Excerpted from Child Born to Lesbian Couple Will Have 2 Mothers Listed, by Laura Mansnerus, published Nov 16, 2006, by The New York Times:

A lesbian couple in South Jersey won court approval this week to have both of their names listed as parents on the birth certificate of their newborn, and the attorney general’s office said it will no longer oppose such applications.

The decision, in Family Court in Burlington County, stems from an Oct. 25 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual couples. The court gave the Legislature 180 days either to bring gay couples within the state’s marriage laws or establish a parallel system of civil unions.

“This couple was treated exactly the same way as a married couple under the law of New Jersey,” said Stephen Hyland, the lawyer for the women. “So no matter what New Jersey chooses to do legislatively, the couples have the same rights.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

Excerpted from Court Halts N.C. School District Policy Used to Prohibit Student from Distributing “Day of Truth” Cards, published Nov 2, 2006, by Alliance Defense Fund:

A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Sampson County Board of Education and Midway High School officials from enforcing two policies used to prohibit a student from distributing “Day of Truth” message cards to other students. Officials prohibited the student, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, from distributing the cards outside of class time during the event April 27 and suspended him from school.

“Christian students are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as other students. No student should be suspended for exercising those rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “The court’s ruling today prohibits the school district, while the case moves forward, from censoring a student flyer simply because it has religious content.”

“It’s clearly unconstitutional when students participating in the Day of Silence, which supports the homosexual agenda, observe their event by distributing flyers and so forth, but a student with an opposite perspective is prevented from communicating it during non-instructional time,” Cortman added.

Continue reading at Alliance Defense Fund…

Excerpted from The Auditor, published Oct 29, 2006, by The Star Ledger:

A Republican lawmaker’s call to impeach all seven members of the state Supreme Court because of its decision on gay marriage apparently didn’t go over too well with the justices.

The Auditor was told a judiciary staffer paid a call to Republican staff offices a day after the decision to voice irritation at Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R-Morris), who had issued the statement. During the visit the staffer “joked” that state law prohibits threatening judges, and since Merkt didn’t make the comments on the Assembly floor, he wasn’t immune from prosecution…

“The court doesn’t like the fact that I am calling them out,” [Merkt] said. “I’m delighted I got their attention.”

Continue reading at NJ.com…

Excerpted from Media Downplay New Jersey’s Gay Marriage Ruling as Election Day Approaches, by Robert Knight, published Oct , 2006, by Townhall:

The major media are soft-selling the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision ordering “gay marriage” or its equivalent, lest the ruling become a fire bell in the night for social conservatives two weeks before the election.

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric gave the story 21 seconds, talking about “committed same-sex couples” over footage of a cute lesbian couple with cute children, and two distinguished-looking older men standing on a woodsy balcony. She even managed to throw in a bit of sympathetic verbiage about “committed same-sex couples”.

Important questions were left unasked: What gives the court the authority to order legislators to change the law? What if the legislators don’t do so? And, what about those recent court decisions upholding marriage laws in New York, California, Washington and Georgia?

Continue reading at Townhall…

Excerpted from On Equal Terms, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 26, 2006:

…One of the most striking aspects of the New Jersey decision is the fact that not a single justice held marriage to be an essentially heterosexual institution that deserves a privileged status as recognized in law. This points to a basic social revolution that is sweeping through the nation’s elites — especially on college and university campuses, and law schools, and in the media.

We are living in an age of ambitious and open revolt against civilization’s most central institution. The headlines of the newspapers will indicate that the New Jersey decision is significant. Only a relative few seem to understand that this amounts to a redefinition of human society. The social regulation of sexuality and the legal recognition of marriage are fundamental to our civilization and way of life. We are witnessing the destruction of an institution fundamental to human happiness and well-being — and all in the name of a radical conception of human rights.

Note this: These plaintiffs did not charge that their rights to marry were violated by the U.S. Constitution — but that charge is surely coming. In short order a case like this will arrive at the US Supreme Court. This is why the Marriage Protection Amendment is so urgently needed and why the battle must be fought in every state.

We are reminded once again that we face a stark set of alternatives: Either we will define marriage for the judges, or the judges will define marriage for us.

Continue reading…

“Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our state constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred the heterosexual couples from civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.

“Now the legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs request does not end here. Their next appeal must be to their fellow citizens, whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”

In the back row, left to right:

• Justice John E. Wallace (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey
• Justice James R. Zazzali (joined the minority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman
• Justice Barry T. Albin (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey
• Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey

In the front row, left to right:

• Justice Virginia Long (joined the minority opinion), nominated to serve on the Supreme Court by Governor Christine Todd Whitman
• Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz (joined the minority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman and re-nominated to Chief Justice by secretly homosexual Governor James McGreevey; she retired the day after this decision
• Justice Jaynee LaVecchia (joined the majority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Excerpt from New Jersy Supreme Court syllabus:

“Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”

Four justices joined the majority opinion. Take no heart, because the other three justices joined the minority opinion calling for FULL homosexual “marriage.” That’s 7-0 for marriage as God ordained it.

New Jersey’s highest court has ordered legislators to institute state-honored homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” within 180 days.

Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.
— Proverbs 14:34

Indeed, today’s decision is a disgrace to our nation.

From Senior Counsel Glen Lavy at Alliance Defense Fund:

“If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other ‘unions’ makes marriage meaningless. It’s critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only.”

Excerpted from Amid Debate Over Rights, Number of Gay Judges Rising, by Joan Biskupic, published Oct 17, 2006, in USA Today:

When a case testing whether Oregon should allow same-sex marriages came before the state’s Supreme Court in 2004, one of the court’s seven justices quietly wrestled with a vexing question:

Should he, a gay man, take part in the case? Or did part of Rives Kistler‘s identity — his sexual orientation — mean that he should sit it out, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest?

Kistler, a former Oregon assistant attorney general and the first openly gay member of the state’s highest court, consulted an ethics book to decide “whether it was permissible for me to sit on the case.” Then he checked with a judicial ethics panel, which told him it would not be a conflict.

When Oregon’s high court heard the dispute, Kistler was on the bench. Four months later, he joined a unanimous decision as the court ruled that same-sex marriages were not allowed under Oregon law. He says his sexual orientation wasn’t a factor in his decision, and he agreed with the other justices that any changes in Oregon’s marriage laws had to come from legislators, not judges…