Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Governor Christie Steps In It

The New Jersey democratically controlled legislature is advancing a bill to legalize gay marriage, with almost certain odds of passage. Governor Chris Christie has vowed to veto the bill. He should have stopped there, but he didn't. As a result, in an act of political punting, he raised some hackles, and in the process raised some fundamental questions about individual rights.

I commented on this episode in a post at the Objective Standard Blog. Here are the opening sentences:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ignited a political furor when he vowed to veto a bill recently introduced in the state legislature legalizing gay marriage because he believed the issue should be decided by popular vote through a public referendum. In so doing, he said “I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South."

Click here to read the rest.


Mike Kevitt said...

Right, our rights aren't a matter or people's choice, legislation, court decision or executive order, but a matter of morality. The moral thing is to recognize them by Constitution, which should be good enough, but by further means if needed.

That was done, but with the morality only implied. Since then, it's been largely undone by extra-constitutional means. So, now, the marriage contract, and the right of contract, generally, must be re-recognized. And, the whole of individual rights must be re-recognized, this time with the morality explicit, yes, in writing, just like the rest of our laws and Founding Documents.

One more thing, it's a matter of crime v not-crime, meaning, of initiatory force v mutually chosen relationships.

Mike Zemack said...

It should also be remembered what the Ninth Amendment makes clear: Rights of the individual are not limited only to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Mike Kevitt said...

Yes, thanks for that needed reminder.

1st. comes the written morality of egoism, in brief summary (treatises elsewhere), then the Founding Documents (incl. the 9th. Amend. provision), then pursuant legislation which, only if and as pursuant, is law (content is essential in qualifying a document as a law, not just the process, due or otherwise, it is run thru). That's the logic if it.

It should've been the chronology, but, well, people do the best they can over time, with what they know.