Onward No-Gay-Marriage Soldiers

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, Religion, Sexuality

I was right. The New Jersey decision has lit a fire under the GOP.

From NY Times:

Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush � who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks � took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,� Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

Now remember, the decision did not state that gays must have the right to the religious institution of marriage. They just have to have the same legal rights, which I believe will end up turning into a law mandating civil unions. The right is already trying to confuse this, so let that be what it is.

More as it develops…

UPDATE:
I found this post of mine, where right-wing pollsters were using push polling tactics to “push” this issue back into the minds of the faithful. Thankfully, religious leaders denounced it, but still…

And then, another story today about how giddy some religious leaders are that this happened so close to the election…

“Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court,” said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. [...]

“I have to think there are Democratic strategists out there thinking the words of the old Japanese admiral: ‘I fear all we’ve done is wake a sleeping giant,’ ” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based advocacy group. “They were coasting into an election with a Republican base with dampened enthusiasm. This brings it all back home to the base, what this election is about.”

Yes, it’s all about gays…not helping the poor, not helping the weak…we’ve gotta keep those gays from getting married or everything will fall apart.


This entry was posted on Friday, October 27th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Onward No-Gay-Marriage Soldiers”

  1. BenG Says:

    Mr. G;
    We very much enjoy your posts but, really man , you’ve got to relax ! It’s gonna be OK. If not, we’ve got good friends in
    spain with lots of cheap bungalos for rent ie; have a back-up plan.
    BTW, it’s not just about helpin the poor or weak among us, how about Mr & Mrs Middle class wth a couple of kids in college n no real concerns bout marraige except drownin in debt. Each side will always have it’s base, granted more or less from the circumstances. But it’s us, the swing voters that many say will decide the upcoming elections.
    Maybe some of the worry is from past history. Bush never should’ve won the last election, but for a lackluster opponent, not changing leader during wartime, and that all too decietful RNC ‘get out the vote’ machine. I know, it’s scary, but I don’t believe it’s gonna work this time. Only the sheep shall be led to slaughter…hopefully.
    Any timeshares for sale ?

  2. Dierdre Bannon Says:

    I seem to be such a minority…. okay, I AM (female, WAS, 60-ish, AND atheist).

    I’ve never understood why the governing body of ANYWHERE should have anything to do with:

    1. A person’s sexual orientation or preferences.
    2. Whether a person chooses to “regularize” a relationship (spare me from the “holy matrimony” phrase, please).
    3. That males should be able to dictate whether women have abortions (oh YES, I am pro-choice…. had safe abortions been available when I was raped and pregnant as a result…. but they weren’t….)
    4. The government siting itself on a christian-ethic attitude…. and a mid-victorian one at that – separation of church and state, get it? NO ELECTED INDIVIDUAL should EVER be allowed to make statements which promulgate the totally abhorrent christian-ethic and its by-products – or ANY OTHER religiously-slanted ethic.

    The sooner religion world-wide is outlawed the better off we will be.

  3. DosPeros Says:

    “Alright kids, pack up, this year for Christmas we’re going over the hill and through the woods to Grandma Bannon’s house. We’ll sit around the fire and lament the lack of safe abortions and fondly recollect the day she and Grandpa Bannon were regularized. Then we take a sleigh ride to the town square and set fire to the nativity scene. Maybe if you’re good, she’ll let you shoot the silly Christians coming out of their midnight services with her sling-shot. But be good, otherwise she might put something extra special in your egg nog…”

  4. Eclectic Floridian Says:

    I’ve thought about this issue quite a bit and debated it with my Dutch (psychotherapist) wife.

    Believe it or not, we’ve come to agreement on the subject.

    We’ve come to agree that same sex unions ARE different than marriage, as a matter of social tradition.

    We also feel that such unions should be legally recognized, just that “marriage” is the wrong term for such unions.

    Our (rare) agreement is that “Civil Unions” should be recognized, and afforded the same legal rights as hetero-sexual marriage, with the only difference being the label attached to it (Civil Union).

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: