'Full Marriage Equality' Editorial
Subscribe to our RSS Feed:
Topics
- Everyone vs. Everyone: Why South Park’s Treatment of Sexual Harassment in Schools is no Joke
- The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is Unconstitutional
- 'Full Marriage Equality' Editorial
- Governor Christie Makes History By Politicizing the New Jersey Supreme Court
- School Bullying Results in 800000 Verdict
- Big Brother is Watching Civil Rights Abuses by Schools
- Illinois Supreme Court Overturns Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Matters
- Why Arbitration Agreements Are Un-American
- It's Time to Pierce the Corporate Veil in Discrimination Cases
- Sexual Discrimination in Contractual Relationships
- The Truth About Who Files Lawsuits
- Of Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
- Plausibility and Common Sense DANGER
- I Didn't Sexually Harass Her But They Fired Me Anyway
- Why Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Claims Is Un-American
- New Jersey Considers Workplace Bullying Law
- Racial Harassment in Bergen County-Justice for Roberth Morales
- Third Circuit Rules It Is Illegal to Discriminate Against an Employee For Having an Abortion
- Courts Unfriendly to Employment Plaintiffs-Harvard Study
- Finally-Religious Based Harassment is Truly Illegal in New Jersey
- Corporate Greed
- Bigoted Pediatrician
- Governor Corzine Lets Down The People of New Jersey
- Racism in the Jury Box
- The McDonalds Myth
- Caps On Damages Dont Work
- A Rose By Any Other Name - Marriage
- What Workplace Harassment Says About Our Society
- The Road So Far
Recent Updates
September 1, 2010
Everyone vs. Everyone: Why South Park’s Treatment of Sexual Harassment in Schools is no Joke
August 1, 2010
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is Unconstitutional
July 7, 2010
'Full Marriage Equality' Editorial
July 1, 2010
Governor Christie Makes History By Politicizing the New Jersey Supreme Court
June 1, 2010
School Bullying Results in 800000 Verdict
'Full Marriage Equality' Editorial
Posted by: Kevin Costello
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."
JOURNEY TO JUSTICE
DISCLAIMER: This web log is not legal advice, nor should it be construed to be legal advice or the offering of legal advice. It should not be read as guaranteeing or suggesting any particular outcome in any Court will occur in any particular case. It is not, and should be read as, a complete or authoritative analysis of the state of law, which is constantly subject to change.
"Journey to Justice" - The Web Log of Civil Rights Trial Lawyer Kevin M. Costello, Esq. (www.costellomains.com).











