Wednesday, October 25, 2006
So Much For The Gay Marriage Wedge Issue
Republicans were hoping a New Jersey Supreme Court decision on same-sex couples that was announced today was going to help the Grand Old Pervert party use the gay marriage wedge issue in the closing weeks of the midterm election campaign against Democrats. Judging from this report from the Associated Press, it looks like Republicans are shit out of luck on that count:
So sad for Republicans. Everything seems to be going wrong for them this year. Now even the liberal activist judges aren't coming through for them.
Oh, well - I guess they can always just keep churning out the racist ads against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee (You know, like: "Hey, Tennesseans - Ken Mehlman and the RNC say Harold Ford loves the white women...")
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.
So sad for Republicans. Everything seems to be going wrong for them this year. Now even the liberal activist judges aren't coming through for them.
Oh, well - I guess they can always just keep churning out the racist ads against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee (You know, like: "Hey, Tennesseans - Ken Mehlman and the RNC say Harold Ford loves the white women...")
Comments:
<< Home
reality, the court must determine whether the state will honor GAY MARRIAGE or another form of CIVIL UNION.
That hardly reprsents a loss for Republicans.
The issue of defining MARRIAGE is still at hand.
There are no obstacles preventing CIVIL UNIONS. But GAY MARRIAGE is a different issue. Personally, I am opposed to defining a civil union between gay partners as a MARRIAGE. But I see no problem with the recognition and acceptance of a civil union between two people who cannot, in the natural sense, become parents by way of their own bodily interactions.
That hardly reprsents a loss for Republicans.
The issue of defining MARRIAGE is still at hand.
There are no obstacles preventing CIVIL UNIONS. But GAY MARRIAGE is a different issue. Personally, I am opposed to defining a civil union between gay partners as a MARRIAGE. But I see no problem with the recognition and acceptance of a civil union between two people who cannot, in the natural sense, become parents by way of their own bodily interactions.
You miss the point, n_s. Repubes wanted to use the specter of "gay marriage" these last two weeks as a wedge issue and according to Hotline Blog and other political journals they were hoping the NJ Supreme Court decision would proclaim same-sex marriage in Jersey legal. But the court decision didn't do that. The court issued a much more nuanced decision that will be much more difficult to use as a wedge issue.
I think we should be more concerned about marriage between people who can reproduce. What about banning terrorist marriage, for example?
And after that, what about neocon marriage, so we don't indirectly produce more terrorists?
And after that, what about neocon marriage, so we don't indirectly produce more terrorists?
reality, the gay marriage--civil union fight is a red herring and will have little or no bearing on election outcomes.
Furthermore, there is no sea-change in the offing. Even if Dems win big, not much will change in the next two years.
Furthermore, there is no sea-change in the offing. Even if Dems win big, not much will change in the next two years.
Sure it's a red herring, just like it was a red herring back in '04 - a red herring that brought some fundies to the polls.
If you think a change in power won't change much, you just wait until you see the number of subpoenas members of the administration get slapped w/ forcing them to testify in oversight hearings under oath if dems retake power.
If you think a change in power won't change much, you just wait until you see the number of subpoenas members of the administration get slapped w/ forcing them to testify in oversight hearings under oath if dems retake power.
So I guess people born steril should be prevented from marriage as well? :)
RBE,
This NJ decision is kind of like Hamdan where the court is basically telling lawmakers to do their job.
Let us hope that this Congress goes down as the laziest, do-nothing Congress if notihing else.
RBE,
This NJ decision is kind of like Hamdan where the court is basically telling lawmakers to do their job.
Let us hope that this Congress goes down as the laziest, do-nothing Congress if notihing else.
Good point about the Hamdan comparison, pt. That's how I saw it too and it made sense to me. Andrew Sullivan had a similar take as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home
