October 2006

Last week, New Jersey’s highest court ruled that two men and two women are entitled to the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman. Despite the media hype, the court did not find that homosexuals have the right to marriage as it currently exists in law. (Source – Gross-out warning!) Technicalities aside, the decision is just one more step toward the perversion and mockery of marriage.

Former staffer for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and current Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton reminds us about what happened the last time liberals nabbed a big “win” in the courts in his latest column.

It doesn’t reflect a Christian’s view of marriage. It’s a states’ rights view, but it’s good enough for me at the moment. In “N.J. gay marriage ruling will hurt Democrats,” he writes:

It must be said here that a solid argument can be made that committed same-sex couples deserve societal recognition. Many societies, across history, have made some sort of allowance for gay and lesbian relationships…So with an appropriate Burkean perspective, conservatives shouldn’t get too riled up if local jurisdictions – such as, say, the City of San Francisco – decide to carve out space for gay and lesbian couples.

But that’s not what happened in New Jersey. In that state of nearly 9 million people, liberal-activist litigators went straight to the courts; they calculated, accurately, that they would get their way with elite judges. The irony of this case is that polls show that most New Jerseyans support civil unions, if not gay marriage. Which is to say, if gay leaders had been willing to work through the small-”d” democratic process, they might well have achieved at least some of their goals.

The whole column is worth reprinting here, but there’s the copyright thing. Before you comment on this post, please read the whole thing.

So-called victories in the courtroom don’t translate to victories on the ground, as Democrats should well know by now. Those with short memories forget that when the issue of homosexual “marriage” was presented to the people — and not judges — the people rejected it outright, without equivocation.

[click to continue…]