Redefining Marriage through Divorce

by Sal on November 22, 2006

in Culture,Politics

A story on Anchor Rising, a Rhode Island news blog, reports on how Homosexual-marriage rights activists are attempting to legalize Marriage in the state by a divorce.  A homosexual couple ”married” in Massachusetts and now living in RI is seeking a divorce.  As Justin Katz rightly points out:

If Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. decides to grant the divorce, he will have — despite all of the language throughout Rhode Island law proving marriage to be an opposite-sex affair — acknowledged that a marriage can indeed exist when the spouses are of the same sex. Combine such a decision with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that Rhode Island need not be seen as forbidding same-sex marriages for the purposes of Massachusetts law, and same-sex marriage will have been successfully imported to Rhode Island purely via judicial maneuvering.

Here again is an example of the judiciary “making law” through subtle cases that seem reasonable at first glance, but then in turn force a major cultural change on the public that they themselves did not vote for.  Marriage is defined by statute in RI and in most states as the union between a man and a woman.  That statute does not violate any constitutional provision in either the RI constitution or the U.S. Constitution, so for a judge to “recognize” a gay couple by granting a divorce is another example of the judiciary making an end-run around the will of the people. 

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Ryan November 23, 2006 at 10:11 am

I agree. Mitt Romney has come out and publically called his legislature to task for not acting on this issue after the courts already imposed their torrid will. As you suggest, “the will of the people” is being stiffled here. That should be the number one concern of every elected official and those appointed by them.

Maybe we should bring out an old trinket from the Constitution– the old system of checks and balances! The Judiciary must have a check, right? Perhaps a brave Governor or State Legislature will assert their will, just like the courts asserted theirs in order to usurp the powers that they currently exhibit. Read Article 3 of the Constitution– it’s short, small and vague. We seem to be seeing now why that’s the case, and why Thomas Jefferson believed that the Judicial branch is potentially the most dangerous in our government due to a lack of oversight.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: