New Jersey Supreme Court Mandates Rights Of Marriage For Homosexuals
By Tom Fitton
November 1, 2006

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor questioned why there is such an "intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary." Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave her an answer.

On Wednesday, in an act of raw judicial power, the New Jersey Supreme Court discovered that the New Jersey Constitution, which was last written 60 years ago, requires that homosexual couples have a right to all the benefits of marriage. The court has given the legislature 180 days to rewrite laws governing marriage, but why bother? The laws have effectively been rewritten. As one delighted gay activist put it, when choosing between homosexual marriage and civil union, "[Legislators] get to decide between chocolate chip and double chocolate chip." In other words, for homosexual activists, it's a win no matter what the legislature decides to call the result, whether it is "civil union" or "marriage."

In its ruling, which overruled two lower courts and invalidated at least 28 New Jersey statutes, the Court found these new rights in specific language of the New Jersey State Constitution: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Certainly the authors of the Constitution did not contemplate the notion of same sex-marriage when crafting this language.

So how on earth did the court find in this language a mandate that authorizes a court to require a legislature to change the law to give the rights of marriage to homosexuals? I'll tell you how. They made it up. That is what judicial activists do. They "find" rights where none exist in the U.S. Constitution (or state constitutions). All the legal talk about substantive due process and equal protection of the law is smoke and mirrors. Even the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged the dangerous temptations of judicial activism in their decision: "Under the guise of newly found rights, we must be careful not to impose our personal value system on eight-and-one-half million people, thus bypassing the democratic process as the primary means of effecting social change in this State." Of course, they went ahead and did just that.

When judges impose their personal politics from the bench, as the New Jersey Supreme Court has done, they are no longer "independent" arbiters of justice. They become unelected politicians in black robes, entitled to no more respect than elected politicians. Americans who care about the rule of law must nominate and confirm more conservatives to the bench -- men and women who will refuse the temptation to become policy makers.

Congressional Ethics in the Spotlight

As we approach the mid-term elections, which are less than two weeks away, congressional ethics continue to dominate the news.

On Tuesday, October 24, Speaker Dennis Hastert became the first Speaker of the House in ten years to testify before the House Ethics Committee, which is seemingly back in action after a long hiatus. Hastert was grilled for hours on what he knew about the Foley sex scandal, and when he knew it. Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, who testified before Hastert, says he warned Hastert months ago about Foley's "overly friendly" emails to a House page. Hastert says he has no recollection of this conversation or of another he allegedly had with House leader John Boehner earlier this year. Whatever the outcome of the Foley "investigation," Hastert's term of leadership has been a disaster for ethics in the House. Under Hastert, both Democrats and Republicans have upended the House ethics process, and there has been little accountability for House members credibly accused of wrongdoing.

October 19th, Judicial Watch held an educational panel on congressional ethics, with special attention paid to the Foley matter.

Transcript link: Panel Transcript ,

While the Foley matter played out in the press, an important development in the Abramoff investigation nearly went unnoticed. On October 13, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) became the first lawmaker to confess to a crime in the web of scandals involving Abramoff. Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. He acknowledged taking money, gifts and favors in return for official actions on behalf of Abramoff and his clients, and now faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

While Ney is the first congressional victim of the Abramoff scandal, he likely won't be the last. Roll Call reported this week that, "at least 17 members of Congress are coming under federal investigation," several of whom are tied to Abramoff. I'm pleased to see that federal prosecutors are taking public corruption investigations more seriously. About the only thing that will convince members of Congress to change their corrupt behavior is seeing their colleagues handcuffed and sent off to prison.

Judicial Watch Releases New Report on Mexican Separatist School

You may recall a couple of months ago I told you that Judicial Watch launched an investigation of a taxpayer-funded Mexican separatist school that was apparently brainwashing children to hate the United States. Last week, Judicial Watch released a new special report summarizing the evidence we've collected thus far, and I think you are going to be very disturbed by what we found.

According to our report, entitled, Academia Semillas del Pueblo (Seeds of the People Academy): Training the Next Generation of Mexican Revolutionaries with American Tax Dollars, this "school" is really nothing more than a training ground for the Mexican reconquista movement (which has concocted an insane plan to conquer the American southwest and return it to Mexico.)

I really hope you take the time to read through this report in its entirety, but here are a few of the highlights:

-- Academia is led by Mexican revolutionary radical Marcos Aguilar, who recently told an interviewer with UCLA's Teaching to Change L.A.: "We don't necessarily want to go to White schools...the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

-- Academia offers an 8th grade United States history and geography class entitled, "A People's history of Expansion and Conflict -- A thematic survey of American politics, society, culture and political economy; Emphasis throughout on the nations the U.S. usurped, invaded and dominated; Connections between historical rise of capitalism and imperialism with modern political economy and global social relations."

-- Academia is funded by the Mexican reconquista organization National Council of La Raza (or National Council of the Race). Moreover, Aguilar previously served as a leader of M.E.Ch.A., a radical student-run Chicano organization, while attending UCLA. According to M.E.Ch.A.'s official statement of principles, "Aztlan (the American southwest) belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture...We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze Nation."

-- According to Academia's original charter application, the school targets "communities [that] are highly self-identified as Latino." English instruction for Academia's students does not begin until the fourth grade.

-- According to statistics from the California Department of Education, Aguilar's school achieved the lowest ranking possible on its "Academic Performance Index."

What I find most shocking about this school is the fact that Aguilar did not try to hide his radical agenda when he sought government funding in 2001. His plans are laid out in detail in his original charter application. The real scandal here is that the Los Angeles Unified School District bought it. So far, taxpayers have given Aguilar $1.6 million. The school's charter is due for review this year. It should be revoked.

------------

Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.