Replies

That's exactly what I was thinking. By her twisted logic that Kenyan should be able to have as many wives as he can legally marry in Kenya and reside with all of them in New Jersey legally. This notion of “equality” is something that has very strong undercurrents in our judicial system. The problem with this is that while we may in fact be equal under the law, i.e. one man one vote, equality is fine as a concept but the reality is that no two people on earth are “equal.” We all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Different desires and needs. Various degrees of motivation. With all of these varying factors it would be next to impossible for any one to be equal in a practical sense.

This is where I think the courts are getting it wrong. Not only do they embrace “equality” in concept, they extend that to “equality” of outcomes. Given the varying degrees of human nature what is happening is a dumbing down of society, i.e. bring the successful down, and the underachievers up as a way of leveling the playing field of society.

This particular case really galls me because if they had no right to be married in the state they shouldn't have a right to divorce there either. This judge is doing nothing more than legislating from the bench in a very perverse way. The rationale being that if it's legal to get divorced this would imply a legal acceptance of the marriage to begin with. Therefore, if divorce of same sex couples is legal, marriage of same sex couples should be as well.

(On top of everything this press release was put out after 4PM on a Friday afternoon as a way of trying to get this under the radar. When I went on to site this morning it was buried deep in the archives already. Unbelievable!)