Interesting. I hope if the supreme court decides this in favor gay marriage, that the legislature takes it to the US supreme court, both on first amendment grounds, and separation of powers. The court is not supposed to be able to legislate from the bench. Further, I can’t wait until someone tries to force this. A major lawsuit on first amendment grounds is bound to be filed by a private individual or organization. since the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Independent of specific issues, I have had enough of the general tendency of legislatures, both state and federal, rolling over just because a court exceeds its limits on power by trying to legislate from the bench.
Typical MO of the Left. Don’t get their way in the voting booth, turn to a friendly judge to overturn the people’s vote.
Since this matter does not relate to federal law, it would not be accepted by the US Supreme Court. The legislature presumably has other ways to check the power of the state supreme court if it chooses.
[quote=traillius]The court is not supposed to be able to legislate from the bench.
It’s important to note that the powers of courts vary according to state constitutions from one place to another, but I’ll trust that you’re more familiar than I am with New Jersey law.
[quote=traillius]A major lawsuit on first amendment grounds is bound to be filed by a private individual or organization. since the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
It doesn’t appear to me that the government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion simply by legalizing same-sex marriage. If that were a valid argument, I imagine someone could sue the state for legaziling divorce, which the Church also opposed.
Epic fail, with all possible respect.
While the catholic church does teach that divorce is bad, it still allows it, given that the grounds are ‘justifiable’ ( adultery, abuse, etc ) It even has the process of annulment to deal with this. There is no such clause regarding gay marriage, which is always and everywhere against church teaching, with no exceptions or justifications allowed whatsoever.
While the Church in the US now requires divorce before initiating annulment proceedings, this has not always been the case. I think there may be a couple places in the world where the Church is still fighting to prevent the legalization of divorce. I wouldn’t say the process of annulment is for dealing with divorce - not sure you are, either, but that’s one interpretation of your sentence. Considering that the word “divorce” does not appear in the Code of Canon Law, I don’t think taking for granted the Church’s acceptance of divorce is warranted.
But that’s not really the point - I was giving an example that is quite common in New Jersey. There are a number of other examples… you could just as easily say “A major lawsuit on first amendment grounds is bound to be filed on the issue of legalized prostitution in Nevada, since the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.”
Its a pretty common tactic among conservatives too. That’s why organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund or the Thomas More Law Center exist.
The point is still valid. Current American laws on marriage prevent the free exercise of the Moslem religion, and of the Fundamentalist Mormon religion, by preventing the marriage of a man to more than one woman.
The solution adopted is to separate civil marriages from religious marriages. A Moslem can marry his four wives in a Mosque but in the eyes of the state, and for tax purposes, he is only married to one of them, the other three just happen to live in the same house.
There is already a disconnect between the law and religion. Gay marriage is just another such disconnect. A Gay couple would be married in the eyes of the state, and for tax purposes, but they would not be married in the eyes of the Church.
I understand the the MCC is happy to provide a church wedding for Gay couple who wish such.