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.”
{ 8 comments }
Hey, I live in New Mexico, and I wonder why my state is highlighted extra bright on your map?
Thanks,
Louise
This is a prime illustration of the utmost urgency when it comes time to vote on the 7th. The Liberals’ juggernaut drive toward totalitarian rule by judges and lawyers, their stupid- and often sympathetic- attitudes concerning our Muslim and Communist enemies who are sworn to destroy us, and all the ramifications that will come with this whole package…far too much at stake to nurse some silly notion of “I’ll teach those Republicans a lesson for not doing what I wanted them to do- I’ll just stay home this time!” The possibilities of what could come in the next few years, or even months, are more than I care to imagine.
This is a great point from the column: “Last Wednesday the Garden State’s highest court ruled that denying homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples ‘bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.’”
So what is the legitimate governmental purpose in denying homosexuals an equal platform for promoting their lifestyle in public schools?
Homosexuality is a behavior. Does regulating behavior have any substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose in the State of New Jersey?
Why homosexual marriage and not polygamy? Why should gays and lesbians be subject to laws regulating incest?
It is a curious way to turn “a compelling state interest” on its head.
>>…far too much at stake to nurse some silly notion of “I’ll teach those Republicans a lesson for not doing what I wanted them to do-…>>
I agree – even if I have to hold my nose and vote for some that I don’t approve of – in my case, there is a married couple who are running for different offices – one state, one national – that I really feel have decided to become professional politicians. I don’t know what his occupation was before he ran for the state legislature, but when his term was up, his wife ran for his place, thus using his incumbent name recognition to her benefit. He’s now running for a state office, and her two terms (term limited) are up, so she’s running for US House of Representative from this area. She was formerly a teacher, and is running on a “I’ll protect your children” ticket.
He pulled some shenanigans when he first ran for office – had some of his team out pulling up the placards supporting his opponent from private yards. She was his campaign manager, so he was paying her pretty big bucks from the campaign funds for running his campaign. I think they’ve decided politics is a nice, good paying gig, and that really bothers me. Should it? I guess I think that people should go into politics in order to serve the public or with a desire to accomplish something in particular, not just as a job that pays well and has lots of perks. On the other hand, if they do the job well, should I care what their motivation is? I guess I think that if a good living is their goal, they’re more likely to be corruptible…??
Discussion encouraged…!
Suek: you are right- one who is in politics for the money is infinitely more prone to prostitute any sense of right and wrong if it means securing their well-paid position (people like Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger come to mind). Those who choose to make stands for what most of us know is common decency and morality either find themselves engaged in a survival fight to the death, or end up being corrupted themselves, or are finally “excused” from their jobs, like Tom Delay. Still, the more Duncan Hunters, Mike Steeles and Rick Santorums we can vote into office, the more of a counterbalance there will be to the overwhelming corruption that holds so much sway in government these days.
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.â€
===================
As far as I last heard, in every country that has so far legalized homosexual marriage, the practice was shunned by the great majority of homosexuals in those countries.
This is a sexual ideology propaganda and legitimizing tactic, and not a legitimate request.
“Gay marriage” is a hot topic for all the wrong reasons. It is a debate over semantics. Everyone knows that such debates go nowhere.
A slim majoirty of people favor “civil unions” and oppose “gay marriage.” What no one seems to realize is that the legal term “marriage” is inherently misleading. All “marriages” under state law are really “civil unions.”
“Marriage” at the courthouse is no sacrament. It is a legal contract, with hidden terms and conditions that are explained to the parties only in the event they get divorced. If these terms (e.g., the party with the greater ability to pay pays all the legal bills; the party that spends most of the money has the right to maintain that lifestyle even if alimony is required; etc.) were included in a pre-nuptial contract, virtually no one would sign.
Yes, as Alessandra points out, gays want legal marriage because they view treating gay couples differently than straight couples as discrimination, no matter the context.
If granted the right to “marry,” however, gay couples indeed would be wise to read the fine print before signing up.
With that caveat, I have no problem with gay couples choosing to subject themselves to the same “family law” rights and duties as married couples, regardless of what you call it.
I think Kerry actually supports gay marriage, in his heart, but refuses to articulate that support because he knows it’s unpopular.
On troops being dumb, I think Kerry actually thinks US troops are dumb, and all devout believers are dumb. He’s just too PC to say these beliefs.
He also probably thinks, but will never say, that blacks on average have lower IQ scores; I know I think this. But judging people as individuals means you, or Thomas Sowell (for instance), still write much better than me. (Or is that I?)
Since what Kerry wants to say is so often different than what he believes is really true, it’s hard to juggle what he does say, what he says he meant to say, and what he really believes is true.
It’s even worse for many gay marriage advocates. I’m sure some, like Elton John, really do just want committed faithful ‘love’ relationships and equal social recognition. I’m also sure others really just hate Christianity and faithfulness based marriage, and want to destroy it as an institution. And many think gay marriage won’t destroy it, but actually make it stronger; see Glenn’s reference to gay marriage and stronger marriage in Sweden.
It’s not a coincidence that Sweden prosecuted for hate crimes a Christian minister who said gays were acting sinfully. A big part of gay marriage is to censor any criticism of the gay lifestyle.
You’re doing great work!
Comments on this entry are closed.