The Slippery Slope Strikes Again.

New Jersey falls victim to the anti-marriage forces

As a supporter of traditional marriage I have made many solid and logical arguments against the sanctioning of same-sex unions. One of these arguments is commonly known as the "slippery slope". The argument is essentially “death of marriage by a thousand cuts”. In other words, organizations are making strides to dismantle marriage in small but effective steps until one day you wake up, and its over. Thanks to the unfortunate actions of the New Jersey Supreme Court, that day is much nearer.

Opponents of traditional marriage claim the "slipper slope" argument is a ruse and an unsubstantiated non-argument. If there is one positive side of the Court's action yesterday (and there really is none) it would be that our argument has been proven beyond a doubt. The sequential logic that the Judges applied to support their findings make this all too clear.

Follow the timeline of events in their own words and make your own conclusion:

Taken from the majority opinion summary of the New Jersey Supreme Court:

• "New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians."
  
  
• "In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "affectional or sexual orientation."
  
  
• "In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians."
  
  
• "In 2004, the Legislature added "domestic partnership status" to the categories protected by the LAD."
  
  
• "The Legislature, moreover, created the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category."
  
  
• "Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers certain benefits and rights on same-sex partners who enter into a partnership under the Act."
  
  
• "The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples."
  
  
• "Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children."
  
  
• "Further, even though same-sex couples are provided fewer benefits and rights by the Act, they are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership than opposite-sex couples entering a marriage."
  
  
• "Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
  
  
• "Our current laws concerning same-sex couples are more in line with those of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut than the majority of other states."

Given there dialogue of events, the justices’ conclusion is not that surprising: "There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships."

Of course, the real irony of the statement that "the name" of the process should be left to the democratic process even though the decision was torn from constituents' hands.

The justices admit however that the real challenge will come on the Federal level. In “point 4” you can see that the justices really, really, want to change the law on a Federal level but just can't yet. "Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of this people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution"

You can stop that from happening. You have every right to be upset but don't take it lying down.

Here are the actions you can take:

1) Write your representatives, call them and tell them you are outraged at this.

2) Get smart on the local issues. One great resource that was brought to our attention is "FamilyFacts.org"

3)Let me be absolutely clear about this. Electing a Democrat majority in the Senate and House will not deter the radial judges who are determined to legislate from the bench.

4) Donate to our cause and to others that can help make a difference.