The NJ Supreme Court made a ruling that is sure to have opponents of Gay Marriage in disarray, but at its heart was probably the best ruling that could be expected, when it is analyzed.

The ruling essentially said that gays were entitled to equal protection and the Legislature had to do one of two things:  Either open a path for gay marriage, or make some manner of equivalent civil unions available.

So why is this good?  First of all for what the court did not do.  It did not declare them legal on their face, an act that is commonly denounced as judicial activism.  Instead it deferred to the Legislature to deal with the issue, as it should be.   However the state legislature chooses to do so, it is better then a 7 person court making a ruling in its place.  This is another in a string of recent rulings in which the Court’s have clearly determined that the Legislature is the proper place for these decisions, and deferred.

The other reason I like the substance of the ruling is that it identifies the validity of what I have long believed, and that is that the real answer here is civil unions.

Note, this is an analysis of the Majority opinion, I take no particular position on gay marriage.

My interest is in the larger issue of judicial activism. 

Via Stop the ACLU

I’m listening as I post to Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel speaking to my local radio station (540 WFLA) about breaking news on a California same-sex marriage case. Staver is an attorney who argued the case on the side of upholding a same-sex marriage ban.

According to news posted just minutes ago:

A state appeals court ruled Thursday that California’s marriage laws do not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, a critical defeat to a movement hungry for a win after high courts in New York and Washington upheld similar bans in those states.

The complete ruling is a whopping 128 pages long, and can be seen here.  I won’t post it all, but it’s summary is interesting.

The majority opinion, written by Justice McGuiness is an amazing one, not solely for the nature of the ruling itself, but for the stance it takes on judicial activism.

He slaps the dissenting Justice right in the first paragraph: