The Paranoid Style: Bush Rips NJ Court For Adopting Bush Position

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:04:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Of course, Sheryl Gaye Stolberg is too lousy a reporter to notice but President Bush ripped the NJ Court for agreeing with him on gay unions:

Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

Except the NJ court adopted the view Bush espoused in 2004:

President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."

The Paranoid Style and the Politics of Hate remain the GOP staple, Bush's prior statements notwithstanding. Despicable.

< The Battle for the Conservative Soul | Late Night: Counting Crows >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Paranoid Style: Bush Rips NJ Court For Adopting Bush Position | 5 comments (5 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

nope, sorry, all of you are wrong (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:03:42 AM EST

this matter should be left to individual adults, not the states or the federal government.

marriage is a "self-evident", "inalienable" right, not subject to a vote or majority rule, period.

it is as fundamental a right as how you worship, being secure in your person and home, and having children. these are basic rights, not even subject to discussion, much less a vote.

anyone, especially lawyers and politicians, who fail to grasp this essential american tenet, should be deported to china, they are un-american.

: Inalienable Right? (none / 0) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:46:31 AM EST

What is that? The phrase is contained in this text, NOT this text. As far as I know there are no state constitutions that contain the phrase either (and regulation of marriage is within the states' police powers. The federal governement has no police powers outside of regulating DC).
Reasonable regulation is not alienation. Do you have an inalienable right to marry your sister? (To borrow from Rick Santorum) Do you have an inalienable right to marry your dog?
There are good reasons to prevent by regulation both of those marriage contracts as reasonable health safety and welfare regulations. I don't think there are reasonable health safety and welfare reasonsto regulagte marriage between same sex couples.

: You are just re-asking the question, not answering (none / 0) (#4)
by dab on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:53:08 AM EST

You have stated a nice principle, but given no guidance about the debate should be resolved.
The question these constitutional cases raise is how do we define the "right to marry"?
You appear to be (but I doubt you are) saying one has the right to marry anyone one wants. As pointed out by the previous poster, that is not always true. The question is whether one has the same right to marry a same-sex partner as one has to marry an opposite sex partner.
At this point in time, the debate is not about whether same-sex partners can live together in a committed relationship in the same manner as a marriage. (If the debate was whether a government can prohibit that, your inalienable rights argument would be appropos).
But the current debate is whether governments must recognize a same-sex marriage for the purposes of the benefits that are granted to married couples, e.g. tax benefits, health care coverage, divorce, custody, adoption and inheritence laws.
So, CP, are you answering that one has a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? If so, you would have been in the more liberal dissent of the NJSC.
While I think Bush's answer was made in ignorance (and to inflame sentiments) there may be a difference between his call for civil unions and the NJ supreme court's decision.
The NJSC majority said same-sex couples' Constitutional (NJ) rights to equal protection would be violated if they were not afforded the same benefits. That required a finding that same-sex couples are "similarly situated" to marriages, i.e. substantially the same for constitutional purposes.
I agree with the results on a political level; I think the NJ legislature should grant legal status with respect to government benefits to same-sex couples. But I disagree with the decision on a constitutional level because I don't think judges should import politics into constitutional decision-making to force the legislatures' hands. I was troubled by the way both opinions relied mostly on their emotions and whatever sources they could find to support their positions, rather than even appearing to invoke legal precedent in any substantial way. I don't think judges should be so flippant about the law, even more so constitutional law. (I have been on the other side of judges interpreting the law according to their own preferences rather than precedent and legal principles, and it is dangerous).
I also think this kind of advocacy through constitutional re-interpretation is an unwise strategy. Roe v. Wade is a good example, because there was considerable momentum toward legalization, but since it went through the courts, we have spent 30 years with it as a dominant political theme when it should have been a settled question decades ago. It was a strong factor in driving the republican take-over of government. (I also think the constitutional reasoning of the opinion is rather tortured, but that's another story. Justice Ginsburg also has written that the constitutional ground it was based on was incorrect.)

molly, i expected better of you than this (none / 0) (#3)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:51:44 AM EST

of course it's in the declaration, not the constitution. any reasonably educated person would know that.

the state is entitled to regulate, within limitations, for legitimate public policy purposes, period. again, you should know better.

dogs wouldn't generally meet the minimum age requirements, plus they couldn't freely enter into the arrangement. that you would stoop so low as to quote one of the bigger morons in congress is sad indeed.

as for marrying your sister, it isn't like it hasn't happened before, legally, in other countries. the prohibition is mainly religious based, science has proven that the supposed health issues are so many old wive's tales, not supported by scientific data.

on the other hand, who'd want to marry their sister (or brother)?

none of these issues has any legitimate bearing on same-sex marriage, the point i was making, which you managed to somehow miss, in your state of high dudgeoun.

take a deep breath, go back and read my post again. your apology for not getting it the first time will be accepted.

: Apologize? (none / 0) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 02:29:31 PM EST

You are the one arguing "inalienable rights". What "the heck" are they? The term has no legal significance and has no force of law.
Look I feel "dirty" enough qouting Rick "Man on Dog", but I have nothing to apologize for. And I am not suggesting there are reasonable health, safety, welfare reasons to prohibit same sex marriage. Go back re-read more closely please. I said

I don't think there are reasonable health safety and welfare reasonsto regulagte marriage between same sex couples.
Even with my miserable typing ability my meaning was clear.
I merely pointed out that marriage is a proper subject of regulation under health, safety wellfare police powers. Lets take it down a notch. I'll give you an example you surely cannot disagree with. Can the state prevent by regulation marriage between someone over 18 and someone under 18? Under 12? How about under 6? Would that be a reasonable regulation under a state's police powers?
I gather you are a stong liberterian. That's fine. I am pretty strong on civil liberties myself, but I do concede government does play some role. Moreover, I believe in a representative democracy some government regulation is desireable.
I don't think arguing state government shouldn't regulate marriage is going to work, but you are welcome to try and prove me wrong. But you need to make a sound argument. Inalienable rights sounds nice, but as I noted, they have no force of law.