The New Jersey Supreme Court Just Gave a Boost to the Republicans

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Baronius

  Oct 25, 2006 at 7:38 pm

  Very interesting. In the Senate race, the Republican is running about 4% behind. This ruling could really motivate the evangelical vote.

• 2 - gonzo marx

  Oct 25, 2006 at 7:54 pm

  first..the "evangelical vote" in NJ is so much less than 4% that you, Baronius are dreaming...
  
  full disclosure: i spent about 30 years of my life in NJ
  
  now on to the bullshit of the Article itself...obviously John either hasn't read the actual ruling, or is deliberately misleading folks for partisan purposes...
  
  here's from the actual Ruling...
  *“Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution,” Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
  
  The court said the Legislature “must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure” that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
  
  The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.*
  
  now, here you see the NJ supreme court hit the same Logic and interpertation as Vermont did...
  
  protect the civil and human rights of these citizens , and leave what you call it (marriage or civil unions) up to the legislature to decide
  
  and the problem is?
  
  to many, the problem is not just the "equal protection under the Law" , but the desire to have it called "marriage" for what they consider full equality
  
  and i tend to agree, that is something the political process needs to address and deal with
  
  but i also agree, and staunchly advocate, that these folks should have their equal protection under the Law
  
  that some would drag this into the realm of partisan bullshit, rather than view it as an expression of civil and legal Rights in our Nation goes to show not only how low some will stoop to "win"
  
  but how morally and ethically bankrupt some partisans are
  
  nuff said...
  
  Excelsior?

• 3 - Arch Conservative

  Oct 25, 2006 at 8:02 pm

  full disclosure: i spent about 30 years of my life in NJ
  
  you poor thing!

• 4 - John Bambenek

  Oct 25, 2006 at 8:45 pm

  I've read the ruling...
  
  No one is going to pay attention to the nuance of the ruling though. The pro-gay marriage crowd will cheer saying at last they've reached the promised land. The anti-gay marriage crowd will lament a judicially activist court.
  
  The nuance will get lost in the noise and most voters won't bother to read the ruling (though I'd suspect most evangelicals would have a problem with it anyway).
  
  In politics it doesn't matter what something *IS*, it matters what it *APPEARS* to be.

• 5 - JustOneMan

  Oct 25, 2006 at 8:50 pm

  Oh....John...my dear boy...I too live in NJ...What a wonderful place...we pay high taxes, a corrupt and bloated government but best of all we are totally controlled by my new party ...The DEMOCRATS...this is great news!
  
  Imagine men can now marry other men and have all the benefits of married heterosexual men..oh it will be so swell...
  
  Imagine monogomy, bickering, high divorce rates, oh children...wonderful children their runny noses and poopy diapers it will be grand! and just like married heterosexual men very little sex and absolutely no anal sex ...noooo anallll sex ...a...hmmmm....er....ahhh..I have to go rethink this marraige thing...ill get back to you later....

• 6 - Baronius

  Oct 25, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  didn't say or imply that the evangelical vote Was 4% of the electorate...
  
  "obviously John either hasn't read the actual ruling, or is deliberately misleading folks for partisan purposes..."
  
  that's what I like to call a false either/or. It's exactly the kind of thinking that harms these boards, upon which I function as a benevolent Superior Guiding Mind...
  
  gonzo, John may have read the actual ruling And saw fit to Summarize it as he did. The ruling does open the door to gay marriage... reread his statement...
  
  it's Annoying to be talked down to isn't it... makes your head aNd stomach hurt and makes you want To take...
  
  Alka-Seltzer?

• 7 - Margaret Romao Toigo

  Oct 25, 2006 at 9:27 pm

  Indeed, the nuance could very well get lost, and likely will. However, the Republicans had better tread lightly around that nuance anyway, lest they risk being cast as backward-thinking, "homophobes."

• 8 - gonzo marx

  Oct 25, 2006 at 9:35 pm

  well Baronius... if you read the quick takes in the news, it seems that nobody is happy with the NJ decision...by *nobody* i mean the fanatics on either side of the Question...
  
  and i stand by the assessment..if John did read the Ruling first, and deliberately wrote the Article the way he did, he committed the sin of omission in order to inflame and deceive...
  
  his Right to do so, and mine to call him on it...
  
  as for the "talking down" bullshit...do as ya like and know i just don't give a fuck what you think or say...just as i'm fairly certain you don't when it comes to my own mad peckings at the keyboard...
  
  for the record: not only do John and i have a fairly extensive history of discourse here on BC... but we are relatively familiar with each other's writings in another forum arena of words
  
  so kibbitz all ya like, but ya can keep yer fizzy shit ... tho i do award 5 points for the Pun
  
  {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  Excelsior?

• 9 - JustOneMan

  Oct 25, 2006 at 10:00 pm

  Oh Margaret how right you are! These homophobic lunatics get all bent out of shape when a mature homsexual man simply flirts with young vibrant underage pages...whats few IMs about bulges and boxer shorts!
  
  my...my...why they actually went bizerk and called for a full witch hunt over a who knew what about this gay man just doing what gay men are supposed to do...get some action and recruit some young studs why the nerve of these Republican polticians with their press conferences and demands for resignation over a gay man...oh..wait...ohhhh.nooo..my "significant other" just informed me that it wasnt the republicans who were acting like backward-thinking, "homophobes." it was actual my new party the Democrats...
  
  Oh well as I have learned here on blogcritics from my new friends on the left...facts dont really matter...just as long as we make bush and the republicans look bad...
  
  From the Left....JustOneMan

• 10 - Margaret Romao Toigo

  Oct 25, 2006 at 11:09 pm

  JustOneMan, I'm just one non-partisan observer who has noted that the GOP's balancing act, in which it tries to please its evangelical base while trying not to offend the sensibilities of moderates, is being performed on a beam that has been lately getting thinner and thinner.
  
  A majority of the American people may still oppose same-sex marriage, but that same majority actually has little to no problem with the notion of civil unions.
  
  To be against gay marriage is to be in the majority. However, to be against civil unions for same-sex couples is considered bigotry by all but the most doctrinaire.
  

• 11 - BriMan

  Oct 26, 2006 at 12:02 am

  "The Foley story is old news and few people but the party faithful read all the hit piece books that come out in October. People see this ruling, and they're paying attention. It just gave the Republican faithful another big reason to come out and vote in 2 weeks."
  
  Dreamer.

• 12 - Silas Kain

  Oct 26, 2006 at 1:19 am

  That's BRILLIANT! The NJSC speaks of a parallel stautory structure. I can live with that. Give me all the rights given to heterosexual married couples. My partner should have the right to:

  • Inheritance of my property
  Rights of full survivorship
  • Be my health proxy
  • Be entitled to my pension when I die
  • Be entitled to a piece of the property we acquire together should we divorce
  No more disparity from heterosexuals. The homolution is upon us.

• 13 - gonzo marx

  Oct 26, 2006 at 1:38 am

  heh..
  
  thanks for sounding off on this one Silas...
  
  i've been waiting for someone who woudl actually be effected by this one to speak up on what they Thought...
  
  now, i know there is a segment of the population who won't tolerate Recognition of basic civil Rights to some folks no matter what... just as there are some in the population concerned who won't be satisfied until they can call it *marriage*
  
  to me, it seems like a sound Decision..folks get their civil Rights applied by the whole "equal protection" thing...
  
  and, bottom line...what's in a Name?
  
  Excelsior?
  
  

• 14 - Silas Kain

  Oct 26, 2006 at 2:00 am

  gonzo--
  
  If my partner and I were to be accorded every right accorded to duly sanctioned heterosexual married couples, I would be completely satisfied. We can be married in our minds while being a state sanctioned corporation in the eyes of society. I just want basic respect and dignity to choose my own path in life. Anything less is unacceptable.

• 15 - gonzo marx

  Oct 26, 2006 at 2:05 am

  and you know i completely Agree with your position here
  
  hell, i would be fine if said secular Union was called *marriage*...
  
  but i think the Ruling the NJSC handed down was solid...Recognizing peolpe's Right and leaving the naming and the rest up to the elected Representatives to hammer out...
  
  nuff said
  
  Excelsior?

• 16 - Silas Kain

  Oct 26, 2006 at 2:28 am

  Indeed, gonzo. Thanks for your support.

• 17 - Davd Nalle

  Oct 26, 2006 at 2:54 am

  I'm not clear on the title of this piece. Are you saying that Republicans are going to embrace this ruling and thereby show that they have some good sense and win votes as a result? Sounds like a good plan to me.
  
  Dave

• 18 - handyguy

  Oct 26, 2006 at 10:31 am

  "While Democrats will say that Republicans are using the politics of division (as they supposedly did in 2004) to get votes in November, the reality is that the Republicans never put gay marriage on the agenda -- it was the Democrats"
  
  Absurd.
  
  The Massachusetts court ruling that suddenly put this issue front and center 3 years ago was surprising to many on the left as well as the right. Many people had been talking about civil unions, but it was neither a big talking point for Democrats nor a hot-button issue for the religious right before that 2003 ruling.
  
  Since that ruling, virtually every Democrat with any national name recognition, including John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, and including Gov. Corzine of NJ yesterday, has been doing a contorted dance around the issue: "We believe in equal rights, but marriage should only be between a man and a woman." I'd even say that many Democrats have been hoping the issue would fade into the background because it made them so uncomfortable.
  
  Many, many Republicans, on the other hand, have been only to happy to keep the subject in the spotlight. To me, this is a transparently cynical attempt to increase their vote margins; if you insist that it is instead just a sincere expression of their genuine beliefs, you are welcome to hang on to that delusion.
  
  In the meantime, the majority of the public has wisely moved on...they now accept, or are indifferent to, the idea of civil unions. As long as they aren't called marriages, with the religious connotation that has for many people. I can live with that. It will be fascinating to watch this play out.

• 19 - Nancy

  Oct 26, 2006 at 11:24 am

  I'm disgusted by either party bringing this issue up constantly. It's an excuse for the damned slackers in congress on both sides to avoid doing any meaningful work on issues that really matter, like health insurance (or lack thereof), immigration, etc. Instead they drag out these straw issues, red/dead herrings that require nothing but that each side posture & huff & puff about something that frankly is nobody's business to begin with, except the participants involved. So a bunch of gays wants to marry. So what? How does allowing them to marry effect anybody else, except possibly the insurance industry? And who the hell really gives a rats' ass, anyway? I haven't noticed that an awful lot of people - even evangelicals, and I live next to a nest of them, so I hear about these things more than I want to - care one jot or tittle about who does what to whom behind closed doors. Those that DO ballyhoo around the town square about it usually seem to be using it to distract from other issues, usually vastly more important. Personally, I want the damned maggots in congress to quit screwing around & get to work on REAL problems & not some stupid concocted fake issue. used solely for the purpose of rabble rousing and/or avoiding the work of having to take an actual position on real issues of importance.

• 20 - David

  Oct 26, 2006 at 12:09 pm

  This is unbelieveable logic.
  
  The Democrats have been HANDED so much gross and incompetent behavior by Bush and the Republicans you couldn't ASK for bigger idiots to run against. If the Democrats can't beat the Republicans in Nov the fault lies only with themselves: this day is ready-made for them and if they screw it up it's not because a bunch of gays got civil unions in NJ.

• 21 - Silas Kain

  Oct 26, 2006 at 1:15 pm

  No, it'll be because the Conservatives will get the whacko Soldiers of Christ to go out to the polls while the Apathetic Left sits at home eating bon bons playing Grand Theft Auto 109.

• 22 - Nancy

  Oct 26, 2006 at 2:22 pm

  I'm sorry to say, women & younger voters are the main villains, apparently. I just learned that while over 34 million single, divorced, or widowed women are eligible to vote, but don't. That's disgraceful as well as damned irresponsible.

• 23 - Baronius

  Oct 26, 2006 at 8:05 pm

  I don't see either party bringing this issue up very often. I travel in some pretty conservative circles, and from what I've seen, no politician wants to talk about gay marriage. It's got an awful cost/benefit ratio. If a politician fails to guess the public mood, or the mood of the room, he can make enemies for life.
  
  I'm talking about the unprincipled, moderate politician. The kind of guy who loved the Dubai port issue, because he got to be pro-America at the cost of offending Dubaians. (That issue was sweet.)
  
  It's tough to predict what'll happen when the people on both sides care more about an issue than the politicians do. I'm not saying that right, but maybe you know what I mean.

• 24 - JustOneMan

  Oct 26, 2006 at 10:29 pm

  Silas this is truly a grand day! Now people of all sexual persuasions have the door open to share the bond on martrimony...just think...now that the door is open people who were born with the predisposition for multiple wives or husbands and even interspecies marraiages may some day be possible! Yes we on the left should be proud what our activists judges are defacatiing on the US...this is a great time to be a liberal!
  
  From The Left...JustOneMan

• 25 - Zedd

  Oct 27, 2006 at 12:48 am

  John:
  
  I don't think that the Foley thing is forgotten by the Evangelicals. They don't forget easily.
  
  I think that the evangelicals are already the surest vote for republicans. They are the ONE sure thing. I don't think that they need anything to make them that much more mobilized at this late date. The ones that are registered intended to vote already and they weren't hedging between parties.
  
  If there was an issue which affected middle class professionals, you would have something. The middle class are the people who are going to swing or stay home. Not the evangelicals.
  
  As for the ditto heads, whether evangelical or Rush struck, they are a done deal.
  
  I think however that in the near future, there will be an exodus of long term evangelicals from the Republican Party, at least in as far as being unequivocally loyal.
  
  
  

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.