"Ordered by the Court"
The NJ Supreme Court hit a new low for judicial prudence with its recent "gay marriage" rulling.
Today's LA Times describes the NJ legislature's bill on the subject:
"Ordered by the state Supreme Court to allow gay marriage..."
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but isn't one of the foundations of our Republic something called "seperation of powers". Where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court has the authority to order legislation be written? On the contrary, the first article of the US Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress."
The Separation of Powers, by which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are to be independent and not infringe upon each other's rights and duties, is one of the basic doctrines in the US Constitution.
New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 margin that gay couples are constitutionally guaranteed the benefits of marriage. But the majority ruling left it to legislators to resolve the thorny question of whether to call their unions "marriage," reasoning that "the great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process." That last statement is so contrary to this state's Supreme Court's opinion of itself. It dictated a law be written (superciliously in six months no less) and the legistlators obediently succumbed.
The Supreme Court wrote in its opinion that "times are changing". The Supreme Court's septuagint assuredly makes that so, I just wish it was left up to the people to decide.
2 Comments:
Why the hell should straight people be deciding whether or not gays should marry? It's none of their goddamn business. And this coming from a straight guy. Mob rule doesn't always provide justice. Just look at the South.
A society has the right and duty to define social norms as it sees fit. This is why we have laws restricting individual behavior that might only hurt oneself, ie pot-smoking.
This is not "mob rule" and that phrase, in terms of the way the Founder's used it, doesn't apply to this case.
If we allow gay "marriage", then as a matter of principle, explain why we shouldn't allow polygamist or bigamists to marry as well?
The "slipper slope" argument is apropos ...
Post a Comment
<< Home