Posted on 06/15/2005 4:02:30 AM PDT by Liz
Finally, a court in the Northeast has shown some common sense on the subject of same-sex marriage.
A three-judge panel on the Appellate Division of NJ Superior Court .....ruled 2-1 that limiting the institution of marriage to people of the opposite sex does not violate the state constitution.
The judges did not outlaw same-sex marriage altogether — but said that any change in the statute must come from Jersey's Legislature, presumably reflecting the will of the voters.
Seven same-sex couples who'd been denied marriage licenses sued on the ground that their civil rights had been violated — the same tack that has won recognition of gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and at various judicial levels elsewhere.
But, as Judge Anthony Parrillo argued in a sharp concurring opinion, recognizing same-sex marriage is too big a social change to be implemented by a small band of judicial activists.
"The choice must come from democratic persuasion, not judicial fiat," he said, adding: "It is, therefore, a proper role for the Legislature to weigh the societal costs against the societal benefits flowing from a profound change in the public meaning of marriage."
We believe marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. But if change is to occur, it must reflect the overwhelming consent of the people.
We think it profoundly unwise for the issue to be considered on any other than the national level — having different state laws on same-sex marriage would be confusing and destructive.
Still, if individual states are going to tackle the issue, it must be done in a way that enlists public participation.
That could be a statewide referendum, or it could be by direct legislative action. But not by a single judge, nor even by a handful.
The NJ judges recognize this; courts elsewhere should, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Look at this...common sense broke out in a courtroom....and in our state to boot....:-)
I guess they understand the definition of 'consummation', which is impossible with sodomy.
Looks like they got it spot on...of course there was still 1 of the 3 that disagreed and appears to be in favor of judicial fiat instead of democratic change.
That was my reaction - by itself this is a statistically insignificant event. But the returns from the '04 election may penetrate a few skulls . . .
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by many of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all - - see also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates advanced argument that piety to many gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. Socrates exposed pagan esoteric sophistry.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining what is correct in human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age.
Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins where transfiguration is from pantheons of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? Perhaps civil union and homosexual marriage advocates could could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Ecumenical Pope! Unsex me here!
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
Yeah. What he said.
Doesn't mean doo-doo. Our illustrious SC will, no doubt, overturn this decision and order the Legislature to raise taxes to more easily implement gay marriage and compensate the 7 who were denied their new rights.
I was just about to ask what the chances were of this being upheld in the NJ SC . . .
Isn't it about time that the government got out of the marriage business altogether?
Hey Jim, it is not common sense it is the election in November. Once that is over they will return to their old evil ways.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.