Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LGBT
Related: About this forumChris Christie’s Legal Position on Gay Marriage Is Pure Nonsense
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/chris_christie_s_legal_brief_on_gay_marriage_pure_nonsense.htmlNew Jersey Gov. Chris Christies administration filed a brief last week defending the states 2006 Civil Union Act, which grants gay couples all the benefits of marriage yet bars them from actually getting married. The brief is Christies first official legal statement on same-sex marriage. Given his apparent aspiration to be the next Republican nominee for president, it is especially too bad that the brief also may be the most incoherent defense of heterosexual supremacy yet. Thats saying something in an era in which lawyers have tied themselves in logical pretzels to defend indefensible anti-gay laws. Even by that low standard, the brief reads like a student paper written during an all-nighter. Youd think an aspiring president would take the task more seriously.
The Christie brief was filed in state Superior Court, in a suit brought by six couples who sued New Jersey for the right to marry in 2011. After the Supreme Courts June ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Actthe 1996 law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couplesthe New Jersey plaintiffs asked the superior court to allow gay marriage in the state to begin right away. They argue that civil unions are inherently unequal now that the Supreme Court has tossed the key component of DOMA. The feds are now granting benefits to gay spouses, but New Jerseys civil union law prevents gay partners from receiving those benefits.
Christies brief defends civil unions in three ways. First, it argues that the state can rationally restrict the label marriage to heterosexual unions because it is preserving the definition of the word. Second, it contends that its actually the feds who are now blocking gay equality by withholding benefits to civil union partners. And third, it claims that the state courts should move very cautiously when contemplating a major change in social institutionsall fine and well except that, as the state itself admits, calling a gay union a marriage isn't much of a change anymore. In fact, throughout the brief, whats most striking is that every last argument Christies administration makes, it then proceeds to blatantly contradict.
The brief starts by arguing that the states 2006 Civil Union Actpassed in response to a state court ruling in the same year that New Jersey had to either let gays wed or grant them all the attendant benefits of marriagehas a rational relationship to a compelling state interest, and is therefore constitutional. To reserve the name of marriage for heterosexual couples, says the brief, makes sense because altering the meaning of marriage would, in the words of the 2006 ruling, render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin. The definition of marriage has far-reaching social implications.
More at link
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 869 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chris Christie’s Legal Position on Gay Marriage Is Pure Nonsense (Original Post)
MNBrewer
Aug 2013
OP
Christie's rhetoric across the board comes in two flavors 'nonsense' and 'rude, nasty
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#1
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)1. Christie's rhetoric across the board comes in two flavors 'nonsense' and 'rude, nasty
petty nonsense'.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)2. Christie is dangerous
The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, albeit a very well-fed sheep.
When the time comes that Christie presents himself in the primary debates as a man of the people, everyone should be reminded that he ignored the wishes of the people of his own state when he vetoed equal rights for LGBTs.