EVEN LIBERALS CAN BE RIGHT SOMETIMES

Yesterday Pravda-on-the-Merrimack (Concord Monitor) ran an op-ed by Professor Marcus Hurn of Franklin Pierce on civil unions.  He makes two points. 

One is "Civil unions are not like mandatory seatbelts, smoking prohibitions, insurance mandates or the minimum wage. A civil union restrains no one’s liberty. It affects no private contracts." 

The other is "Unlike some of our compatriots in other states, the lesbian and gay leadership in New Hampshire has never used lawsuits to force dramatic change. Over 20 years ago we decided to put our faith in democratic methods, and they have served us well. …  We are on the brink of winning a great victory – and winning it fair and square. Yet now a crowd that has spent as much as 30 years howling against judicial activism is threatening a lawsuit to overturn a duly adopted statute."

My focus here is on the second point.  I agree with Hurn that the civil union law is not a violation of equal protection of the laws (although not based on his reasoning), I also agree with him that a potential legal challenge to the civil union law could lead to the unintended consequence of the NH Supreme Court ruling that both civil unions and marriages have to be available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and that it would be hypocritical for anyone who has criticized judicial activism to bring such a challenge.

Opponents of the civil union law should be making their case to the voters, not the courts.  Hurn’s op-ed presents the arguments that opponents of the civil unions need to address, if they want to make their case.