Posted on 10/26/2006 10:55:44 AM PDT by Coleus
Yesterday the New Jersey supreme court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, or its equivalent, just without the name “marriage.” It is not entirely clear what will happen next, but here is a preliminary evaluation of the situation. There are three possible outcomes in New Jersey: 1) the legislature will legalize full-fledged gay marriage; 2) the legislature will authorize Vermont-style civil unions that are marriage in all but name; or 3) the legislature will reject the state supreme court’s decision entirely, either by directly defying it, or by authorizing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At the moment, it looks like the second possibility — Vermont-style civil unions — is the most likely. The governor and the leading Democrats (who control the legislature) have already authorized domestic partnerships, while also saying they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And since yesterday’s court decision, the Democratic legislative leaders have said and/or implied that civil unions would be the most likely outcome.
If civil unions are the most likely outcome, they are certainly not the only possible outcome. New Jersey’s Democratic leaders are not about to say, less than two weeks before the election, that they will approve full-fledged same-sex marriage. These politicians understand perfectly well that such a promise could provoke a Republican electoral revolt in New Jersey, and in the nation as a whole. When the election is over, however, all bets are off. Gay-rights groups and sympathetic New Jersey legislators have already announced that they will be making a major push for the legislature to approve formal same-sex marriage. There are already a number of co-sponsors for the bill, and a pro-same-sex marriage coalition has even purchased ad time. New Jersey’s legislature has 180 days to make its decision, and there is going to be huge national scrutiny on this. Although the analogy is a mistaken one, many liberals see the marriage issue as strictly a question of civil rights. So when push comes to shove on the big vote, with the whole country watching, many liberal New Jersey legislators may be willing to take a political risk and vote for full-fledged marriage.
There is also some question as to how much of a political risk approving full same-sex marriage would actually be. Right now, slightly more New Jersey voters say they approve of same-sex marriage than oppose it. That could easily change, but public opinion is sufficiently divided that Democratic legislators, facing what they see as a matter of civil rights, aware of the historical weight of their actions, and feeling the pressure of national scrutiny, could certainly decide to vote for formal same-sex marriage. Is this the most likely of the three outcomes? No. Is it a possible outcome? Yes. If the legislature approves formal same-sex marriage, the implications would be huge. It is not just a matter of one more Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a law that forbids the marriage of couples whose marriages would be illegal in their home states; New Jersey has no such law. So if New Jersey were to legalize full-fledged gay marriage, it would immediately become a Mecca for gay couples from across the nation, who would visit, marry, return to their home states, and launch a series of law suits that could eventually turn the gay marriage issue into a national crisis, thus forcing a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court. Again, this is not the most likely of the three outcomes, but it remains a possible one.
The New Jersey legislature is not up for election this year, but will be in 2007, six months after it has decided what to do about gay marriage. So the last election that will send a message to New Jersey state legislators before they make their decision is the U.S. Senate contest between Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Thomas Kean. Menendez leads that race by about four percentage points. But what will happen now? Kean has condemned the court decision and pledged to back a marriage amendment. Menendez has not yet commented, but has in the past opposed the idea of a federal marriage amendment. If Menendez wins by four points or more, that sends the message that New Jersey’s gay marriage decision had no harmful political effect on the Democrats. And that will tend to free New Jersey state legislators to risk approving full-fledged same-sex marriage. If, on the other hand, Kean defeats Menendez, that will be read as a message from New Jersey voters rejecting the court decision. Victory for Kean would maximize the chances that New Jersey’s state legislature would approve “only” civil unions. And a big Kean upset might even push Democratic legislators, fearing for their seats in 2007, to join with Republicans to approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So a great deal hangs on the outcome of the Kean-Menendez battle.
Although there are many more complicating factors at the national level, the same political calculus does apply (or will be applied) nationally, though certainly to a lesser degree. If, in the wake of the New Jersey decision, the Democrats take over both the House and the Senate, it will be said that the gay marriage issue has lost its power to motivate voters. That in turn will embolden state judges to follow New Jersey’s lead, and will make a Democratic congress far less likely to pass a federal marriage amendment in the event that New Jersey or some other state provokes a crisis by legalizing gay marriage, thus becoming a national gay “Las Vegas” some time in the next two years. If, on the other hand, the Republicans come back at this late date and narrowly retain both houses of Congress, it will be said that the New Jersey decision helped to energize the voters. That will tend to keep activist judges bottled up, and will lay the political groundwork for a federal marriage amendment, if and when gay marriage spreads to more states. — Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, condemned the ruling, “The New Jersey Supreme Court has engaged in a reckless act of social engineering and judicial activism which, if allowed to stand, will have bitter consequences for society in the future. No consideration was given to the instability the Court’s social experimentation will have on society as they cavalierly detached marriage from procreation and the traditional family of one man and one woman. This decision should be a wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriages. Perhaps the chief lesson of yesterday’s decision is the importance of providing traditional marriage with constitutional protection.” In 2004, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment. When opponents of the amendment claimed it was unnecessary because Michigan law limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the Center warned that a constitutional amendment was the best guarantee against a redefinition of marriage by an activist court.
Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who drafted Michigan’s Marriage Amendment for the Coalition, noted another lesson to be learned from the decision. “The defense of traditional marriage was fatally compromised by the Attorney General’s failure to defend the role that marriage plays in promoting the true good of the spouses and children who enter the family. Once society fails to appreciate these essential goods of marriage, damage to the family and, ultimately, the common good, becomes inevitable.” Last week Gillen appeared before the Michigan Supreme Court in a case where the Law Center argues that Michigan’s Marriage Amendment prohibits public schools from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships. Yesterday, the Law Center filed an appeal from a decision dismissing its claim that the Marriage Amendment prohibits Michigan State University from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnership benefits. In both cases the courts refused to rule on the merits of the claim, dismissing the suits based on narrow jurisdictional grounds.
Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that has authorized same-sex marriages. Two other states, Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions. Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments that explicitly ban same-sex marriages. On November 7th eight additional states will be voting on constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The person who, IMHO, will really be hurt by this is Rudy. I've long felt he has a good chance for the 2008 GOP nomination, and that he could become acceptable to social conservatives and evangelicals in the GOP because of his strong stance on national security issues, but if Rudy is forced to take a position on this issue, and agrees with Bloomberg..then he's toast...so there may be a political implication at play here..
I strongly disagree with this guy. The defense of traditional marriage was fatally compromised once governments got into the business of giving out marriage licenses in the first place. The best defense against same-sex marriage is to shake the dust off our feet and stop pretending that a government's definition of "marriage" means -- or ever did mean -- anything at all.
I can easily see the day when people with serious religious inclinations simply stop getting "licenses" when they get married.
Eff yah! Its the gift that keeps in giving. democrats and liberals secretly want to shove this down America's throat and most everybody does not want it.
If NJ wasn't so close-minded, interspecies marriage should also be on the ballot. See article in Bay City Times. The Will and Trigger show is just around the corner.
The Bay City Times ^ | Tuesday, October 24, 2006 | TIM YOUNKMAN
(mlive.com) A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said. Ronald Kuch was arrested after police searched the area of Midland and...
The idea that a title makes a difference is ridiculous. Even a domestic partnership is essentially a marriage. All the domestic partner law did was make it easier for the judges to claim discrimination because the "union" benefits were not the same.
Any time you (or anyone) posts a Stanley Kurtz article, it would be good to add his name to the keywords. Thanks for posting this.
Self: later pingout.
I think he is absolutely right. The AG made a huge blunder in not defending those "rights" given to heterosexual marriage as being based especially for the benefit of children raised in a natural and normal relationship.
That left the court with only the argument they used...that the state had no reason to prohibit same sex couples from those benefits.
Because the state of NJ has stupidly promoted homosexuals the court was left with little choice.
You cannot really disagree that the state has no onterest in marriage: the tax deducts, the right of inheritance and the rest all develope stability.
I think Guiliani is already on record for civil unions which are federally recognized as marriage in all but the "M" word.
The ONLY way Guiliani can recover would be to announce support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (which as a lawyer, he KNOWS is the only way to make normal marriage the law of the land safe from judges) AND reounce the sham civil unions.
This he also knows as a lawyer since cohabitation agreements, advance directives take care of the civil union issues.
An attorney general can't possibly stand up and make that case and keep a straight face these days, seeing how a marriage is a state-sanctioned contract that is violated and broken with such boring regularity that it is basically meaningless. Heck -- there is even an entire branch of the legal profession (divorce law) that was created specifically to deal with all of the cases in which these contracts must be "undone."
You cannot really disagree that the state has no onterest in marriage: the tax deducts, the right of inheritance and the rest all develope stability.
Yes, I can. If you need any proof of this, just realize that families were far more stable -- and homosexual marriage such a bizarre notion that nobody even thought about it -- when people got married without any formal government recognition at all.
The state really has no BUSINESS in marriage. Tax deductions are related to a state function (taxation of income) that is barely even legitimate in my eyes. Rights of inheritance can be given to anyone with the proper documentation (regardless of family relations). And as I pointed out previously, the notion that there is anything resembling "stability" in heterosexual marriage in New Jersey state law anymore is a joke.
Any time you (or anyone) posts a Stanley Kurtz article, it would be good to add his name to the keywords. Thanks for posting this. >>>
I was going to. the new fr policy is to only allow 4 topics and keywords or the article won't be posted.
I guess none of these commentators see a problem with the New Jersey Supreme Court telling the NJ Legislature what laws they must pass and giving them a deadline to do it! At least I haven't seen it discussed.
No...I know what the court means. My question was, what is the difference between what the court ordered and what they already had through the state's domestic partner laws?
Oh..but the court left to the democratic process naming rights.
If there are any Republicans left in New Jersey they should be all over this!
And just how does the court intend to enforce this ultimatum?
you can probably go on most gay-agenda websites and find out the info there.
One can circumvent that by adding another keyword after the article is posted. That works.
yes, I know that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.