Posted by
Jay Noble on Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:25:55 PM
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution, written in the 19th century, affords homosexual couples who so desire the right to the state granting their a status equivalent to marriage or marital status itself. The Court deigned to grant the state legislature 180 days to amend New Jersey law to comply with its ruling.
It is now an old story for the judicial branch to concoct out of thin air constitutional "rights" consistent with the prevailing elite attitudes. The Federal constitution and those of the 50 states contain sufficiently elastic words and clauses that the imaginative judge can manufacture all sort of new, trendy rights of the kind to delight the chattering classes, Hollywood, and liberals in general. The intent of the framers of the document in question or the views of the public who live under it are not relevant to liberal judges, who view themselves as the avant guard of societal evolution (to borrow a phrase), free from the tawdry biases of the masses, while breathing new life into tired old documents drafted by narrow minded white males.
It should be obvious that only liberal judges are capable of the colossal egos necessary to issue such rulings as made by the New Jersey court, and before it the courts in Vermont and Massachusetts. Great gall is needed to discard over 5000 years of human history and the tenets of every major religion and conclude that legislative restriction of marriage to a union of male and female is "irrational." It should be understood clearly that rulings such as the made by the New Jersey Supreme Court have absolutely NO basis in our history, NO basis in the common law, NO basis in the historical record relating to the drafting of the state constitution, and NO basis in the commonly shared values of the public. The decision is not one of law but a coup d’ e-tat masked as a court case.
The entire premise behind such decisions is the notion that legislation cannot be the product of the moral views held by the majority. This is an argument utterly subversive of republican government. Virtually every issue, even regarding the tax code, has an element of moral content, of what behavior should be encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited. The argument that a law cannot regulate or proscribe conduct based on the moral views of the majority emasculates representative government. "Rights" imposed on an emasculated majority will never enjoy the respect or support of the people. Such rights will be under consistent attacks and attempts to curtain and eventually undo them. Witness the never ending conflict regarding abortion.
Sometimes it seems that everyone believes that courts are infallible and that their decisions are to be enforced without question. This is an attitude foreign to our forefathers. They would recognize tyranny for what it is, whether practiced by a king, parliament, or an imperial judiciary. The executive and legislative branches of government violate their oaths of office when they do not take action to reign in rogue courts. The constitutions of every state and the Federal constitution provide ample tools to trump a judiciary acting illegitimately. The public must insist that their elected representatives protect the public’s right that legislation reflect the moral values of the majority. Should the other branches of government fail in their duty, the day will soon come when well meaning patriots conclude that a higher loyalty dictates outright defiance of a tyrannical judiciary.