NJ gay marriage decision boost to "values voters"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061026/ts_nm/rights_gaymarriage_elections_dc

NJ gay marriage decision boost to "values voters"

By Ed Stoddard 1 hour, 18 minutes ago

DALLAS (Reuters) - U.S. religious conservatives could be energized by a New Jersey Supreme Court decision granting gay couples the same rights as married heterosexuals and could tilt the balance for Republicans in close races in the November 7 congressional elections, analysts and activists say.


"Hot button social issues have come alive again. ... The
Iraq issue had taken away from the social issues that religious conservatives wanted to focus on," said Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the PEW Research Center.

"This decision at least gives them a news hook to restart that discussion," he told Reuters.

Races where the decision could have an impact include the Senate race in Virginia, where Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record)'s fumbling have opened the door to Democrat Jim Webb.

They'll try to use this.

Hope it blows up in their face one of these days.

many conservatives a bad name)

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an influential conservative lobby group, said the decision should "should give momentum to the eight states with marriage protection amendments on the November ballot."

He also said that the New Jersey court had made "the legislature their henchmen ... as the legislature has the non choice of creating same-sex marriage or marriage of same-sex persons called civil unions.

Other powerful conservative groups such as Focus on the Family have also been galvanized by the decision which they see as a threat to the traditional family and by extension their vision of a functioning society.

But some conservatives say they are unconcerned about the prospect of gay marriage.

"I may not feel comfortable with gay marriage but society is not going to implode if gays can marry. I'm not losing any sleep over it," Tom Nutt, a Dallas-based pilot, told Reuters in an interview in a coffee shop. .....

Oh, the sky is falling!

The sky is falling!

:sarcasm:

according to several DU'ers who were in attack mode yesterday.

and anyone that panders to people who support torture is a waste of oxygen

People need to stop being bullied into silence by the GOP and start standing up for human rights.

I sure get sick of them putting this issue on the ballot in a few battleground states every election. It does work to get the bible bangers out and into the voting booth. Damn. When will it all end???

As we know by now, the plan is to do things incrementally and state-by-state, which stretches the timeline out a bit but makes each step smaller and easier to sell to swing voters. Most of what they want to do is achievable at the state level. Anyway, here's my assessment of their game plan:

* constitutional amendment allowing states to completely regulate access to abortion (coupled with)
* abortions banned in every state
* birth control sales to minors banned in every state
* prescription birth control sales to adult women to be decided by individual pharmacists
* public education completely de-secularized in every state
* daily pledge of allegiance required for all school children
* "optional" Christian prayers in public schools and at school events
* books discussing evolution, sexuality, and alternative worldviews banned from school libraries
* bible studies required in the lit curriculum
* codified anti-discrimination protections removed for homosexuals
* codified anti-discrimination protections removed for women
* Christian organizations given grants to provide all social services & health care statewide
* broadcasting censored of non-Christian viewpoints and program content
* all publicly accessible internet content filtered of "objectionable" un-Christian content

Furthermore, the courts must be stacked at state and federal circuit levels with judges who will uphold these changes.

Any setbacks to the agenda are okay, as they can be used as propaganda fodder: judicial decisions are declared to be the products of liberal activist judges, programming that has secular content is made by the "liberal hollywood elite", books presenting alternate perspectives are written by "godless anti-american communists", and so on. The mantra is pushed nationally, and used to influence outcomes of various parts of the agenda at the federal level and in other states. The more setbacks there are, the easier it is to rile up the congregations.

So, that's "it", and "it" will end when their agenda is realized.

I am a Christian Dem and this stuff scares the hell out of me. I don't want the state in my church or the church in my state. Being anti gay marriage or anti abortion is something I can not condone. I never cast a ballot on those issues.

Probably right after Bible study, and that is the complete banning of contraceptives, whether prescription or not. It is one of the major things the religious right is after, perhaps second only to the complete banning of abortions and trampling the rights of gays and non-Judeo Christian citizens of the the US.

legislatures or voter referendums. Until then, activitists on both ends of the spectrum will scream "activist judges" and energize their voters.

For example, The UK is very permissive on abortion but has very little controversy compared to the USA as it was passed by the British Parliament rather than the Law Lords.

(yes, I know this thread is gay marriage, not abortion - I'm commenting on the process and answering the question)

None. A few newspaper quotes and empty speculation. That's all.

Just curious how far some people are willing to go do justify the claim that gay marriage has had absolutely no effect on the last two elections.

Until PEW does a poll on it that substantiates Scott Keeter's speculation, they have no evidence.

And this is the 2006 election, not the 2000 or 2004 election.

I think how nice it would be if the law enforced religion. Only for those whose lip service makes them seem religious, of course. Every Sabbath spent 100% on their knees in prayer, nothing but wool and cotten fibers in their clothing, frequent fasting, stoning to (near-)death for men caught in someone else's bed, surrendering their worldly goods to the community,....

Wednesday's decision, which left it to state lawmakers to decide if gay unions can be called marriage, is not seen pressing conservative buttons as hard as a 2003 Massachusetts court ruling that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

They have less than 2 weeks to get people worked up over this. Their base is already lockstep in who their gonna vote for and with a majority of the electorate having already made their decisions, this won't turn the tide.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We all do and hope it happens.

And :party: WELCOME ABOARD!! :party:

For some reason this senate seat is always close. Both Corzine and Lautenberg( 1994 reelection) won by only 3 pts.

That's my prediction, if the election were held today. Also, the gay marriage ruling won't affect the race because Menendez and Kean both have the same position (against gay marriage but for civil unions.) It WILL energize the Republicans in VA, TN, and MO. However, Foleygate and the fact that the court defers to the legislature on allowing actual gay marriage means that they won't get AS mobalized as they were in 2004.

Guess these knee-jerk reactionaries can't wrap their brain around that.
One of my big problems with 'conservatives' is that they need 'values' simplified to bright line rules, which they stubbornly and blindly follow whether or not their desired goal is met. Liberals view the goal and, while following the bright line rule as much as possible, factor in real-world criteria in determining the best way to achieve the goal.

Why can't these folks differentiate between the civil/secular component of marriage from the one defined under their faith. The civil component of marriage is effectively a contractual partnership, in which the couple is bestowed with certain unalienable rights/privileges in secular society and the udner law. It's is legally created and is legally ended. It should be independently granted/denied aside from whether any particular faith respects the union. And in corollary, a government shouldn't have any say as to whether a particlar faith respects a civil/secular marriage.

All these issues with granting couples who enter into a civil partnership mostly arise because these people can't accept the near certainty that sexual orientation is biologically derived. Even if they consider homosexuality a "sin," why doesn't the religious right adhere to "love the sinner hate the sin" while crafting their 'anti-homosexual agenda.'

Fuck off.

It is just that crazy liberal northeast. The decision was akin to VT and CT and it was not earthshaking. They will try to give this one play but it really isn't getting a lot of inflammatory press as I can see. It is NJ. No one takes us seriously! :o)

"I don't really think this will matter. It's the 4th state after all, and it's NJ, not Georgia. Everyone already knew NJ is a hotbed of sin -- closeted governor, Atlantic Titty, black people in charge of cities (Newark). If the southern baptists needed a reason to hate NJ, they already had plenty."

According to my values, the government has a responsibility to acknowledge and respect the civil unions of any two people.

Those who have qualms with same-sex union issue base their judgement on religious dogma, which has no place in our government.

I'm all for civil unions for any adults who want them, and I don't really care what that union is called. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why these couples would choose now to bring this challenge. My analogy would be this: we're in a baseball game, top of the ninth. The game is close, we've got a one run lead. So our manager decides to take out Mariano Rivera and puts in a guy selling beers from the stands. He issues three straight balls and then throws one right down the middle, at about 25 mph. David Ortiz is at the plate, but fortunately he's in a slump. Why even go there. Wouldn't it be better to wait until after we win the game to see if the beer guy can pitch?

I know, this is a poor analogy, but you get the point. This is really really bad timing. And I don't understand why these couples are being so selfish that they would risk the countries future by raising this issue at this time. We konw how most americans feel about this issue and it's pretty ugly. What's the damn rush?

And yes, I know that they have the right and deserve to win, but they risk so much by demanding a front stage roll at this point in the election. We have to be smarter than the pugs. And sometimes that means holding our tongues (and law suits).

This case has been working its way through the NJ courts for some time. It's not like the couples woke up yesterday and decided, "oh, honey, let's be selfish and demand insurance coverage, and survivor benefits, and the ability to see each other in the hospital in case one of us gets sick, and protection so your homophobic parents won't throw me out of our house if something happens to you, fuck the Republic!"

Incidentally, we selfish GLBT folk are told over and over again to wait until this mythical "later" to demand the right not to be treated like second class citizens. Before every election cycle. How long, exactly, should we wait?

But they and they're lawyers are smart enough to figure out approximately when the case will be heard. Bad move on their part. As for the GLBT, I understand your dilemma, but these are not normal times. We have a VP saying that water-boarding is a no brainer. We have war without end. We have a constant erosion of civil liberties. We have an economy that only benefits the wealthy, etc, etc.

Out system of government and way of life are under attack from within, and I respectfully submit that now is not the time to push an issue that you know will hurt the Democrats. If the pugs are able to keep their grip on all three branches of government for very much longer, than they will have a clear majority on the Supreme Court, and it won't be a matter of civil unions, it will simply be a crime to be gay. You know it, so does everybody else.

Have some sense and some patients. In every swing state, this is going to boost the pugs by at least 5%. That may be just enough to retain control of congress. Way to go...

to be ''senisitive'' to the insane -- they waffle and sound ''iffy'' -- then yes this will ''boost'' values voters.

but a good offense can beat conservative voters every time.

homosexuality is nature -- and it's time for the leadership to take the devil by the horns and call sane, sane and insane, insane.

As I put it when we were carpooling to work today, Joe's got no healthcare, Jane's working two jobs to pay for daycare, and Johnny can't read the stop loss order that's keeping him in Iraq. But at least the damn queers can't get married! :sarcasm:

So using this decision (which only applies to NJ) in a "family values" context is ridiculous. Hatred is not a family value.

A case in point: A pair of religious fundies here in Corpus KILLED a 4 year old boy they were trying to adopt by forcing him to drink a mixture of Cajun spices and water. He died of sodium poisoning and a blow to the head. But at the arraignment, a bunch of their fellow church-goers were praising the couple. WTF? These people are monsters. My question is why the state was allowing them to foster and possibly adopt this kid? That is the Christian right family values in action. They are scum.

as long as the MSM keeps harping relentlessly on this Rovian meme, then it will indeed boost the so-called "values voters".