Mar

14

Marriage Expansion Goes to Law School

March 14, 2006 |

Big deal? Sure is. The New Jersey Law Journal endorsed marriage for same-sex couples. This is a change from their support only of civil-union. In the past they would never have written such a position. One, most people understood the basics about family. Two, they would have lost any prestige they thought they had.

Time have changed and so it appears their new enlightened position on the issue.

The state’s reliance on the historical definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman fails in our view because it seeks to use past discrimination to justify continuing the practice. The fact is that society no longer subscribes to the so-called “traditional” view of marriage, which derives from a time when wives were deemed chattel, when they could not own property in their name, and when they could not be raped by their husbands. None of these “traditional” views of marriage remain part of our jurisprudence.

It manages to build ground because the once strong purveyors of truth have long abandoned not only their own foundations of understanding but the very basis of understanding once held while the country was formed.

The Rev. Deborah Coggins, pastor of Vision of Hope, said the proposed amendment — which would change the state constitution by defining marriage as between “one man and one woman” — discriminates against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.

In the meantime, Hillary hopes to maintain her support from same-sex supporters while still talking like a conservative on marriage. Typical of talking on both sides of the mouth. Despite criticism most know in the end she will fall into line with the growing dominance of the same-sex supporters.

In spite of the support, this issue on states being able to define marriage in a conservative way will be determined in the Supreme Court.

Open Trackback
Cao Blog


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind