A civil case against civil unions

I read this response to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling. What struck me was how well argued it was from a secular democratic point of view. Although the writer certainly has strong misgivings about the inherent problems with homosexual marriage, he argues that the long-lasting implication of this ruling will be that a democracy shaped by the people it governs is being thrown out the window.

These excerpts are merely highlights. His full article does a great job at highlighting potential counterpoints and identifying precedents that support his case.

FIRST THINGS: "That New Jersey marriage law should be left to democratic deliberation isn’t an ad hoc decision or a partisan proposal: The very nature of man—human dignity and equality—requires it. The people rightly claim the prerogative to deliberate about how to order their common life not only because sound decisions are thus more likely but because there are no natural superiors or inferiors. There isn’t a ruling class and a ruled class. All citizens stand on equal footing with regards to participation in the shaping of the state’s laws, laws that are binding on all citizens.

But the court in Lewis v. Harris has flouted these principles in a clear instance of judicial aristocracy. Seven unelected and electorally unaccountable justices have not only ignored but flatly rejected the judgments of the people. For the constitution itself leaves questions regarding marriage to the legislature, not the courts. In the absence of any basis that gives it to the court, the judiciary should not override the decisions made by the people through their elected representatives. If same-sex “marriage” is to be legally sanctioned in New Jersey, the people affected by such a decision should make it—by debate and deliberation, research and reasoning, honest engagement with fellow citizens, and then a vote. This is how a democratic polity that respects the freedom...

Same-sex “marriage” advocates should likewise proceed by attempting to persuade the majority of their fellow citizens of the soundness of their view. To ignore their fellow citizens’ judgments and exclude them from the deliberative process by seeking the judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” is a travesty. But the damage extends well beyond principles of democratic rule. For the substantive issue of whether legally to enshrine marriage as the exclusive and permanent union of sexually complementary spouses (what marriage truly is) or as something else (in this case doing away with sexual complementarity) has profound ramifications. "