VIDEO: Well listen, I agree with Justice – Chief Justice Roberts. As you know, that this is something that should be decided by the people and not by, I think he called them, five lawyers. I agree with that, I’ve said that before as to our Supreme Court. That this is something that shouldn’t be decided by a group of lawyers, but should be decided by the people. So I agree with the dissent that Chief Justice Roberts authored today. I think this is something that should be decided by the people of each state and not imposed upon them by a group of lawyers sitting in black robes at the U.S Supreme Court.
That being said, those five lawyers get to impose it under our system and so our job is going to be to support the law of the land. And that under the Supreme Court’s ruling is now the law of the land, but I don’t agree with the way it’s been done.
But I take an oath and the same way I’ve supported and enforced the law here in New Jersey since our Supreme Court made their 7-0 decision on same-gender marriage and I’ve supported and endorsed that law, I would have to do the same across the country.
But I want to be clear, I don’t agree with the way it was done. But it’s been done and those of us who take an oath have a responsibility to abide by that oath.
[TLS]
He caved in as soon as Trenton Chanery Judge Jacobsen, who denied Lakewood BOE in Bacon, made her ruling under the State Constitution.
This law is as stupid as can be. It basically also means that someone can sell you a carrot and be allowed to claim that its a tomato. There is no truth left in society.
Christie is wrong insofar as he claims this should be decided by the people. That is absolutely false. Questions of civil liberties cannot and should not be left to popular consensus, they are constitutional questions and hinge on constitutional interpretation- as determined by the nine lawyers sitting as justices on the Supreme Court. Had questions of constitutional right been left to the people, segregation may never had stopped- so long as it was the will of the majority- “equal protection” clause of te constitution notwithstanding. It is this same idea, that civil liberty questions being decided based on legal principal and not public opinion that prevent for example, the banning of shechita or circumcision. According I Christies line of reasoning, if majority of the people were opposed to either of those things, they should be able to ban it despite our freedom to practice religion. This is a foolish and shortsighted statement by the governor, one which is unsurprising given his track record, and fails to follow his reasoning through to its logical conclusion.
Absent any equal protection analysis, J. Kennedy makes law out of a “synergy” (p. 20) between due process and equal protection.
This is similar to the “penumbras, formed by emanations” from the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Conn. (1965), the first in the neo-substantive due process line with Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and this ruling.
The fallacy of substantive due process leaves judges with “hardly any limit but the sky. . . ” J. Holmes, Baldwin v. Missouri (1930).
Geshmakalypse
Your as wrong as can be. This is not a civil liberties issue as the media and society are making it out to be. It’s about the definition of marriage. & your right that it shouldn’t be decided by the people but it also shouldn’t be decided by the courts.
Anon:
You state it’s not a civil liberties issue as if it’s a fact. Please explain why this is not the case. I direct you to Loving v. Virginia where the Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
One important thing to keep in mind is the distinction between the government defining marriage generally and your individual right to define it how you like for yourself.
Geshmakalypse
What u wrote is true, but in our case it holds no water!!!
If u call it a cov right than why stop there? Why should it only be that two people of the same seks have the benefits of a married life? Just because the do things together? One can argue that roommates should have the same benefits or a shared house of many peoe should share the same benefits as a family (taxes, insurance etc…)
This law is so stupid and misses the point. All the benefits given to married couples and families were given for or a purpose to support the institution of marriage. So life on earth continues ….
Soon living with a dog will qualify for family benefits, this law is wrong and sick
Christie is wrong. It is not the law of the land for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. It is redefining what marriage is, something that is not whithin the scope of the Supreme Courts power.
The Supreme Courtsjob is to upgold the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. The constitution and all the justices that came before, did not view this as a constitutional issue.
These justices took power that was not granted to them and should be impeached.