On New Jersey
267 words.
On the recent New Jersey decision: My marriage doesn’t feel the slightest bit different. It’s very difficult for me to wrap my mind around how people can honestly believe the Republican line that marriage is “under attack,” especially from something as infrequent as gay marriage (as opposed to, say, rampant divorce). It seems like people with such beliefs would have trouble with basic motor coordination, let alone any kind of higher cognitive thoughts. I wish people would just be honest about it and say, “hey, I’m voting against gay marriage because I think gay sex is icky and I don’t want to bother dealing with my prejudices.”
But back to New Jersey. After scanning the court’s ruling, I don’t see any flaws in the logic. From a purely technical perspective, if the New Jersey constitution says everyone should be treated equally, then there shouldn’t be any laws that exclude people from equal treatment, and any laws like that should be changed. What’s the problem? How is that “activism” and not a textbook application of governmental checks and balances? If one wanted to deliberately disenfranchise certain people, then one should write that exception into the constitution, like folks are trying to do in Virginia, or strike the original equal-treatment text that the forefathers wrote.
P.S. Speaking of Virginia, From On High actually believes that four “activist” judges in New Jersey are capable of controlling everyone’s destinies. I’m not making that up. Hyperbole or retardness? You be the judge.
Thomas Krehbiel writes The Krehbiel Strikes Back, a moderate commentary on news, media, politics, and culture. — Virginians, Vote No.
Sorry, new comments are disabled on older posts. This helps reduce spam. Active commenting almost always occurs within a day or two of new posts.