Lambda Legal Opposes Motion to Delay Marriages in New Jersey Case

Lambda Legal clients Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden with their two children.
Lambda Legal Opposes Motion to Delay Marriages in New Jersey Case
October 4, 2013
Comments

Today, in response to the State's motion for a stay of last week's Superior Court decision in favor of marriage equality, Lambda Legal filed a brief on behalf of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's statewide LGBT advocacy organization, and six same-sex couples who seek the freedom to marry, asking the Court to deny the motion.

Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director of Lambda Legal, said:

The Attorney General is  making a last-ditch effort to delay the freedom to marry in New Jersey. We are confident that our arguments to win are very strong, and we know that any delay in allowing same-sex couples to marry is too dangerous for our clients and their families. We're going to do everything we can to make sure same-sex couples can begin making plans to marry starting on the date set by the court - October 21st.

Troy Stevenson, Executive Director of Garden State Equality, said:

Families in New Jersey should not be asked to wait even one more day. It is intolerable that the State of New Jersey continues to stand in the way of equality. I am actually offended that the State would attempt to claim the court is trying to override the intent of the democratically elected legislature, when that very body passed the freedom to marry through both chambers just last year.

Karen Nicholson-McFadden, plaintiff in the lawsuit along with her partner of over twenty years Marcye Nicholson-McFadden and their two children, said:

Last week, after eleven years of working with Lambda Legal, the Court finally ruled to let us get married, but the State of New Jersey continues to stand in the way. We are prepared to continue to fight, but we shouldn’t have to wait any longer.

From the brief:

Specifically, every day that same-sex couples cannot marry is a day they do not have--and risk permanently losing--vital benefits relating to their health, income, quality of life, personal and financial security, and family stability. In stark contrast, the State asserts no real hardships at all, let alone equities that compare.

Meet all the plaintiffs and their families.

Learn more about the case.

Read the press release.

Find us on Facebook

 
 

Authors

Browse Categories

Topics
States

Blog Archive