--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > But that hasn't imposed anything on anyone. If you're not gay, it > doesn't affect you. It doesn't make you you do anything you don't > want to. It simply recognises that gay couples function just the > same. It hasn't "invented" anything, it's simply extended the > benefits of marriage to all couples.
Its the creation of law that did not previously exist before. Your arguments above are along the vein of "why should I care?", rather than the vein that they do not constitute law being imposed by a Court. > > 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. > > None of the framers of the US Constitution could have imagined mix > race marriages either. So what? Not true. > > 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? > > Why bother living in a society with gross inequality? I believe that the United States was worth living in and supporting, even as the great sin of legalized slavery was a blot on our national soul. I continue to believe that the United States is worth living in, even while not all of the people in this country have legal protection for their right to life. I believe that the democratic-republic is important - even when it is not perfect, even when it is dead wrong. I believe that non-democratic-republic government, no matter how well-intentioned, is inevitably doomed to failure. I believe that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. When governments overstep those powers, even in the name of righteousness, it undermines the entire enterprise. For example, I once got involved in a parlor game where my friend asked me - "If in a moment of national crisis, you were named 'supreme dictator', what would you do" - expecting that my first act would be to outlaw abortion, or something like that. My answer, though, is that I would restore the republic. Maybe that answer is self-evident to people here, but it is apparently not self-evident to a significant portion of Americans. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/lewisharris102506\ opn.pdf <http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/lewisharris10250\ 6opn.pdf> I do think there should be some form of civil unions of homosexual couples. I think that couples have a right to live together, and that it would be good for the State to provide some streamlined procedures for these couples to establish a single household unit. I am aghast, however, at the processes used in this particular case. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
