Excuse me, but isn't this about following the proper appeal process? Is the Supreme Court supposed to rule on every municipal speeding ticket appeal too?

I read the order and what is interesting is not the majority ruling that the matter should be developed at the trial level or the declination to rule as to the constitutionality of the civil union law.

What is interesting is the dissent which telegraphs a perspective that three members may view gay marriage as a constitutional guarantee or right.

The legislature needs to watch this case carefully and analyze the deficiencies of the civil union law, whether real or perceived and correct what may need correcting. Constitutional issues should not be ultimately determined due to a failure to fix potholes.

The majority of people in American could care less who is sleeping with who, or what. It is simply no longer an issue. Humans will be tolerant or intolerant of the behavior of others as their own morals dictate. Some still sneer at youngsters living together "out of wedlock" and always will. You can't control how people think about anything they might disapprove of. No though police in America.
.
Marriage, on the other hand, is the union of a man and a woman. That is it's definition and that definition of that WORD does not change just because some people just WANT it to. The word belongs to the Church and has religious meanings the government is not ALLOWED to tinker with , by separation of church and state constitutional language.
.
Domestic partnerships. Any two people or can form a legal "partnership" any time they like. A partnership is a contract. If they specify in that contract that one is the heir of the other, or specify custody issues, on any issue really, contracts stand up in court.
.
Businesses are not required to pay for health care for dependents of their employees. Many businesses can't afford to pay for health care even for their employees. Each employer, be they public or private CHOOSES what benefits to offer as THEY see fit.
.
Health care is NOT the responsibility of an employer. It is the responsibility of the employee to purchase what health care they want. Many folk opt out of employer health care and shop for a cheaper plan or they buy into a spouses plan IF THE EMPLOYER offers that.
.
What the gay community fails to appreciate is any law that stipulates "any two people can declare themselves a domestic partnership and by doing so obtain all the rights and privileges offered by ANYONE to married couples" opens the door to fraud.
.
Let's say I'm a widow. Another widow and I decide "Hey! If we declare ourselves domestic partners" then we'll be able to get free health care, or get a tax break." Now these ladies have no intention of "sleeping" with each other, and they may have kids as a motivating factor to get the one ladies kids on the other ladies insurance, thereby defrauding the employer.
.
Or let's say I am a single state worker who has a long term roommate and is not really looking to "get married" any time soon. Those two roommates decide to do a "domestic partnership" so they have access to health benefits paid for by the tax payer. A few years later one meets the right man, so the girls dissolve their "domestic partnership" and the one wanders off to get married. Fraud again. What is the government to do? Require they perform a homosexual sex act in the court to prove they are REALLY gay?
.
It is difficult, probably, for the gay community to appreciate the rejection of any "domestic partnership" being considered the SAME as marriage actually has nothing to do with their sexual preferences at all.
,
The author said "Children will continue to live with an imprimatur of inferiority, psychologically devastated because they can't marry or because their same-sex parents cannot marry." Well, we have a bunch of gay kids (anyone under 30 is a kid to AARP members) running around within our larger group of Boy Scouts (yes, we don't give a hoot they are gay) and they are all accepted by their straight peers with no psychological devastation in sight.
.
There will be others not as tolerant but that's their problem, not the governments. It is NOT the role of Government to sort out religious issues. If someone feels being gay is a perversion before God, that is their right. If they have the "live and let live" attitude of most of us that's fine. But you can't "force" folk to accept what they don't believe in. It just does not WORK.
.
The gay community brings this up every election cycle. NEVER do they acknowledge the fact that "gay marriage" is an major highway to fraudulent misuse of taxpayer money and a method by which people can abuse the generosity of employers who DO offer health care access to dependents.
.
As much as a Lion might wish they were a Tiger, they simply are not. Both Lions and Tigers are pretty cool, one is not "better" than the other. But they are not the same thing and can never be.
.
The gay community needs to come up with their own word for their relationship. Marriage is already defined... man/woman. The best thing the gay community leaders could do for their members is to come up with a standard "domestic partnership" contract that would act like a prenuptial agreement for all gay partnerships to use as a contract model.
.
Marriage is a contract with predefined "rules" in the absence of a pre-nup, so the gay community could develop their own "standards" to protect their community members who just rush into relationships without considering what the legal options are when they choose to walk away from it.

Gov. Christie's decision to "break with tradition" and not renominate Wallace is the only reason the court ruled as it did. Wallace would have most likely sided with the "liberal side" and pushed the issue to 4-3.

But what if they join a church that allow homosexuality? Would they still not be allowed to get married and receive equal rights that way?

The cowardness of this court is unbelievable.

We older people should be setting a good example for the youth,,,,but are we? I would hardly stand by while my grandchildren are taught to think homosexuality is an option! If one is inflicted with said persona, then so be it,,,,but it should never be promoted as a normal way of life. The growth of homosexuality is directly related to those father's who chose never to bond with their sons. Divorce was difficult on all of us born after 1955ish. And we are all now paying that price,,,but offering up a "progressive" community because there are lost souls, without relationships with their dads, is not the answer.