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.
On Election Day 2004, 11 states — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah — had referendums on the ballot for a ban on homosexual “marriage,” and all 11 voted for the ban. John Kerry won Michigan (ban passed 59%-41%) and Oregon (57%-42%). See the map and the infamous “moral values” poll.
I believe this was a direct result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring the state’s ban on homosexual “marriage” unconstitutional, opening the door to a perverted form of marriage. Call it “homophobia,” ignorance, or just plain common sense, the people of the states — even states that Kerry carried — said no, not here.
Incidentally, Deval Patrick, a Democrat who’ll likely become governor of Massachusetts, will try to repeal a law that prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would not be recognized in their home state. Unless Massachusetts amends its constitution and states without bans write and pass laws to ban the so-called marriages, it looks like that state will become the “Las Vegas” of homosexual “marriage.”
By the way, did you know that Massachusetts liberal John Kerry supports a state constitutional amendment to ban so-called same-sex marriage?
We the people will have an opportunity next Tuesday to elect politicians whose values are in line with our own. Social conservatives and Christians nationwide need to get to the polls and vote for candidates committed to protecting marriage.
I don’t know about you, but I’m praying for a backlash. 
Addendum: Star Parker on the New Jersey decision: “Conservatives understand that this movement is about rewriting our cultural script, and redefining our values, as it is about legal technicalities and rights and benefits.”
Kevin McCullough on why gays hate marriage:
“Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.”
