I think everyone who claims the gays in New Jersey are going to ruin the chance of defeating the GOP should read this article. It's not as big an issue, as you think.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061023&s=clarke102606Why New Jersey's gay marriage ruling won't cause a backlash.
Empty Threat
by Conor Clarke
Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.26.06
Each day, for the last few weeks, supporters of same-sex marriage have been clicking their way to the Web page of the New Jersey Supreme Court with equal parts excitement and anxiety. They were excited because, earlier this year, the liberal court had heard arguments about the constitutionality of gay marriage, and a ruling was expected by October 25. But they were worried about the backlash. "There's an awful lot of propaganda right now from radical Republicans," Barbra Casbar, president of the Garden State's chapter of the Stonewall Democrats, told The New York Times earlier this week. "They're desperate to fire up their base." When the decision, in the case of Lewis v. Harris, came down yesterday, it seemed--legal complexities aside--like the GOP would have its chance. Or so the reaction on the left seems to indicate. "Christmas may have come a little early for Karl Rove this year," wrote Slate's Dahlia Lithwick. "decision sure to be exploited for partisan gain," declared the headline of a National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce press release.
This fear is understandable: In 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, that the state's constitution required it to grant same-sex marriage licenses, many gay rights activists broke out the champagne, booked their wedding singers, and sat back to await the domino-like decisions that would spread same-sex marriage across the country. Instead, they became the targets of a nasty political backlash. Twenty states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman, and eleven did so with ballot initiatives during the 2004 elections alone--usually by sizable margins. This year, the stakes seem equally high, and so does the average Democrat's blood pressure. The party is expected to make gains, but it's panicky about not living up to expectations. Add that to the tight Senate race in New Jersey and the eight states with gay marriage ballot initiatives slated for November 7, and the situation starts to look a lot like it did two years ago.
But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.
For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics. On that score, Goodridge was a train wreck. This is the first line: "Marriage is a vital social institution." And it takes exactly five sentences to determine that it cannot to denied to same-sex couples. Just in case someone lets you forget what vital social institution is being accorded to homosexuals, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall's opinion makes sure to use the word "marriage" another 226 times. This is perfect electoral fodder. The New Jersey court, by contrast, makes clear from the very beginning that it "cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State." Instead, it remains open to some "separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage," so long as "the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples." This will, rightly, leave eager same-sex couples a bit dry: Titles are important. But the decision will disappoint desperate Republicans for the same reason.
<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
