Can Tony marry AJ now?

From yesterday's convoluted NJ Supreme Court decision:

The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships.

So under the same logic if Carmela were to, I dunno, swim with the fishes, could Tony then marry AJ so they can - as a same-sex "couple" living under the same roof - take part in the same rights as other couples in New Jersey?  It doesn't matter that they can't procreate, right? 

There is, I am sure "no rational basis" for recognizing incestuous relationships that involve minors but if 2 adult citizens just happen to be related and wanna shack up - whether heterosexual or homosexual - why should they be deprived the host of benefits and privileges afforded to others under "marriage".  Even if it is a heterosexual incestuous relationship and they pop out a couple of 'tards, wouldn't the family be strengthened by the freak parents entering a legally recognized marriage rather than separating and stigmatizing them?  It's just behavior - quit trying to apply your puritanical, moralistic, religion-based biases on our populations you damn theocrats!  Why should the poor citizens of NJ be limited to finding a mate from the pool of non-relations in the state?  Where's the justice?

In fact, it seems like the single citizens of NJ really got screwed here so why don't we just have the entire populace line up like in gym class and count off 1...2....1....2....1...2......and we'll just extend marriage's benefits and privileges to everyone.  All 1's find another 1 and all 2's find another 2.  If there's an odd man (or woman) out, ship 'em to Delaware.  Fair is fair.

BORU

Comments

[RAM]

I'm confused -- isn't the will of the people a "rational basis" for sustaining the traditional notion of marriage? I mean, if the citizens of NJ want to maintain that "marriage" (& all its benefits & privileges) can only be enjoyed between a man and a woman, isn't that enough? What country do we live in?

Also, how can a reasoned jurist use the terms "benefits and privileges" interchangeably with "civil rights"? Am I to believe that married people enjoy MORE "civil rights" than I do, as an unmarried person?