Posted by
JDComments on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:58:14 PM
Another Court, this time in New Jersey, has decided that the civil rights of Gays is violated if they cannot marry or enter into some other form of union. My question is, has been, and will remain, what civil right is it, and why is it applicable to gays, but I assume not to polygamists, or people who want to marry their a dolphin [there was someone who actually wanted to] , or any other permutation on a theme that you can think of?
In declaring this civil right, the NJ judges found no reason that Gays should be denied the right to marry, as opposed to New York, which found the institution of marriage between a man and a woman as fulfilling a beneficial function for the state. I guess they have not seen the studies from Europe, where in the aftermath of the legalization of Gay marriage there has been an explosion in out of wedlock births as traditional marriage has lost the imprimatur it has had for centuries. Or all those studies in this country which conclude that a traditional household is the healthiest to raise children in. Instead, once again an activist court has ignored data which argues against Gay marriage, and invented from whole cloth a right which applies to Homosexual and Heterosexual couples [I guess the number two has a mystical meaning for the judiciary, but nothing else does] but presumably not any other combination of partners, at least not yet. As a Conservative, I naturally defend the sanctity of traditional marriage, but the truly troubling aspect of this is the justification by deference to civil rights. If a state legislature wants to bestow the right of marriage to Gays, fine, let them. But by devising new rights the judges are creating a situation where the law of unintended consequences can literally run riot. This is Liberalism at its worst, devising and imposing changes on society by fiat, with the best [?]of intentions but usually the worst of results. Where it will lead is unknown, but if something isn't done to rein in judicial activists, don't bet against those Dolphin nuptials .