David, you're right that MD opened the door to gay marriage, notwithstanding the spin some conservative think tanks have put on the case to minimize damange. Heck, even the dissent agrees that the same rights afforded married couples must be given to homosexuals in "unions." The dissent is a dissent only on the grounds of semantics: What do we call this? The majority said the legislature should decide: "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." The state cannot determine whether same sex unions are in the best interests of the state, but, oh boy, it can name them.

Is anyone else as apathetic and bored about this issue as me? Sorry, I just don't care whether the 2% of the population that is gay chooses to "marry" their lovers - it doen't affect me, it doesn't affect my prospects at getting married, it doesn't nullify or modify my parents' marriage or anyone else's. I do think that the legal benefits of marriage should be conferred upon homosexuals committed to a lifelong partner, and frankly I don't think it's fair that cohabitation is enough to grant those benefits, while heterosexual cohabitating couples are denied them. Why not make homosexuals jump through the same legal hoops as everyone else, and apply for a [insert the word marriage here or not] license to receive those benefits? Yawn.

Just a note, but recognition of common law marriage (as Chuck refers to in "cohabitation is enough"), and the subsequent bestoal of marrital rights, has been abolished in most US jusiditions. NJ got rid of it in '39. Furhter, it was never enough under the common law to simply live together (as this commonly ran aground of fornication laws), but necessary to notoriously hold yourselves out as being husband and wife from the beginning of the time of the cohabitation.

Dr. Savage explains how the homosexual resigned in disgrace former governor of that state packed his court with homosexuals. Don't know if Dr.Savage is correct or not, but, courts should not be involved in the manufacture of basic laws. It was bad enough in the 1940's having the Masons/KKK rewriting the Constitution.

Jim McGreevey appointed three people to the Court, each of whom are married, and who have a combined 10 children between them. Savage should not be considered an expert in NJ politics.

I've not read the whole opinion, but I gather that whatever scheme the legislature develops, it wil require something akin to a marraige licensing process. Don't the other states require this as well? I can't imagine that "cohabiting is enough" because, as Seth points out, it never really has been.

Thanks for letting us know that he only appointed three jurists. By the way, how many children did this fellow have with his wife? Not that I am any expert on New Jersey either.