New Jersey Moves toward the Brink

The question of Gay Marriage is before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In a suit filed by seven Gay couples, the plaintiffs are charging that not allowing Gay Marriage is a violation of the state’s prohibition of discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

A state Appeals Court ruled 2-1 against the suit but everyone always knew that the final decision would be made by the New Jersey Supremes. The Appeals Court ruling was based upon the position that the issue of Gay Marriage should be decided in the Legislature and not the Courts. However, in a very strong dissent Judge Donald G. Collester said that a definition of marriage that excludes homosexuals robs same-sex couples “of constitutional protections and deprives them of the same rights of marriage enjoyed by the other individuals of this State, even those confined in State prisons.”

The weakness of the decision and the strength of the dissent leads me to believe that the Appeals Court in fact concluded that the same sex marriage ban is a violation of the New Jersey State Constitution but they preferred to leave the responsibility of correcting the situation to either the State Supreme Court or the State Legislature.

New Jersey is a good venue for fighting this round because based upon a recent Zogby Organization poll 56% of folks in New Jersey FAVOR same sex marriage and, perhaps more importantly, some 67% oppose a constitutional ban.

I’ve yet to hear a really good argument against Gay Marriage. The argument that the legislature should decide sidesteps the whole concept of an independent court as a protector of the rights of the minority.

The argument that marriage is by “tradition” between one man and one woman doesn’t particularly impress me. If we were ruled by “tradition” Jim Crow would still rule the South and Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus (Does it worry you that the same region of the country that supported first slavery and then segregation is now the region where opposition to Gay Marriage is the strongest?).

And then there is the “slippery slope” argument that allowing Gay Marriage would lead to all kinds of aberrations such as polygamy and group marriage. All “slippery slope” arguments are fallacies. They strike me as either a sign of desperation or a sign of ignorance so I’m not buying this one either.

So what’s left? Let’s be honest shall we? The REAL reason there is such an organized opposition to Gay Marriage can be traced to certain interpretations of the Bible. Some folks consider homosexuality immoral and they don’t want society to imply its ok by allowing same sex marriage. The Bible doesn’t actually address same sex marriage because the men writing it could never, in their wildest dreams, have imagined such an issue would ever come up. That sort of let’s you know God didn’t dictate the book as he WOULD have known that the question was going to be a hot topic some day.

While there are a number of passages that are quoted as condemning homosexuality, the most straight forward appear to be Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I’m certainly not going to argue biblical interpretations as, assuming the translations are reasonable (because there are those that argue the translations are misleading), these seem fairly clear cut about what they are declaring a no-no. However I will challenge the idea that, even if accurately interpreted, these are a valid argument against Gay Marriage.

Let’s start with anyone that is going to REALLY follow what this says should be calling for the execution of all homosexuals! Oh wait, what’s that you say? I’m confused? I don’t understand that while the Hebrew Scriptures established a covenant that included a state and therefore needed to be concerned with earthly punishments, the New Testament establishes a covenant that does not include a state, is not concerned with earthly punishments and therefore the death penalty portion of Leviticus 20:13 doesn’t apply? Then why are there so many people who call themselves Christians trying so hard to impose their view of morality on the state?

A more general problem with both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 is they only apply to those which accept one of the two covenants don’t they? If two Gay Atheists want to get married, why shouldn’t the state allow them to do so? All Atheists and Agnostics, not to mention members of other religions, are depraved and going to hell anyway aren't they? So what's the harm? I’m sure no Christians are gay (*cough, cough*) so the issue is moot isn’t it?

The bottom line is I have no problem with anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral. If that’s your opinion, feel free not to engage in homosexual acts and even feel free to express what you think. But WHY do you feel obligated to relegate those that don’t agree with you to second class citizenship? Why is there this need to convert an opinion into law? I just don’t get it.