This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
I think not. Court cases, especially ones decided by federal or state supreme courts, are usually deserving of their own page. This case is also notable because it's outcome is irregular. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not really irregular, given New Jersey's general support of marrige/civil unions. The more interesting thing about it is that one side ruled in favor, with the other wanting to rule "more in favor". JONJONAUG 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The comments made by the justices at the oral argument appear to have been added to the article Same-sex marriage in New Jersey shortly thereafter, and have since been moved here. Now that the case has been decided, I believe that these comments are irrelevant and somewhat distracting, and should be removed completely. What the justices said in their opinions should now stand as their official positions. I could see retaining a comment if there was an inconsistency between what a particular justice said and how they voted, but that does not appear to the case. Therefore, if there is no objection, I will remove this material. Neutron 20:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
