Submitted by Thomas Murphy, Nov 7, 2006 01:37

I agree with Kevin Churchill on the reason for the timing. While I do not agree with most of what he said about Chief Justice Poritz personally, I feel that she let her desire to "go out with a bang" blind her to the greater effect that releasing the ruling so close before the election would galvanize the homophobes.

Certainly most of the justices knew how they were going to vote for the last several months, and it is unlikely that they persuaded anyone in the opposite camp, or expected to. Releasing the ruling during the summer would have allowed the furor to die down.

Incidently, Kevin, the vote was unanimous that same-sex couples are entitled to the benefits associated with marriage. Poritz was in the minority camp, which felt that the majority opinion did not go far enough. The minority wanted to follow Massachusetts example and not let the legislature wimp out with separate and unequal "civil unions."

So, while the new court may not be as liberal without Poritz, it will not be reactionary and backward like some of the MidWestern courts that have twisted the very meaning of marriage in order to "preserve" it from gays. (One went so far as to claim that the purpose of the benefits of marriage is to bribe young pregnant couples into not becoming deadbeat dads and welfare moms!)

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.