The AP has a story in today's News Journal about how some gay couples are suing the state of New Jersey to get gay "marriage" ... "passed" in the state. Via judicial fiat. But, NJ already has a civil union law on the books. That is insufficient for the plaintiffs, because, they claim, various actors around the state don't understand the law well enough:
The families say in their legal complaint that the state's civil union law designed to give gay couples the same legal protections as married couples has not fulfilled that promise.
One man says he was denied being able to make urgent medical decisions for his partner. Another saw his partner and children's health insurance canceled by a skeptical auditor. One woman had to jump through legal hoops to adopt the baby of her civil union.
So, naturally, instead of suing the entities which supposedly "don't understand" the civil union law, the entire state has to be sued to allow gay "marriage."
Here we go again. New York State recently went about granting gay "marriage" via the proper venue -- the state legislature, which actually, y'know, makes the laws. Some conservatives have queried whether gay "marriage" could survive a referendum in NY State; I say, why should it? Doesn't the legislature represent the people? Don't we want this branch of government making the laws and not the judiciary? But now that this actually happens, we're not satisfied.
But back to New Jersey. It already has a civil union law on the books. My personal view on the matter, stated here various times, is that based on the 14th Amendment, at the very least states need to allow civil unions. But there is no mandate to use the term "marriage." I continually put "marriage" in quotes when it pertains to homosexuals because the term has a definite concrete historical basis for a heterosexual couple. "Separate but equal" claims by gay rights groups (used in the AP article, too, by the way) don't wash here because, unlike the "rationale" of skin color back in the day, there actually is a defining biological difference between gay and straight people. Equal protection under the 14th Amendment would have to apply to all states; however, if individual states (like New York) wanted to allow the term "marriage" to be used in a gay union, then that's their business.
As I've also said before, I think gays would do well to focus their struggle in that realm: Equal protection under the 14th Amendment, instead of demanding the use of the term "marriage." Seriously, what is ... wrong with letting the term mean what it has meant for millennia? As noted above, there is a defining biological difference between gays and straights. This is not unlike the defining biological difference between males and females. Why do we have separate men's and women's sporting events? That's right -- because men and women are not the same thing. And polls seem to back up my POV -- civil unions are generally widely accepted by the American public, but gay "marriage" is not.Posted by Hube at June 29, 2011 11:20 AM | TrackBack