More on New Jersey

I'm still wading through the opinion -- too much to write to spend too much time reading right now, and so, of course, none of it's getting done. It does seem a little strained. I take it as an indication that the Rabids have the courts on the run, even when the courts know what they're doing.

GayPatriot is pleased at being channeled by WSJ. I guess there's something to be said for lowered expectations.

They set great store by this annoying OpEd by James Taranto:

These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts' rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts--a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president's liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.

We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists' resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples' desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we're with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we'd also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.

First off, the backlash was fed and watered by the Republicans -- let's call a spade a spade. It was a made-to-order feeding frenzy for the Dobson Gang. Some of those loons were quoted at the time as saying that it was just what they needed to fill their coffers. Of course they went for it: money is power. And I am really, really, really tired of this crap about the courts "forcing" constitutional guarantees down the people's collective throat. Because that's all it is -- crap from the ever-fruitful shit machine of the Dobson Gang.

I feel like I keep harping on this, but it seems as though it should be quite clear -- the people have limited sovereignty in this country. That's always been the case. That's why Senators are elected for longer terms than Representatives, that's why federal judges are appointed for life, that's why any law that treats one group differently is subjected to several tiers of scrutiny in order to determine whether it has a rational basis and is not merely a product of popular bias. That's why there is a Bill of Rights sewn into the Constitution -- to save us from the whim of the people. This is actually addressed with some intelligence in the comments to this post by Matt at The Malcontent. See this one, as well, by Chris Crain. It's nice to see someone else who understands the right question.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument against same-sex marriage. I still haven't seen one. I guess that's the problem when you're dealing with an emotional issue that should be decided rationally. Lord knows I don't have much success doing that myself in day-to-day life.

Of course, it means being a real grown-up. How many of us can pull that off 24/7?