New Jersey's "gay marriage" decision
For one something happened in the governance of this fucked-up state that didn't inspire fear in loathing in me. New Jersey's court ruling on civil unions is not only a just outcome, but seems well-argued and coherently reasoned as well. It's hard to believe this is the same court that sanctioned the "Lautenberg maneuver."
One thing that surprised me, however, was how big this story was. When I first read about the ruling, I said something like, "Oh, that's nice," and I went back to work. Within minutes, however, it seemed that every blogger on the planet, from all corners of the political spectrum, was blogging about it in breathless terms.
Clearly it's a bigger story than I realized at first. So what impact, if any, will it have on the midterms? This is exactly the kind of thing that the Republican Party uses to whip its base into a frenzy and turn them out in full force at the polls. As much as I deplore their exploitation of such issues, I can't really blame them for it, since, well, it works.
Let's face it, nobody's going to rush out to the polls to pull an eager lever for the Republicans because of their tax and trade policies (well nobody besides me, anyway.) It's this kind of stuff, no matter how distasteful, that generates turnout. And make no mistake, it's been turnout that's handed the GOP their most recent electoral victories.
I couldn't help but notice that the GOP's futures shot up markedly on TradeSports, after taking a sustained drubbing for months. I doubt it's a coincidence. Granted, the New Jersey effect may be short-lived, but then again, the elections are in less than two weeks.
Comments
I find it stunning that so many people care enough about this that they'd turn out to vote for the people they think would be least likely to allow it to happen in their states. Seriously. I just don't get it. Why does anyone care if anyone gets married? The whole thing leaves me completely flabbergasted.
Posted by: K | October 26, 2006 09:30 AM
The blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, even in New Jersey. ;-)
Posted by: CRB | October 26, 2006 10:32 AM
It was a perfect decision. Gays should have the same rights from the government as anyone else.
Now the laws can be rewritten, changes all government laws and taxation matters pertaining to marraige to instead pertain to "licensed unions".
The government will no longer recognize marraige. That is up to churches.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 26, 2006 09:21 PM
"The government will no longer recognize marraige. That is up to churches." (BH)
(BH)
Hey!
You've got that issue correct this time.
Not bad, and it was the best compromise...it keeps government out of Church affairs and treats all legal unions the same.
Posted by: JMK | October 28, 2006 10:08 PM
Yes, I do believe we have hashed this one out, but as you can see, the Repugs are going to go for Constitution amendments to ban gay marriage. Evangelicals don't want separation of church and state, they want the church to rule the state.
Bush is behind the amendment to ban gay marriage, along with the other un-American Repugs who hate our Constitution.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 28, 2006 11:53 PM
The gay marriage issue is NOT a "Civil Rights" issue.
The primary argument against legitimizing homosexual unions is that it would also require legitimizing bigamy, bestiality, possibly even necrophilia as they are all also other "sexual deviancies" (practices that devaite from the accepted norm).
My view on sexuality is, ironically more severe than many orthodox religious types (certainly any orthodox or fundamentalist Christians or Jews) and is, in fact, somewhat close to that of devout Muslims - I'd support shuttering any and all houses of prostitution, including massage parlors, strip clubs, the porn industry, I'd support sort of enforced modesty for both men and women and the death penalty for pedarists.
I acknowledge that mine is certainly a minority view, but I'd say it's a "sizable minority," and if people heard me out, I'd bet I could change a lot of the "majority's" mind on that issue.
I honestly believe that our Western, Libertine view of sexuality ("anything goes") is corrosive in its impact on society.
I think ALL sexuality should be closeted and that espousing any form of "deviancy" whether its homosexualit, hetero-adultery, pedophilia or bestiality should be criminalized to some extent - the extent to which, I'm at this point unsure.
By the way, America's Founders almost all deeply hated pedarists, adulterers, homosexuals and bigamists...with a passion, I believe.
I think you could be burned alive for pedophilia, although the same wasn't the case for adultery as the rules for that have always been fluid enough to protect the wealthy and well-connected - those most prone to temptation.
Posted by: JMK | October 30, 2006 12:06 PM
"Modesty" laws just play into the (particularly Muslim) misogyny that almost all modern religions are based upon.
Women have a great deal of power over men sexually. To have a male dominated society, the woman's advantageous sexuality must be criminalized and oppressed at all costs. If women were allowed to freely trade (remember Free Trade, JMK?) their sexual favors, they would soon own everything. Don't you believe in Free Trade?
Let's not kid ourselves about this. Modesty laws have nothing to do with pedophilia and other sexual crimes. Modesty laws, prostitution laws, and blame-the-victim rape laws only exist to keep men in power.
If you want your women dressed in potato sacks, have at it. It only proves what an insecure little man you really are.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | October 30, 2006 02:46 PM
Whoa!
Prostitutio does NOT equal Free Trade.
If it did, I suppose I'd support it, but I don't...so it isn't.
Posted by: JMK | October 31, 2006 08:59 AM