Redefining marriage in all but name
October 26, 2006| By Nathaniel Ward
It’s another case of judicial activism run amok. The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday ordered the state legislature to “either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure.” The state must also provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as to married couples, the justices said. In effect, the court wrote a law mandating same-sex marriage in New Jersey, since the legislature must choose between legalizing the practice and legalizing the practice under another name.
“The long-awaited New Jersey decision displays the continuing legal threat to marriage and underscores the paramount need to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect that primary institution of society,” Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding explains.
Spalding, the director of Heritage’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, continues:
The Court did not openly go as far as the radical 5-4 Massachusetts decision, which completely redefined marriage to mean any two individuals. But we mustn’t miss the point here: the New Jersey Court has ruled unanimously that all the rights and benefits of marriage must be made available to same-sex couples. This ruling is the equivalent of redefining marriage in all but name, and dictates to the legislature and the people of New Jersey how they must decide this fundamental question. The best way to protect against such decisions is to amend state constitutions and, to prevent state court decisions from forcing their views on the nation, amend the US Constitution to defend marriage.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
