Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Same-Sex Ruling

Here is a sample of quotes about today's New Jersey Supreme Court ruling.

Sen. George Allen (R-VA):
“Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court is another example of activist judges inventing the law and subverting the will of the people. This is why I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law. My opponent does not. “My opponent says that this amendment would infringe upon the rights of ordinary Virginians, and he opposes it. But I and many members of the Virginia Assembly joined in asking the Attorney General of Virginia to render an opinion. His response: ‘I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians’. “This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.”

Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA):
“I believe that the best and most reliable way to protect traditional marriage is through a federal marriage amendment, as opposed to letting activist judges make policy on a state by state basis.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS):
"The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court only deepens the constitutional crisis with respect to the protection of traditional marriage, and warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts.”

1 comment:

Bill Garnett said...

Democracy is far from perfect - as anyone who has read from our founders’ writings will agree. And certainly there exists the tyranny of the majority - which is essentially what opposition to gay rights is, now that science and medicine have concluded that homosexuality is a state of being and NOT a moral choice. Perhaps you think it was “activist judges” that stopped segregation or allowed mixed marriages or found in Lawrence v. State of Texas a right of privacy. We have a three part balanced government, and having the wisdom of independent and wise judges is often a balance against the tyranny of the majority and the hypocrisy of our recent elected officials.