For anyone interested:
It has no effect on my family or household.
Waste of time.
Don't you have some consulting to do regarding CLOs or something?
Thanks for adding your normal value to the thread.
Boston, if you don't mind explaining, what's the case about? I haven't heard about it.
No problem. The essence of the case is a challenge, under the New Jersey constitution, of the definition of marriage under New Jersey state law as only between people of different genders. It's functionally the same as the MA case from two years ago -- it's being decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and it involves the NJ Constitution, so any decision is final and not appealable to the USSC (no jurisdiction).
Here's a link to Lambda Legal's description:
Here's a link to a view from the other side of the political fence:
Aren't you busy at O____k setting up SPVs in the Caymans for CLOs?
Oh, I'm sorry...those damn homos are ruining everything.
The solution would be to legally recognize Civil Unions and churchs could issue marrige certificates if they wanted to.
Problem solved and my tax dollars would not be wasted with court case after court case of the Right Wingnuttery vs. ACLU/GALA or whatever.
I have faith in the NJ courts. It'd be cool to have NJ be the first state to let them have marriage.
And I dont think there is a chance in hell of getting a constitutional amendments in this state forbidding it.
Nah, not me -- my clients don't generally do offshore SPVs or anything. But if you want one for you and your traders, I'm sure I could find someone to do that for you.
BTW, you're an expert at strawmen. You've set up the argument and are arguing against your own characterization. The only thing I've done for you is link some information -- some folks are actually interested in the law.
Thanks Barrister for the information!
Another attempt by the extreme fringe left-wing to circumvent the will of the people by using unelected judges to make new law and create rights that are not there and were NEVER INTENDED.
This country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian belief system which sees sodomy (yes, this is the legal term I believe) as sin. Therefore, our Founders would never have given such a right in the constitution and no state has given that right.
The people of N.J. and other states have spoken -- no marriage.
If you are "gay" you have every right to live the way you wish. I have no problem with that -- this is a free country. However, don't expect government sanction or recognition for your behavior either.
Same sex marriage has NEVER been recognized throughout history as anything by aberrent behavior which is does not conform to the natural order of things.
We need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment now!
Hmmmmm...is it even worth it at this point???
The law should not be involved in marrige unless you believe that the law and the Bible are one in the same.
Corporate law is your specialty so why have you not started a thread about Ken Starr's class action suit against Sarbanes-Oxley legislation?
I am all ears...
Agreed. Separate out the tax stuff, and let the legislature vote to incentivize whatever behavior it likes.
Sarbanes-Oxley sucks, but there's no point in following that litigation at this point -- it's still at trial-court level.
As for some general starter arguments on why SOX sucks, see:
Interesting post on the background legal and political analysis:
Gay Marriage in New Jersey
posted by Mike Dimino
Courtesy of Howard is this article from Newsday ( http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--gaymarriage0213feb13,0,464644.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey ) describing the case pending in New Jersey which challenges that state's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. In the interest of full disclosure, I favor allowing gay couples to marry, but I would prefer that decision be made by state legislatures.
I am not yet convinced that the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution requires state recognition of gay marriages, though I understand the parallels to Loving v. Virginia.
I am curious to see what the New Jersey Supreme Court does with the case, from a political perspective as well as a legal one. Assume that the court thinks the proper result is to strike down the restriction. Should the court "vote its sincere preferences," as political scientists say, the practical effect in the short term will be a tremendous electoral advantage for the Republicans, as happened in response to the Massachusetts ruling perhaps including the re-election of the President.
Surely the last thing the New Jersey Supreme Court wants to do is help Republicans. Heck, that court's decision in the Doug Forrester case in 2002 ( http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf ) was far more transparently partisan than any ruling in Bush v. Gore.
Some political science suggests that the court will shade its interpretations so as not to antagonize the other branches, which are not accepting of gay marriage, but the evidence is far from conclusive. See, e.g., Jeffrey A Segal, Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts, 91 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 28 (1997); William N. Eskridge, Jr., Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 613 (1991).
For this reason, however, the court is in a no-win posture. If the court mandates gay marriage, it triggers the ire and votes of Republicans as well as opening itself to criticism for being judicial legislators. If it defeats the claim, it will be accused of doing so for political reasons rather than legal ones. Vermont-style civil unions are another option, though the article reports that New Jersey already grants domestic partnership developments.
If the court tries to mandate civil unions its ruling may be the least defensible of all, for it would allow the state to create two classes of couples while effectively conceding that there is no reason not to give homosexual couples all the advantages of marriage.
It's interesting that the provision apparently at issue is the New Jersey Constitution's provision that "all persons are by nature free and independent" -- not any provision explicitly invoking the ideal of "equality." I know nothing of the way in which this clause has been interpreted in the past, but isn't it ironic that the persons invoking the clause want the state to recognize their dependence on their partners, and for the state to recognize a continuing obligation to care for them? Free and independent indeed.
Posted by Mike Dimino at February 14, 2006 09:47 AM
SteveO, you don't speak for the American public. You speak for bible thumping Republicans. I know this is hard to belive... but other people might think differently!!
My God! People not only might gasp not believe in the Bible but also double gasp not care if gays get married!!!
Now take a second...breath...breath...
Huh? Law not involved in marraige????
Ever heard of marraige licences??
Society (through the Law) has ALWAYS been involved in marriage and more to the point, in the DEFINING of marriage.
I have no problem with the people of any state choosing to grant whatever rights to people they want -- but let the PEOPLE through their LEGISLATURES choose. The problem with you libs is that you don't want that, because without the liberal courts creating rights and circumventing the people, you cannot pass gay marriage in any of the 50 states legislatively.
You are the one who needs to take a breath. I speak for myself, first of all, but it is so that my position is the MAJORITY position in EVERY STATE of the UNION. Do you know how I know that Irish? It is because
It is YOU who needs to take that breath.
First off, I speak for myself. It does so happen that my position is the MAJORITY POSITION in this country. Do you know how I know that, Irish?
I know this because NOT ONE STATE IN THE UNION HAS, LEGISLATIVELY, DECLARED GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL. If the people of any state WANTED this, their will would be reflected through their legislatures. See how this is supposed to work? This is called constitutional democracy.
It is very sad that constitutional democracy is thought of as a "Bible-thumping Republican" virtue. All Amercians used to embrace this.......
Now take a slow deep breath and repeat after me 10 times until this sinks in:
Legislatures make the laws. Courts are supposed to interpret them.