New Jersey Joins Massachusetts In Losing It's Collective Mind
Hugh Hewitt was watching for this opinion from the New Jersey State Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. Pardon me, I was studying, and this is my first foray onto the Internet today. Needless to say, I will stand by my opinion. Despite how the syllabus reads, the NJSC screwed up this decision:
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
If I may, your honor--I question where the right of marriage is enumerated within the New Jersey state constitution, or the United States Constitution, for that matter? Could someone point that out for me, please. And do not use the Ninth Amendment protections that have yet to be ruled on regarding marriage. It is non-existent, and should it be challenged through the courts, I have confidence the United States Supreme Court would feel the same way.
Marriage is not a right. For those that do not seem to grasp that concept, let me try to explain. Thomas and I were recently married. We were married in a Catholic Church, so using our marriage is not feasible. However, we recently had a friend of ours that did get married, and they opted not to have it done by a church, or a religious minister of sorts. He was married by a Justice of the Peace. Had that Justice, and others of the same sort, denied to marry him, where would his legal recourse be? He would have none. Why? Because marriage is not a right.
If we are denied a right, we have a level or legal recourse. Deny us the right to vote? We can file suit against the state. Deny us our right to worship whatever religion we choose, and again, we may file suit with against the government. A right has certain powers that can be executed to ensure the fulfillment of our rights. With marriage, there is none. Churches may refuse to marry certain individuals (whether from a lack of attending classes to understand what is expected of them, as Catholics do, or because they are homosexual). Churches have the ability to deny others such privileges. We went through the classes to ensure we could have our Church wedding.
The NJSC just added to the Pandora's Box unleashed by the gay rights groups around the country--the same one who proclaimed years ago that this issue was nowhere on their agenda. And on the heels of the Massachusetts decision, eighteen states--Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Utah--passed state constitutional amendments protecting marriage to be between one man and one woman. Those states have faced a stream of legal challenges from various groups, and all those opponents state that the people are denying their clients a "right to marry.
Until there is an appeal to the dfederal courts regarding the misconception of a right to marriage, this is a moot point. It is to be interpreted not as a right, but a privilege; a contract between two people swearing that they will be together "'til death do they part." That contract, like any others, can be terminated. But our rights cannot be so. The government would have to pass an amendment to revoke a right that is enumerated, and the Supreme Court would have to overturn precedent set that establishes a right, such as abortion. A state supreme court does not have the right to inject a right into the constitution without the people's say-so. The people of New Jersey have not said that they are for or against same-sex marriage. And that is where the power truly resides; within the people's hands, throught he proper democratic process.
I cannot believe that the NJSC would make such a foolish decision. It proves that, once again, it will fall to the people to override this decision, and it further reinforces the necessity for marriage amendments throughout the nation to protect this precious institution.
Marcie
Hugh Hewitt was watching for this opinion from the New Jersey State Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. Pardon me, I was studying, and this is my first foray onto the Internet today. Needless to say, I will stand by my opinion. Despite how the syllabus reads, the NJSC screwed up this decision:
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
If I may, your honor--I question where the right of marriage is enumerated within the New Jersey state constitution, or the United States Constitution, for that matter? Could someone point that out for me, please. And do not use the Ninth Amendment protections that have yet to be ruled on regarding marriage. It is non-existent, and should it be challenged through the courts, I have confidence the United States Supreme Court would feel the same way.
Marriage is not a right. For those that do not seem to grasp that concept, let me try to explain. Thomas and I were recently married. We were married in a Catholic Church, so using our marriage is not feasible. However, we recently had a friend of ours that did get married, and they opted not to have it done by a church, or a religious minister of sorts. He was married by a Justice of the Peace. Had that Justice, and others of the same sort, denied to marry him, where would his legal recourse be? He would have none. Why? Because marriage is not a right.
If we are denied a right, we have a level or legal recourse. Deny us the right to vote? We can file suit against the state. Deny us our right to worship whatever religion we choose, and again, we may file suit with against the government. A right has certain powers that can be executed to ensure the fulfillment of our rights. With marriage, there is none. Churches may refuse to marry certain individuals (whether from a lack of attending classes to understand what is expected of them, as Catholics do, or because they are homosexual). Churches have the ability to deny others such privileges. We went through the classes to ensure we could have our Church wedding.
The NJSC just added to the Pandora's Box unleashed by the gay rights groups around the country--the same one who proclaimed years ago that this issue was nowhere on their agenda. And on the heels of the Massachusetts decision, eighteen states--Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Utah--passed state constitutional amendments protecting marriage to be between one man and one woman. Those states have faced a stream of legal challenges from various groups, and all those opponents state that the people are denying their clients a "right to marry.
Until there is an appeal to the dfederal courts regarding the misconception of a right to marriage, this is a moot point. It is to be interpreted not as a right, but a privilege; a contract between two people swearing that they will be together "'til death do they part." That contract, like any others, can be terminated. But our rights cannot be so. The government would have to pass an amendment to revoke a right that is enumerated, and the Supreme Court would have to overturn precedent set that establishes a right, such as abortion. A state supreme court does not have the right to inject a right into the constitution without the people's say-so. The people of New Jersey have not said that they are for or against same-sex marriage. And that is where the power truly resides; within the people's hands, throught he proper democratic process.
I cannot believe that the NJSC would make such a foolish decision. It proves that, once again, it will fall to the people to override this decision, and it further reinforces the necessity for marriage amendments throughout the nation to protect this precious institution.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:07 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent blog. Before ruling on a "right" there should be a decision if that right exists. Our protected "rights" are intentionally limited as intended by our founding fathers. I wish the courts would understand that.
Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home