Living in the World
Lewis v. Harris

“And the beat goes on.” Sonny & Cher

By now you know the New Jersey Supreme Court has made a foray into the culture wars. All 7 justices cited the state’s desire to end discrimination based on sexual orientation as the impetus for deciding that the legislative branch of New Jersey must create some sort of same-sex-union basis similar to marriage. There was a 4-3 on what ot name this arrangement. The majority opined:

The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

How interesting! The decision whether same sex unions should be permitted is NOT for the democratic process but naming it is. This is a classic example of form over substance…naming same sex unions “bubblegum” doesn’t change the fact that it is marriage.

Back at the time of Lawrence v. Texas, when the USSC decided sodomy could not be outlawed on moral or ethical local bases, this writer commented on the ridiculous notion that unelected judges should be making public policy. But the NJ court adds insult to injury by determining that all the democratic process is good for is labeling what they decide is best for the constituents of NJ. Maybe the NJ assemblymen should have their pay reduced commiserate with the reduction of their responsibilities!

In the Red State/Blue State era, legislatures, federal and state, have punted on their responsibilities knowing that half the folks will be upset if they make decisions on controversial social issues. But, isn’t that the process? If this new “arrangement” is to have the protection of the law, should not the people affected be able to debate, deliberate, argue and reason with engagement of the ideas and the expected consequences? What we have had for some time is a disgruntled minority, knowing their ideas cannot pass the muster of the legislative process, resorting to the courts to have their positions adopted by judicial fiat.

As Justice Scalia stated in his blistering dissent in Lawrence, inane decisions lead to extreme results. Allowing marriage to be redefined for homosexuals leaves the door open for polygamy and man/boy woman/girl arrangements. Principled arguments against such perversions are strangled when all of life is redefinable by courts without participation in a way that respects the freedom and equality of all citizens. How much longer can we allow courts to define the folkways, mores, morals and public policies of this country?

Augustine spoke of the “slippery slope” long before this republic was formed. Yet, we did not heed his warning and have firmly placed ourselves on that slope. Challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are working their way through the federal system. If federal judges act in accord with the conventional wisdom, it will meet its end and be struck down as discriminatory. We will see. And, the beat goes on…….