Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<B><I>BREAKING NEWS:</b></i> <b>NJ Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill But Votes Short of Veto-Proof Majority</b>
The state Senate on Feb. 13 passed legislation to authorize gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey to marry, despite Gov. Chris Christie's clear intent to veto the bill.
The Senate passed the bill, S-1, after less than an hour of debate. The tally was 24 to 16 ' three votes shy of the 27 needed to override a veto.
The vote was largely along party lines. Republicans Jennifer Beck of Monmouth County and Diane Allen of Burlington County voted for the bill, while Democrats Ronald Rice of Essex County and Jefferson Van Drew of Cape May County voted against it.
An Assembly vote is scheduled for Feb. 16.
The Senate action came hours before Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, signed legislation making hers the seventh state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
New Jersey's bill ' known as The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act ' would replace the current system of civil unions enacted five years ago. It would require state and local government to authorize same-sex marriages but would not compel religious institutions to perform them.
The civil union law was the Legislature's response to the state Supreme Court's mandate ' in Lewis v. Harris , 188 N.J. 415 (2006) ' that same-sex couples be afforded the same legal protections as married heterosexuals. But the critics of the law, notably the Civil Union Review Commission, have found that rather than promoting equality, it “invites and encourages unequal treatment.” The Lewis plaintiffs' motion in aid of litigants' rights is pending in Superior Court.
Those criticisms were voiced in the floor debate on S-1.
“Civil union is vague and ill-defined,” said Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, a primary sponsor. “The recognition of civil unions stops at our state's borders. The state should not be in the business of sanctioning homophobia.”
“There are holes in the current law,” agreed Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, also a primary sponsor. “Civil unions are a failed experiment. They do not promote equality, they only prolong stigma.”
Sweeney said he made a mistake in 2010 when he abstained in a vote on the same issue, which gained only 14 votes in the Senate. The measure was never brought to the Assembly floor. “I know from experience that failing to do the right thing is a horrible feeling that eats at you every second of the day,” he said.
Christie is on record as opposed to same-sex marriage but supportive of civil unions. He has proposed that instead of legislation, the question be put on the ballot for a popular vote.
Toward that end, on Feb. 9 Sen. Christopher Bateman, R-Somerset, introduced a resolution for a constitutional amendment, SCR-88 . The ballot question would read: “Do you approve amending the Constitution to define 'marriage' as 'the legally recognized union of two persons of any gender?'” It avoided defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Both Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, D-Essex, have said they will not allow the question to go on the ballot, saying civil rights issues should not be up to a popular vote.
If the question should reach a ballot, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage expect that the campaign would cost millions on both sides. They point to the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8, which narrowly enacted a ban on same-sex marriage, overturning a law that briefly allowed it. Approximately $83 million was spent in that campaign, and millions of dollars would likely be spent in New Jersey.
On Feb. 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, upheld a lower court's decision saying Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees.
Weinberg said in the Senate debate: “New Jersey has never adopted equal protection and rights for people through initiative and referendum. In fact, the last time it was tried, in 1915, voters rejected a woman's right to vote by a 2-to-1 margin. Women didn't get the vote until the adoption and ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 ' achieved through Congressional action and ratified by the New Jersey Legislature, not the voters, in February of that year ' just about 92 years ago this month.”
Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, was the only opponent to speak. “Arguing against this emotionally charged bill is very difficult, unless you're in touch with reality and exclude political correctness,” he said. “The essential characteristic of marriage, the very definition of the term, is it involves one male and one female.”Come to your senses and uphold thousands of years of tradition,” said Cardinale.
Beck spoke briefly in favor of the measure, and said lawmakers had a duty to enforce civil rights. “Our role as elected representatives is to protect the rights of all of the people that live in this state,” she said.
Michael Booth writes for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of New York Family Law Monthly.
The state Senate on Feb. 13 passed legislation to authorize gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey to marry, despite Gov. Chris Christie's clear intent to veto the bill.
The Senate passed the bill, S-1, after less than an hour of debate. The tally was 24 to 16 ' three votes shy of the 27 needed to override a veto.
The vote was largely along party lines. Republicans Jennifer Beck of Monmouth County and Diane Allen of Burlington County voted for the bill, while Democrats Ronald Rice of Essex County and Jefferson Van Drew of Cape May County voted against it.
An Assembly vote is scheduled for Feb. 16.
The Senate action came hours before Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, signed legislation making hers the seventh state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Connecticut, Iowa,
New Jersey's bill ' known as The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act ' would replace the current system of civil unions enacted five years ago. It would require state and local government to authorize same-sex marriages but would not compel religious institutions to perform them.
The civil union law was the Legislature's response to the state
Those criticisms were voiced in the floor debate on S-1.
“Civil union is vague and ill-defined,” said Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, a primary sponsor. “The recognition of civil unions stops at our state's borders. The state should not be in the business of sanctioning homophobia.”
“There are holes in the current law,” agreed Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, also a primary sponsor. “Civil unions are a failed experiment. They do not promote equality, they only prolong stigma.”
Sweeney said he made a mistake in 2010 when he abstained in a vote on the same issue, which gained only 14 votes in the Senate. The measure was never brought to the Assembly floor. “I know from experience that failing to do the right thing is a horrible feeling that eats at you every second of the day,” he said.
Christie is on record as opposed to same-sex marriage but supportive of civil unions. He has proposed that instead of legislation, the question be put on the ballot for a popular vote.
Toward that end, on Feb. 9 Sen. Christopher Bateman, R-Somerset, introduced a resolution for a constitutional amendment, SCR-88 . The ballot question would read: “Do you approve amending the Constitution to define 'marriage' as 'the legally recognized union of two persons of any gender?'” It avoided defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Both Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, D-Essex, have said they will not allow the question to go on the ballot, saying civil rights issues should not be up to a popular vote.
If the question should reach a ballot, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage expect that the campaign would cost millions on both sides. They point to the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8, which narrowly enacted a ban on same-sex marriage, overturning a law that briefly allowed it. Approximately $83 million was spent in that campaign, and millions of dollars would likely be spent in New Jersey.
On Feb. 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, upheld a lower court's decision saying Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees.
Weinberg said in the Senate debate: “New Jersey has never adopted equal protection and rights for people through initiative and referendum. In fact, the last time it was tried, in 1915, voters rejected a woman's right to vote by a 2-to-1 margin. Women didn't get the vote until the adoption and ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 ' achieved through Congressional action and ratified by the New Jersey Legislature, not the voters, in February of that year ' just about 92 years ago this month.”
Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, was the only opponent to speak. “Arguing against this emotionally charged bill is very difficult, unless you're in touch with reality and exclude political correctness,” he said. “The essential characteristic of marriage, the very definition of the term, is it involves one male and one female.”Come to your senses and uphold thousands of years of tradition,” said Cardinale.
Beck spoke briefly in favor of the measure, and said lawmakers had a duty to enforce civil rights. “Our role as elected representatives is to protect the rights of all of the people that live in this state,” she said.
Michael Booth writes for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.