New Jersey adopted a domestic partnership law in 2004 giving gay couples some of the same rights of married couples, but the gay marriage debate has never played out fully in the Statehouse.Of course, the writer doesn't mention the staff member in question was given a job by McGreevey for which he was completely unqualified, and that McGreevey resigned because the staffer threatened to sue for sexual harassment after he lost his job.
It might have, had former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, made it a priority. He has said he did not support gay marriage at the time because he was afraid of being perceived as gay.
"I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey said Wednesday. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."
