Why New Jersey's gay marriage ruling won't cause a backlash.

[Lasher]

I don't know if I agree with this assessment or not but it's good food for thought.

Empty Threat
Empty Threat
by Conor Clarke

Each day, for the last few weeks, supporters of same-sex marriage have been clicking their way to the Web page of the New Jersey Supreme Court with equal parts excitement and anxiety. They were excited because, earlier this year, the liberal court had heard arguments about the constitutionality of gay marriage, and a ruling was expected by October 25. But they were worried about the backlash. "There's an awful lot of propaganda right now from radical Republicans," Barbra Casbar, president of the Garden State's chapter of the Stonewall Democrats, told The New York Times earlier this week. "They're desperate to fire up their base." When the decision, in the case of Lewis v. Harris, came down yesterday, it seemed--legal complexities aside--like the GOP would have its chance. Or so the reaction on the left seems to indicate. "Christmas may have come a little early for Karl Rove this year," wrote Slate's Dahlia Lithwick. "decision sure to be exploited for partisan gain," declared the headline of a National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce press release.

This fear is understandable: In 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, that the state's constitution required it to grant same-sex marriage licenses, many gay rights activists broke out the champagne, booked their wedding singers, and sat back to await the domino-like decisions that would spread same-sex marriage across the country. Instead, they became the targets of a nasty political backlash. Twenty states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman, and eleven did so with ballot initiatives during the 2004 elections alone--usually by sizable margins. This year, the stakes seem equally high, and so does the average Democrat's blood pressure. The party is expected to make gains, but it's panicky about not living up to expectations. Add that to the tight Senate race in New Jersey and the eight states with gay marriage ballot initiatives slated for November 7, and the situation starts to look a lot like it did two years ago.

But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.

For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics. On that score, Goodridge was a train wreck. This is the first line: "Marriage is a vital social institution." And it takes exactly five sentences to determine that it cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Just in case someone lets you forget what vital social institution is being accorded to homosexuals, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall's opinion makes sure to use the word "marriage" another 226 times. This is perfect electoral fodder. The New Jersey court, by contrast, makes clear from the very beginning that it "cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State." Instead, it remains open to some "separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage," so long as "the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples." This will, rightly, leave eager same-sex couples a bit dry: Titles are important. But the decision will disappoint desperate Republicans for the same reason.

<snip>

Of course, none of this will stop Rove and his acolytes from trying. This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061023&s=clarke102606

[grizmaster]

1. And the impact on the actual election isn't as large as many claim

posted this about an NPR piece that debunks the gay-marriage ban impact on the vote


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=42414&mesg_id=42414

[Lasher]

3. Thanks, I'm starting to believe this philosophy is right

One thing is, the NJ judge didn't actually legalize gay marriage - the legislature will have to take that up. And the knuckle draggers will glaze over if presented anything more complicated than an anvil. :)

[grizmaster]

7. The pertinent part of the interview

starts at about minute #2

basically what people answer when surveyed doesn't jibe with what the actual votes end up showing.

I'm going to buy the transcript from the NPR piece this weekend and try to contact the professor interviewed to get the studies he's citing and put together a longer post on the subject. It's clear from the uninformed responses of many here that this needs to be thoroughly debunked.

[Lasher]

8. Will you do me a favor by sending me a PM when you post that?

I would be grateful.

[grizmaster]

10. you got it

may take a while to hear back from Matsusuka, but I'll send you the transcript from the NPR piece as soon as I get it

[MikeNearMcChord]

2. I forgot which poster said it here.

But for those who think the sanctity of marriage is a big deal, they would probably vote GOP anyway. Besides, I think many fundies are pissed at the GOP for not passing the Gay Marriage Ban and think they were used, the book by David Kuo does not help. Most Americans feel there are bigger fish to fry,and they demand the government to take care of the problems facing the nation, like the war, health care and the economy. I thought it was funny to see Shrubous Boobious trying to stir up that hornet's nest, but I think the nest is abandoned and shriveled.

[Lasher]

6. This must be what the author meant by "homosexuality fatigue".

Rove might be able to stir up a fundie or two. But when they beat that drum just as many or more will be reminded how the Republics played them for a bunch of fools, as you point out. One thing for sure, we'll soon find out if we're right. We lost ground in Senate races over the past week, so let's keep that in mind in any conclusions we might draw on the subject.

[donco6]

4. Nah, all Dems will lose now. Dontcha know?

Gays really ARE the source of all trouble in the universe. :sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

5. I hope that article is correct. However, the substance of a

court opinion doesn't matter nearly as much as how it can be spun (in terms of political impact).

[xchrom]

9. how about this as a dem party platform -- gay people are americans

and inequality is unamerican.

end of conversation.