Judicial Activism v The Rule Of Law In New Jersey

The Courts in New Jersey disappointed both the traditionalist and the homosexual movement when they chose to compromise on the issue of homosexual pseudo marriages by ordering the legislature to pass a law in 180 days that granted homosexuals the same rights as married couples.

This violate the idea of separation of powers that is in the United State Constitution but the New Jersey Constitution may not maintain a similar separation of powers device. This ruling is definitely legislating from the bench as it is up to the legislators to decide what laws to pass and revoke and up to the judiciary to judge according to those laws. The question I have is does the NJ Constitution give the judges the power to legislate from the bench and if it does can New Jersey government still be considered a republic in accordance with the mandate of the U.S. Constitution. The same type of legislative ruling seems to have occurred in Vermont in 1999.

The three dissenters backed homosexual marriage which means that all seven judges on the New Jersey Supreme Court are activist and most likely violate the rule of law. That is a sad state of being for a state and for a country.

I am curious how much the American Bar Association who is a non government organization that has agreed to uphold the principles of the United Nations and supports the homosexual agenda has to do with this and other rulings.

The legislation should condemn the activism of the NJ Superior Court and use what ever powers they have to bring the courts back into compliance with the rule of law but I doubt they will in such a progressive state.

Americans are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to keep our government in check if we do not let our biases sway us to work against the rule of law. If you to have a part in ruling yourself you do not allow judges to legislate from the bench even if the law as it stands is against you point of view. You work for change within the system. The homosexual movement have proven again and again that they would rather force their agenda on the rest of us than leave up to the people to decide what they decide what is best. The judges need to be brought in check and according to an article I read at the Washington Times this is being tried in several states. I believe the effort needs to be tried in every state and in the federal government. This we need to do for the freedom and liberty of the people of the United States.

This equal rights arguments for gays v heterosexual couples is questionable since I am wondering what rights a married person has that a unmarried person does not. My guess is these rights are not really rights but powers given to each partner to deal with contract obligations. If that is so then without a contract there are no obligations and therefore no need for such power. If you say the close relationship should give you these powers then there is no reason why any roommates no matter if the relationship is sexual or not should not have the same powers. This later argument was used by Dr. James Dobson in his support of Colorado Senate Bill 166. From this article the same kind of bill will satisfy the requirements of the political decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.


Source 1 is about the N.J. Superior Courts activist ruling.

Source 2 is about action being taken to bring activist judges under control.

Source 3 is about Dr. James Dobson’s support of Colorado Senate Bill 166.