Friday, October 27, 2006

"We Have Decided"

"We have decided" you WILL have gay marriage, so stated the New Jersey Supreme Court.
That reminds me that "No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the Court is sitting," to modify an observation by Judge Gideon Tucker in the 19th century.
Once again the will of the elite is imposed upon the befuddled citizens; this time in New Jersey where the State Supreme Court has declared the right to same-sex marriage to be the will of the elite and therefore binding upon the hapless citizens of New Jersey Four more state supreme courts are considering similar cases and will impose upon the general populace their versions of the traditional meaning of marriage, the English language and the construction of society.
When the United States Supreme Court some years ago found some bizarre rights in the "emanations and penumbras" of the shadows of the United States Constitution, I am sure they believed they were just relieving us citizens of the messy process of debating and legislating on contentious social issues that are better left to the great minds of the elites. But the torrent of judicial activism on every level since then must even horrify those who started it. Read the contorted logic of New Jersey’s best minds:
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same sex-partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." They then rule that, "denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose." Then turning around again, "http://howappealing.law.com/102506.htmlthe Court (The Supreme Court of New Jersey) holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes."
http://howappealing.law.com/LewisVsHarris.pdfFirst the Court finds it necessary to destroy the plain English meaning of the word "marriage" which in any dictionary is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The Federal and State Constitutions were written with this plain English meaning and not with a liberal political agenda of 2006.
Second, they note that in the Constitution they "cannot find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage," but nevertheless a ban "can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." Astounding, it is not there but " we have decided" to decree it.
Third, giving "benefits to married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose." Using the term "married heterosexual" is part of the twisting of the English language, but the corker is that marriage as it has always been known, now has no "legitimate government purpose." What are "legitimate government purposes?" Are things like controlling leaf burning, licensing hairdressers, banning second-hand smoke and, of course, Eminent Domain by which they can take the house of the powerless and award it to the politically connected for a parking lot, "legitimate government purposes"? But, heaven forfend, that defining what marriage is, has been and should remain, be a "legitimate government" concern.
Fourth, the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to recognize the arbitrariness of the definitions and social pronouncements used in their decision. If the definition of marriage is wide open and evolving, why do they limit their decision to "committed same-sex partners?" What constitutes a commitment, a week, month or what is acceptable? But wait, why have they limited their decision to "same-sex partners" without defining whether "partners," plural, can be three, four or more? Then we come up against the arbitrary use of "same-sex"; surely in their reading of the constitution there can be no prohibition against "inter-species" sexual partnerships, say between "Ralph and Fido?"
Oh, it is all so confusing! I see why we can’t relegate these important issues to the messy democratic process. If the common people get involved they will drag in the mores of Western Civilization, morality, religion, social history and all sorts of other irrelevant things better left to the elite minds of the moment. Sometimes I feel like it is all a plot, that when the U.S. Supreme Court released all those "emanations and penumbras" into the atmosphere years ago, they were something like radiation rays that infected all the best minds causing spasms of hysteria and paranoia. But sometimes, I don’t feel these great minds are better than mine.
Remember, it was only two years ago that the best elite minds told Ohioans that Ohio did not need a "Marriage Amendment" to the Ohio Constitution. Who is sorry now!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home