Chief Justice Poritz's Legacy Should
Preserve Marriage for 8.2 Million New Jerseyans!
On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, the NJ Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Lewis v. Harris lawsuit which seeks to redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman. Back in June 2002, activists first sued the state of NJ for the “right to marry”, but now the case has come to the end of the road, at least in New Jersey. Judge Poritz’s Court has the opportunity to truly benefit the vast majority of the citizenry here in the Garden State by upholding marriage as we have long known it to be, the complimentary union of one man and one woman, dedicated to each other and their posterity, hopefully for life, for the general welfare of our society

“Marriage has changed dramatically over the years,” was a common statement at the trial. However, all the assertions about marriage changing over the years had nothing to do with radically altering its definition. In all previous cases it was about providing added protection for those already married or those seeking to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Another question debated at the trial concerned the state of homosexuality; and whether or not it is an immutable characteristic? In other words, is it unchangeable? This question pierces to the heart of the matter, and the accounts of former homosexuals and lesbians that are now living happy heterosexual lives was markedly missing in the oral arguments with the Court. But the bottom line is that they do exist and they are becoming a stronger and stronger voice that is desperately needed in this dialogue. Here’s why. If homosexuality is changeable, and more and more studies are pointing to the fact that it is, then changing the institution of marriage that has served society well for thousands of years would be foolish, if not downright egregious. Therefore as Judge Poritz prepares for mandatory retirement, she has an essential obligation to the people of New Jersey to leave the issue of marriage to the legislature, who has the authority and responsibility to set public policy. She should not find a prenumberance of rights for a group of people, who still do have the right to marry, provided they marry a person of the opposite sex..

Same-sex marriage proponents have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is a matter of civil rights, a message the media has consistently trumpeted. The real issue is not that marriage is a civil right, but that it is a privileged right given to people to further humanity and provide the best environment on average for the raising and rearing of the next generation. The question Judge Poritz should be asking is what benefit, if any, would redefining marriage to include same-sex unions bring to society? The societal fallout would far outweigh any presumed benefit. Societal repercussions would include: Teaching impressionable school children that homosexual sex is equal to heterosexual sex and sending a message to society that one-man one-woman marriage is not uniquely important. This will precipitate an increase in cohabitation and resulting family break-up rates, in addition to the legalization of other types of relationships such as polygamy as it already has in the Netherlands and is now being recommended by Canada's Justice Department. Our laws restricting one’s choice of a marriage partner by gender preserves marriage as an institution that builds bridges to bring men and women together to create future generations and serve the health of society. The NJ Supreme Court should uphold the law as written and affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman as did the two lower Courts. That would be a legacy of great historical importance that Judge Poritz would leave to all New Jersey families.

back to Editorials