Marriage by any name
The Voice of the Observer
Issue date: 10/31/06 Section: Observations
- Page 1 of 1
In a surprising moment of restraint, the New Jersey Supreme Court this month ruled that homosexuals were entitled to the same rights and protections as heterosexuals in the area of "marriage," but it should be up to the state legislature to come up with the law, and the applicable legal terminology.
We call this surprising restraint because the state judiciary is not usually known to stick to merely interpreting laws and deferring the law making to the lawmakers. Too often, high-level courts have decided to end run the democratic process by crafting their own laws.
But this attitude is wrong and our state's supreme court was right to ask the Statehouse to be the one to develop the law.
Critics will bring up past U.S. Supreme Court rulings, on segregation usually, to prove that activist courts are the only way equal rights will be applied to gays and lesbians.
On the contrary, activist courts are the one way to ensure America turns back the clock on equal rights for homosexuals.
The common rationale behind drives to amend the federal and state constitutions to explicitly limit marriage to heterosexual unions is that courts will otherwise allow gay marriage to be recognized. Clearly, this is a backlash against a rush to radically change deep-rooted social and religious beliefs.
Many gay rights activists want marriage - including the actual word "marriage" (no civil unions, they say) - to apply to homosexuals as equally as it applies to heterosexual couples. But activists would do better to stop playing a word game and focus instead on securing rights for gays in every field, even if it means getting all the privileges of marriage BUT the word "marriage."
No, this is not appeasing bigots. It's common sense. Would you rather have the government provide the legal privileges of marriage to homosexuals without calling it "marriage" - or would you find it better to not provide marriage or any rights to them at all?
Sure, marriage and rights should apply to everyone, but activists and judges also have to respect the fact that millennia-old religious beliefs are rooted in our society's understanding of the law and that you can't just expect everybody to accept the brand-new concept of "gay marriage" by court edict.
To use the example of the Civil Rights movement in the United States, securing the equal protection of blacks' rights didn't happen overnight, or even over a decade or two. Some would even argue that the movement continues.
In the battle for equality for gays and lesbians, there are no short cuts.
The Voice of the Observer is the officials opinion of the Observer's Editorial Board.
We call this surprising restraint because the state judiciary is not usually known to stick to merely interpreting laws and deferring the law making to the lawmakers. Too often, high-level courts have decided to end run the democratic process by crafting their own laws.
But this attitude is wrong and our state's supreme court was right to ask the Statehouse to be the one to develop the law.
Critics will bring up past U.S. Supreme Court rulings, on segregation usually, to prove that activist courts are the only way equal rights will be applied to gays and lesbians.
On the contrary, activist courts are the one way to ensure America turns back the clock on equal rights for homosexuals.
The common rationale behind drives to amend the federal and state constitutions to explicitly limit marriage to heterosexual unions is that courts will otherwise allow gay marriage to be recognized. Clearly, this is a backlash against a rush to radically change deep-rooted social and religious beliefs.
Many gay rights activists want marriage - including the actual word "marriage" (no civil unions, they say) - to apply to homosexuals as equally as it applies to heterosexual couples. But activists would do better to stop playing a word game and focus instead on securing rights for gays in every field, even if it means getting all the privileges of marriage BUT the word "marriage."
No, this is not appeasing bigots. It's common sense. Would you rather have the government provide the legal privileges of marriage to homosexuals without calling it "marriage" - or would you find it better to not provide marriage or any rights to them at all?
Sure, marriage and rights should apply to everyone, but activists and judges also have to respect the fact that millennia-old religious beliefs are rooted in our society's understanding of the law and that you can't just expect everybody to accept the brand-new concept of "gay marriage" by court edict.
To use the example of the Civil Rights movement in the United States, securing the equal protection of blacks' rights didn't happen overnight, or even over a decade or two. Some would even argue that the movement continues.
In the battle for equality for gays and lesbians, there are no short cuts.
The Voice of the Observer is the officials opinion of the Observer's Editorial Board.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
j.k.
posted 11/02/06 @ 8:39 PM EST
The word homosexual, which was used four times in your editorial, is an obsolete word. It should never be used. A researcher who was attempting to describe a medical malady involving same sex attraction coined the word homosexual. (Continued…)
Post a Comment