I know I'm supposed to have something to say about this.
But it takes a frickin' law degree to dissect this stuff, and I ain't got one.
Luckily, this guy does, as does this one. Oh, and him. And, him.
She has a law degree, and she'll talk about it more later. Ooh, and Ace is be-lawyered, too, and he's quoting another lawyer.
Hey, these guys are lawyers and they haven't said anything yet. Boooo!
So, you can click through and read about nine pages of lawyering, if you want, or you can take my word for it that the N.J. Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage on the citizens of N.J., but stopped shy of requiring the legislature to call it "marriage." Whatever that means. Every link above has a slightly different idea, but that seems to be the gist.
Gee, wouldn't this all be easier if we could vote on this kind of thing?
Political implications? Big reminder to the social conservative base and other folks worried about the judiciary that they don't cotton to courts making these decisions for them. The judges issue has always been important to social conservatives in this cycle, but it's been so far from the news cycle ("Hey, Stephens might retire in a couple years!"), that it was impossible for operatives to credibly emphasize it.
Never-fails judges issue? Meet the news cycle. Now, y'all stand real close to each other for the next couple weeks in a state with a hotly contested Senate race, and grab a whole lot of national headlines that will remind the cranky base of the one issue that Republicans have actually, convincingly, resoundingly delivered on for them. Thanks so much.
-- Karl