Thinking to Believe

Well, kind of.  In 2006 the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislature had to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples as it did to heterosexual couples seeking legal recognition of their relationship.  The legislature complied, but chose to call same-sex unions “civil unions” rather than “marriage” (which was an upgrade from the “domestic partnerships” they implemented in 2004).  A bill introduced last year sought to make it law that same-sex unions be termed “marriages” rather than “civil unions.”  Today, the NJ Senate voted 20-14 against that bill.  

I say the Senate “kind of” voted against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage already exists in New Jersey; it’s just called by a different name.  Same-sex couples would not have gained anything material had this bill passed, and they have not been denied anything material with its defeat.  They have merely been denied being able to call their state-recognized relationships “marriage.”  While there is something to be said about the value of a name, the fact of the matter is that the fight over same-sex marriage is not (or at least should not be) over who gets to use the “M” word, but over the legal recognition and sanction of same-sex relationships.  If you give same-sex couples all of the benefits and privileges of opposite-sex couples, you have de facto legalized same-sex marriage, whatever you call it.  Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

This is a travesty of justice.  A woman killed her neo-Nazi husband while he was sleeping, and will not serve any jail time for doing so.  And it’s not because she was found to be mentally insane.  It’s because her husband was seen to be such a bad guy.  Indeed, he was.  He was a white supremacist, a child pornographer, an abuser, and had the materials to make a bomb.  Nevertheless, he was a human being.  He needed to experience justice for his crimes, but being killed was not the appropriate form of justice, and his wife was not the appropriate person to determine his punishment.  There is no question that she needed to remove herself and her daughter from this man’s influence, but divorce and/or relocation could have accomplished this.  Killing him was not necessary.  Given the woman’s circumstances I could understand if the court might have lessened her prison sentence, but to let her go scot-free is wrong.  This sends a message to society that murder is justifiable so long as the person you are murdering is a bad person.  How many other women might be emboldened to kill their abusive or crazy husbands as a result of this case?  This is what happens when sentimentalism is elevated in a society.  It can even trump the rule of law.