Yet Another Reason to Hate New Jersey
The New Jersey Court of Errors - yeah, the same jokers who think it’s OK to ignore election laws to get Frank Lautenberg back in the Senate - has joined the Kool-Aid drinkers and unanimously invented a “right” to gay marriage - though they’re split 4-3 on whether or not the state has to call it that. In the fine New Jersey fashion, the court generously gave the Legislature permission to violate its own constitution for 180 days. Good luck amending the Constitution within that time frame.
If there were any doubt remaining as to whether or not Virginia would go ahead and pass the marriage amendment New Jersey needs and we don’t, those doubts just went up in smoke. I’ve been expecting it to pass all along, but at this stage I’d be very surprised if it did not pass by a comfortable double-digit margin. On the upside, maybe the Repubs won’t lose the House and the Senate after all.
Ace has more. Meanwhile, Brutal Hugger, knee-jerk as ever, manages to get upset at the Court of Errors for not being knee-jerk enough. I’m not kidding.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
NJ court poised to rule on gay marriage
…
New Jersey could become the nation’s gay wedding chapel should the state’s highest court rule in fav…
October 26th, 2006 at 10:39 am
There are plenty of reasons to hate NJ but this ain’t one of them.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:55 am
The court should remember that in America, “equal protection” really means “equal protection for whoever the majority thinks deserves equal protection.” Shame on them. Or shame on America … depending on what you think of equal protection as a principal.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:01 am
SU: that’s what you say now, when the Supreme Soviet issues a lawless edict that happened to produce a political result you favor. Will you say the same when their next edict doesn’t?
Phil: like democracy in general, “equal protection for whoever the majority thinks deserves equal protection” is a lousy system, but it sure beats the alternatives. Unless, of course, you are confident that the dictator, or in this case the Supreme Soviet, will always use its oligargic powers to advance agendas you support. If you are that confident, perhaps a benevolent dictatorship or oligarchy is preferable to democracy.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
They do that all the time. i’m used to it.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Iceberg, schmeissberg - I like the way the chairs are arranged on the deck.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Or, you know, the process is broken anyway. May as well not sweat when it does something right.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how gays don’t have equal protection under the marriage laws.
Gays are able to marry anyone of the opposite sex who (a) isn’t currently married (b) is of the appopriate age and (c) isn’t consanguinous. That’s exactly the same as straights. Hard to argue that the law isn’t being applied equally.
What’s being cloaked under the guise of “equal protection” is the demand for a right that has never existed in history.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Marriage is a contract between two people co-signed by the state. Although I would vote “Yes” on a citizens’ initiative to legalize same-sex marriage I see the point of view of those who say that such a citizens’ initiative is the only way it should be done. I do not see the point of view of those who claim that it threatens traditional marriage. The biggest threats to my marriage, lately, have been art galleries and antique shops. Once a month my wife has to bring something home to hang on our very expensively replastered and painted walls or to sit on our likewise very expensively restored 70-year old hardwood floors. We get into fights about it and sulk for days. (I don’t know how much truth there is to the stereotype that art galleries and antique shops are run by gays. Mostly they look like ’70s hippies to me.)
October 29th, 2006 at 3:12 am
They sure didn’t go far enough. They should have imposed it on Virginia, too!
October 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
The New Jersey court actually stated that no citizen has a right to marry. They just figured that if the government is going to offer it to straights, then under the equal protection clause, it must be offered to gays.
Because, you know, homosexual individuals of the opposite sex can’t marry. Wait…
The court opinion is a pretty pathetic read.