Jackson Free Press

It may not count as much of an October surprise, but Republicans are thrilled that a New Jersey Supreme Court decision has returned gay marriage to the headlines, according to a piece in the New York Times today.

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.

The question is: Will socially conservative voters ignore the soaring deficit, the bungled war in Iraq, the Bush administration's inchoate strategy on fighting terrorism and the ever growing number of indictments against Republican Congressmen to vote for gay marriage bans, as they did in 2004?

Previous Comments

ID

89542

Comment

This is typical bullshit political coverage. They actually have no idea whether or not the New Jersey ruling will have ripple effects. Personally, I question whether gay marriage was a real draw to the polls even in 2004; I don't know that many social conservatives who don't ordinarily vote who would show up and vote just for that. This is a classic example of how the Republican Party (and the mainstream media) treats right-wingers like idiots. "Oh, if they didn't like abortion, they'll HATE gay marriage!" No, Sherlock, that's not how it works. They'll vote AGAINST it, and maybe even a statistically higher percentage of people who happen to show up to vote for other reasons will vote against it, but apolitical evangelicals are not going to get more worked up over Adam and Steve getting married than they will over terminating pregnancies, because they've been taught to believe that fetuses are little babies. That's what the honest ones are thinking, anyway. That's not what anti-choice POLITICIANS have in mind--they're just anti-sex--but for the average evangelical in the pew, I believe it really is about the fetuses. Which is why a great public policy pro-choice strategy would be increased funding for A&P courses, IMHO ("You mean it's just the size of a grain of rice, and less neurologically developed than a hair follicle?"), but that's another rant. In any case, no self-respecting social conservative who would stay home from a pro-choice vs. anti-choice race would go "Oh, well, didn't care so much about abortion, but this gay marriage thing really has me steamed--Mary Helen, bring me my slippers and crank up the car!" Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-27T10:59:44-06:00

ID

89543

Comment

Tom said: 'In any case, no self-respecting social conservative who would stay home from a pro-choice vs. anti-choice race would go "Oh, well, didn't care so much about abortion, but this gay marriage thing really has me steamed--Mary Helen, bring me my slippers and crank up the car!" ' Tom, you know I have disagreements with you regarding the personhood of the fetus. But I do tend to agree with your political analysis of this situation, as expressed in this quote.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-27T11:13:24-06:00

ID

89544

Comment

Thanks for this. You might be surprised to learn (or not!) that I'm the most liberal guy in my family on abortion, and have many religious conservative friends--most of my family would never vote pro-choice, and the fact that I didn't get any nasty phone calls from them for appearing on TV carrying the Reproductive Freedom Summer banner in July really meant a lot to me. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-27T11:18:53-06:00

ID

89545

Comment

"The question is: Will socially conservative voters ignore the soaring deficit, the bungled war in Iraq, the Bush administration's inchoate strategy on fighting terrorism and the ever growing number of indictments against Republican Congressmen to vote for gay marriage bans, as they did in 2004?" - Brian I'd like to believe their awareness of the real issues has evolved and been enlightened but something tells me the pulpits and neo-cons will rise against "the gays" while remaining speechless on their economic realities and the flaming mess in Iraq.

Author

kaust

Date

2006-10-27T11:49:31-06:00

ID

89546

Comment

Another interesting bit from NJ... The Corzine administration said "thanks, but no thanks" to federal abstinence education money yesterday, saying new rules will not let teachers talk about contraception. Teachers also must say sex within marriage is the "expected standard of human sexual activity." A letter yesterday by state health and education officials to the federal government says the strings attached to the money contradict the state's own sex education and AIDS education programs. .... "Monogamy is not a bad idea, but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do," Jacobs said. "It isn't the function of state government to create standards (for sexual activity)."

Author

kaust

Date

2006-10-27T12:22:33-06:00

ID

89547

Comment

Tom: And YOU may be surprised to learn (or not) that my sister is far-left (when she was an editor for the Florida Alligator, she was once called "Killer Kendra, Terror in Tye-Dye" by the local conservative paper), my other sister is apolitical, and my mom is essentailly libertarian. Also, my Dad is a Conservative Catholic Republican Vietnam Veteran --who OPPOSED the war in Iraq. And by brother is a conservative evangelical christian. And even in this mix, I am generally the oddball. Ain't America great? {:)

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-27T13:15:13-06:00

ID

89548

Comment

First, good for New Jersey. Teaching children that sex within marriage is the "expected standard of human sexual activity" is a crime against education because it is teaching a lie. Married couples now represent a minority in the United States, like it or not. Are all these people who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage depraved sex fiends? I do think gay marriage resonates with some voters in a way that abortion does not. Although some pro-life folks are genuinely and explicitly sexist, I think most people come to that debate on something resembling principal. I do not think that the same is true of gay marriage bans. In fact, I think that the religious dimension to this debate is little more than cover for homophobia. "Gay marriage" is a code that conjures up the spectre of male sodomy, and that is what people are voting against. The religious argument is largely just an excuse for sexual revulsion and fear.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-27T15:29:33-06:00

ID

89549

Comment

GLB, that's delightful! "Killer Kendra, Terror in Tie-Dye" is the coolest nickname I've heard in a long, long time. Brian, I think you may be on to something. I suppose my point is that while gay marriage may draw in a few additional voters, I don't think those voters are all that likely to be evangelicals. Not to talk smack about somebody who is no longer here, but I remember one former regular who seemed pretty secular and even downright libertine until the subject of lesbians and gays came up, and then he suddenly got religious in a very obnoxious and overbearing way--in between heteronormative dirty jokes, of course. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-27T17:44:21-06:00

ID

89550

Comment

And agreed for New Jersey. You know, I'm half-tempted to do a blog entry tongue-in-cheekily giving New Jersey the "Best Week Ever" award on my civil liberties site, between this and the state supreme court ruling. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-27T17:45:21-06:00

ID

89551

Comment

I wonder how much apathy the media generates every time this comes up? I tend to echo Tom's overall political thoughts on this: if you're not out already, this isn't even on your radar.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-27T19:19:04-06:00

ID

89552

Comment

Update: The Washington Post has just done an article that largely contradicts the NYT article, arguing that minimum wage initiatives and so forth will benefit Democrats. Personally, I think a minimum wage increase would be more likely to turn out voters than a gay marriage ban simply because there are an awful lot of people who are paid minimum wage who otherwise wouldn't be inclined to vote. We'll see. November 7th could get interesting. I'm still trying to figure out whether I should show up to the polls myself. The Senate and House races are going to be a wash--I can't vote for any of the candidates because I took the NARAL Pro-Choice Pledge this year after the abortion ban passed the state House, and none of them are pro-choice. So do I show up to vote for the JPS bond initiative (the main reason I'd be showing up) and maybe a few court candidates, and do write-ins for the national elections? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-28T03:31:00-06:00

ID

89553

Comment

I think that they gay marriage thing is a larger hot button issue than you might think- in particular for homophobic males who have nothing to say about abortion, and have probably been responsible for one or two over the years. I found this out the hard way one night in a bar in Memphis- what started out as a friendly chat with the guy on the next barstool nearly erupted into a full scale bar room brawl (Rico vs. everyone else) when the discussion turned to the upcoming gay marriage initiative on the ballot. I discovered that in the minds of many, if you support gay marriage, then you must be gay, and no red-blooded American male wants anybody to think that they are gay, so they are very outspoken about it- to the point that they would certainly find the time to go and vote against it- if for no other reason than to prove their manhood to their buddies. It was pretty weird to say the least...

Author

Rico

Date

2006-10-28T10:19:13-06:00

ID

89554

Comment

Individual people are smart; large groups of them aren't.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-28T11:06:50-06:00

ID

89555

Comment

Tom, you know you're going to get your butt in there and vote for that school bond issue, or shame on you. I admire your pro-choice pledge, though I will vote for Fleming. I can't even defend the vote, but a vote against Lott. ... Ugh. I can't even convince myself.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-28T14:07:37-06:00

ID

89556

Comment

Yeah, you're right--I have to show up and vote on the JPS bond issue. That's as important as any vote I'll ever cast. What I think I'm going to do is show up and vote for JPS, then symbolically write in my NOW sisters Michelle Colón for U.S. Senate and Shannan Reaze for House District 3--I can think of no better way to honor that NARAL pledge. And I urge anyone who is considering boycotting the election over Fleming's vote for the abortion ban--and, more conspicuously (to me), his patronizing behavior towards female critics of his vote--to also consider write-ins. Take this as an opportunity to honor your grandparents, or show your respect for an ally, or something. (Ali Greggs for U.S. Senate!) I have to vote--I've never missed an election--but I can't vote for Fleming, and I sure as hell can't vote for Chip Pickering or Jim Giles. I hope you live in District 2 so you'll at least be able to go with Bennie Thompson (though I have to say his decision to go turncoat on the gay marriage amendment depresses me). Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-28T15:02:30-06:00

ID

89557

Comment

And Rico, that's scary stuff, but I know exactly what you mean and you're probably right. I actually don't have any really close het male friends within 10 years of my age partly because of that dynamic. Hell, I'm a NOW officer partly because of that dynamic. That's a great example of the kind of culture we need to fight as men, as women, as human beings. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-28T15:06:34-06:00