Number Fourteen (Updated)

New Jersey. In case you missed it yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to grant a stay on the order of the Superior Court that marriages begin on Monday, 10/21, although it will hear arguments in January. The decision, which doesn't leave a lot of room for speculation on how the Court will ultimately rule, is a slap in the face as Chris Christie, although it does enable him to campaign during the 2016 primaries on the "activist judges" mantra. From the opinion:

The State presents three arguments to show that its appeal has a reasonable probability of success. First, the State claims that plaintiffs “will not be able to overcome the highest presumption of constitutional validity that attaches to statutory enactments.” Once again, Judge Jacobson did not strike down a statute. The Civil Union Act, while it may not see much use in the coming months, remains available for people who choose to use it. Even more important, though, the statute was presumptively valid “so long as” it provided full and equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Lewis, supra, 188 N.J. at 423. Based on recent events, the Civil Union Act no longer achieves that purpose.

Second, the State argues that plaintiffs’ “claims fail on federalism grounds.” Underlying part of this argument is the State’s interpretation of Windsor, which, as noted above, is at odds with the practice of the federal government. Although the State claims that the federal government must “defer to the states in matters concerning domestic relations,” federal agency rulings are following New Jersey’s rule about who may marry.

Third, the State claims that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim must fail because “the State’s action is not legally cognizable.” The State argues that it has followed Lewis and provided “same-sex couples with all State marriage benefits,” and that it cannot be responsible for “federal bureaucrats that … refused to extend federal benefits.”

Lewis is not limited in that way. The decision recognized that it could not alter federal law, Lewis, supra, 188 N.J. at 459 n.25, yet at the same time directed the State to provide same-sex couples “the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples,” id. at 463 (emphasis added) Lewis left it to the Legislature to revise State law in a way that satisfied the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Id. at 457-62. And the State acted in response. It enacted the Civil Union Act and created a structure that allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil union but not to marry. See N.J.S.A. 37:1-28 to -36. That structure today provides the framework for decisions by federal authorities. The State’s statutory scheme effectively denies committed same-sex partners in New Jersey the ability to receive federal benefits now afforded to married partners. The trial court therefore correctly found cognizable action by the State.

We conclude that the State has not shown a reasonable probability or likelihood of success on the merits.

Emphasis added.

Translation: Gov. Christie, stop wasting everyone's time with this.

Here's the full decision:

GSE v. Dow - Supreme Court Opinion on Stay Motion

Update: And right on cue, here's Brian Brown foaming at the mouth about "activist judges." Here's the part that demonstrates that not only does Brown not understand the American system of government, he doesn't like it:

The definition of marriage is something that should be decided by the people of New Jersey themselves, not by any judge or court. New Jerseyans should have the right to vote on this issue just as voters in nearly three dozen other states have done.

Sorry, Brian -- who ever told you that the majority has the right to vote on the fundamental rights of minorities? It doesn't, and never did. Which is why all the referendums passed in those "nearly three dozen" states are going to be going down the toilet in short order -- they have no validity when measured against the Constitution. You've heard of the Constitution? That's where you find the Bill of Rights.