--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to > agree with it.
I am appalled at the way it was handed down. I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more twisted that I had thought. First, the NJSC found a right to "equal protection of the laws" that *doesn't even exist* in the New Jersey Constitution. (Note: This is by the Court's own admission in its opinion.) *Then* they interpreted this language that doesn't exist as prohibiting the New Jersey Legislature from providing any special benefit to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples, other than the word "marriage" itself? I've often heard the argument from some liberal commentators that they don't know what "judicial activism" is, and think that "judicial activism" is just code for rulings that conservatives don't like. Well, the twisted-pretzel-logic of this ruling probably makes as fine an example of "judicial activism" as any - explicitly determining a written text to say something it doesn't, and then using this invented determination to find a requirement within the Constitution that would have been positively unimagineable to the people who wrote, debated, and voted for that Constitution. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
