Gay Marriage Through a Black-White Prism
In 2003, in another 4-to-3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court authorized gay marriages, and it invoked the Perez case as a model.
Last week, in a third 4-to-3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court stopped just short of endorsing gay marriages. It instructed the State Legislature to provide gay unions with a full complement of legal rights but said that the question of whether to call such unions “marriages” was a political, not judicial, one.
The New Jersey court did not mention the Perez case by name and it said that interracial marriage was not a useful touchstone in thinking about same-sex marriage.
comments powered by Disqus
DeWayne Edward Benson - 11/1/2006
Concerning gay marraige and American laws, it is my belief that although most Americans may be carnal Christians, regardless they in majority are against gay marraige.
However American citizens in all walks of life have guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. In this respect gay individual's have legal rights and recourse to maintain these rights.
Laws have rarely made people moral in hardly any respect, in fact laws are only to protect the rights of all citizens. In this context, gays have a right to make civil contract's as needed. Maternity privileges would likely not be one, and even in men and women marriage today, both often have outside jobs.
What I see today in laws mentioned earlier, are acts by County, State, and Federal representatives who no longer represent either the desires of the citizen's, nor the intent of these laws developed over the centuries.
It is my hope the pendulum has reached it's outward extreme, and citizens will soon be putting elected (and appointed) representatives into Office who act according to the desires and law's of the American citizen's.