--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, > >>> by the > >>> majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority. > >> > >> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of > >> the majority, especially those on separations of religious > >> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the > >> time... > > > > They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy. > > They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth..... > > And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?
Is it really not obvious to you? The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ Legislature to either: 1) Create gay marriages 2) Create gay "civil unions" that are identical to marriages in every way, save for the word "marriage." Neither of these laws existed in New Jersey prior to this decision. Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote, debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that the constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement. This is called "bait and switch" and it is inimical to the democratic process. If one can have no confidence that the laws one votes for mean what they say that they mean, what is the purpose of the democratic process? Why bother participating in democracy at all? > Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in > a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said > it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created? Actually, it just said that it need not be called "marriage." JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
