New Jersey Supreme Court Demands Legislature to Recognize Same-Sex "Marriage"
Immediate Release. October 27, 2006 Although there was no right to same – sex “marriage” in their state constitution, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that homosexual couples had been treated unequally by the state and that lawmakers must find a way to correct this.
The Washington Times reported on October 26, 2006, that Justice Barry T. Albin, who wrote the 4- 3 decision in Lewis v. Harris said, “Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same – sex “marriage” exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same – sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution.”
The democratic process must decide “whether marriage or some other term” will be used to name the rights and benefits said Justice Albin. However, to “amend the married statutes to include same – sex couples” or ”create a parallel statutory structure” that will give such couples “on equal terms” the rights, benefits and obligations borne by married couples, the high court gave state lawmakers 180 days.
“Although a recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 54 percent of New Jersey voters believe marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman only, the judicial activists of the New Jersey Supreme Court have demanded that the New Jersey legislators either legalize homosexual “marriage” or authorize another form of same- sex “marriage” in all but name, similar to the Vermont – style civil unions,' said Dr. Joel P. Rutkowski, president of the American Voice Institute of Public Policy.
One must consider in American legal practice the nature of the marriage relationship from antiquity down through centuries of experience and the thought that shaped its meaning. A relationship characterized by privilege is the marriage union. Recognized to have a privilege “to have and to hold” are the two (male and female) in the marriage. No one else may claim a right to join that union because the privilege is exclusive.
Marriage is a privilege prior to government. To perpetuate the species, families existed or what would have disappeared. To “secure” their natural rights created by “Nature and Nature's God,” government was founded. Its job was to guarantee these rights, not to dispense them. Governments enforce laws to place limits on how people exercise their natural privilege and rights. For example, by jailing or executing criminals, the rights to liberty and life can be constrained. Since the family is central to the well-being of society, the marriage privilege must be regulated. It has never been claimed by any nation that a person should be permitted to marry anyone he or she chooses. A social privilege par excellence, a relationship to be enjoyed only by specific individuals permitted and protected by law is the legal requirement of what a marriage license grants.
To judge laws against the spirit of the New Jersey constitution is the New Jersey legislature, not the court. The court is to interpret the laws according to the intent of the legislature.
The focus of power is not the judicial branch. The people themselves are the source of power and the one branch closest and most responsive to the people is the legislature.
"Twenty states have already passed marriage protection amendments and eight other states are voting on November 7, 2006, on similar amendments to protect marriage. Although the vast majority of Americans are against same – sex “ marriage “ judicial activism continues to force such amoral and abnormal behavior on the citizens of this nation. The ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court is one reason why the Senate must remain in control of Republicans so that jurists confirmed to the Federal bench will not be judicial activists but constructionist. The legislature of New Jersey should reject the state Supreme Court's decision by authorizing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The people of New Jersey can demand this because the New Jersey legislature is up for election in 2007,” said Dr. Joel P. Rutkowski.
Joel P. Rutkowski, P.h.D.
President, The American Voice Institute Of Public Policy
to the American Voice Institute of Public Policy Home Page