Wednesday, July 7, 2010

'Full Marriage Equality' Editorial

Here is what was recently published in the New Jersey Law Journal, authored by me, in response to a conservative attorney who continues to argue against civil equality by using reference to 'natural law' when she really means 'religious' law. But she knows better than to argue a position in direct contravention to the Constitution.


I remind you all, regardless of how you may personally or religiously see this issue to remember that when we decide to live by 'natural' law, it's whatever the strongest person says it is.


Here's the Voice of the Bar piece, with acknowledgment to the New Jersey Law Journal:


"Subjective Religious Concepts Have No Place in Civil Law

New Jersey Law Journal

July 2, 2010


Dear Editor:


Please accept this letter in response to Grace Meyer's latest offering in her continuing, one-person rant against civil equality ["Bar's Same Sex Marriage Stance Is Retreat From Natural Law," Voice of the Bar, June 28].


As long as Ms. Meyer continues to feel it appropriate to laud "natural law" — an entirely subjective, amorphous and unknowable concept — as a policy grounding for civil law in New Jersey, and as long as she continues to ignore her oath to uphold and defend the constitution in so doing by ignoring the establishment clause, I feel she must be responded to.


New Jersey law is not founded on religious concepts, thus it cannot be driven by religious principals. Private definitions of marriage have nothing to do with civil definitions of marriage, which are entirely economic in nature. As long as this is so, all citizens must have the right to access the same benefits, liabilities and obligations of marriage.


Ms. Meyer and those like her can call marriage whatever they like in their churches, mosques, synagogues, druid circles and temples. For the rest of us, who derive our civil rights from civil law, "natural law" is a nonsensical concept that can be used to justify every manner of cruelty, horror, slavery, oppression, theft and abuse. Natural law means the strong prey on the weak, and that no one has any rights except from the barrel of a gun or from the point of a sword. Unless we are prepared to return to "natural law" in all ways in which we live in this state, then we cannot pick and choose subjective pieces of natural law to suit religious objection to full civil rights.


I continue to respectfully suggest that anyone with a law degree ought to feel great reluctance to suggest nonlegal and subjective religious concepts ought to inform civil law in this state, regardless of their personal religious agendas."

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Costello & Mains Supports Marriage Equality in NJ

Partner Kevin Costello voiced the sentiment of the firm and of the majority of fair minded attorneys in New jersey in a recent "Voice of the Bar" piece for the New Jersey Law Journal, the latest entry in an on-going discussion of the marriage rights question in New Jersey. "It's really not a question at all," Kevin feels. "Marriage cannot be guided by someone's subjective idea of 'natural law,' because natural law means the strong abuse - or oppress - the weak. Sadly, when people use 'natural law' in the context of arguing against civil rights, they usually mean 'religious law,' but they're of course aware that religious law cannot guide civil policy, so they disguise their argument by using 'natural law' to frame the issue. I believe in my oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions of New Jersey and of the United States, and that means marriage equality."

Governor Christie Makes History By Politicizing the New Jersey Supreme Court

We have three branches of government for a reason. They're supposed to stay separate and equal. The judiciary should not be weakened and subordinated to the political will of either of the other two branches.



Governor Christie has recently made history in a couple of ways, none of them particularly distinguishing. For example, he is the first Governor in New Jersey history to refer to school children as “drug mules” for the New Jersey Education Association and the first to suggest to voters to not pass school budgets.



Yet as obnoxious and incredible as those acts are, he's gone even farther.



Now, he is going to be the first governor to politically posture in the process of appointing and reappointing Justices to the New Jersey State Supreme Court.



The New Jersey State Supreme Court was recreated in its modern form when the New Jersey State Constitution was updated in 1947. It is the envy of many States which don't have a political appointment process for their judiciary and which instead depend upon the mud slinging “populist” agendas of political candidates in order to fill judicial vacancies.



In New Jersey, as much as the process was never perfect - - no process ever is - - there was a respect and a decency about the judicial appointment process that every governor, of both parties, always observed. Never before, to my knowledge, has a governor of either political party refuse to appoint a sitting Justice simply because that Justice was appointed by his opponent.



In refusing to reappoint Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, Governor Christie makes history as the first governor to lower himself to political thuggery in administrating the judicial process in the State.



It was not the intention of the 1947 Constitutional framers that incoming Governors should start playing “political games” with judicial appointments to our Supreme Court and try to satisfy the whim and whimsy of voters who pay attention to serious political issues only a few times every few years.



One quick look at the Washington, D.C. process utilized in appointing Justices to the United States Supreme Court is all we really need to see to determine how badly this process goes when political litmus tests and political whim and whimsy come into the picture. The modern era of judicial appointments has been an era marked by political attacks, political posturing and nonsense.



As the outgoing president of the State Bar Association recently said, candidates for the bench should reflect “the rich tapestry of people who make New Jersey the most diverse State in the country, and they should be absolutely free to make decisions on a reasoned basis, untethered from the influence of partisan politics.”



This has never been more true than now, at a time when special interests, many of them corporately powered, attempt to politically influence not only the passage of laws for the public good, but now, through pet legislatures, the process of the administration of those very same laws.



Justice Wallace, whom Governor Christie has decided not to reappoint, has been an outstanding judge. His decisions have been thoughtful and well rooted in the law, even though there is no lawyer in the State who has agreed with all of them. He has been fair-minded and he has protected the integrity of the bench, of the New Jersey State Constitution, of the law, and of New Jersey’s people, even though 99% of them were never aware that their rights as New Jersey citizens were being protected in this fashion.



In addition, he happens to be the only African-American member of the Supreme Court, in a State with a sizable African-American population. Governor Christie’s decision to deny tenure is an affront not only to Justice Wallace, but to the Supreme Court as a body and to the judiciary of the State of New Jersey, as well as to the people of this State whether they know it or not. It is an insult to New Jersey’s image before the country as a State whose judiciary is of the highest caliber. It is an insult to everything that makes the judiciary an independent part of our three tiered system of
government.



This action by Governor Christie is unprecedented in its temerity and it is not an act of which any of his supporters should be proud. If you voted for Governor Christie, you need to ask yourself whether or not you are comfortable with the idea that he is now embarking on a course that no New Jersey governor has ever embarked upon. If you validate this action and you support him in taking it, then you must be prepared for the next Democratic governor who takes office to do the same thing. No doubt that Democratic governor’s politicking will displease you, and no doubt that any Republican replacement to that Democratic governor will please you in his subsequent politicking.



Very soon, I fear as an attorney that we will have a State Supreme Court that resembles the United States Supreme Court, which has become a political animal more than it has become a place of high justice and fair justice. Justice Wallace deserved better than this, and as did his brothers and sisters on the Supreme Court and in the judiciary at large, and as did the people of this State.



Many things have frightened me as a lawyer over the last 5 to 10 years.



Many of them appear in other blogs of mine.



This act of Governor Christie’s frightens me as much as the most
frightening things I’ve seen.



I challenge law makers of both political parties to call Governor Christie to task for this, and I call upon the citizens of the State of New Jersey of all political stripes to tell Governor Christie not to politicize the administration of justice in our State. Our integrity as a model of judicial fairness and ideals depends on it.