On 28/10/2006, at 1:05 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
agree with it.
I am appalled at the way it was handed down.
I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more
twisted that I had thought.
Have you got the full opinion? All I can find is a summary from the
court, not the full opinion.
First, the NJSC found a right to "equal protection of the laws" that
*doesn't even exist* in the New Jersey Constitution. (Note: This
is by
the Court's own admission in its opinion.)
*Then* they interpreted this language that doesn't exist as
prohibiting
the New Jersey Legislature from providing any special benefit to
heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples, other than the
word
"marriage" itself?
I've often heard the argument from some liberal commentators that they
don't know what "judicial activism" is, and think that "judicial
activism" is just code for rulings that conservatives don't like.
It often is, and it's massively overused. However, if you're correct
in your analysis then this may count.
So you disagree with the way the decision was made. Do you disagree
that gay couples should be allowed civil unions?
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
