- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|This Is A Campaign Ad Waiting To Happen|
New Jersey's Supreme Court has left it to the Legislature to decide the rules for gay couples who want to marry in the state.
In a 4-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the state constitution gives same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples, but the lawmakers must decide how to grant those rights.
"The Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples," the court held.
Before I get too far, notice how the media is already starting to run interference on the issue: "a 4-3 ruling"? Makes you think that there was some dissent on the court. In fact, the "3" were the judges who thought that the state HAD TO CREATE MARRIAGE FOR GAYS NOW and call it "marriage"! They were narrowly voted down by the 'radicals' who think the legislature might first get a pass at naming whatever they call the arrangement. And if this is how FoxNews is obscuring the truth of the ruling, is there any doubt that other news organizations will bury the truth even further?
To continue my original line of thought . . . New Jersey has now joined Massachussetts in mandating that the state recognize and create a structure--be it the real thing or a parallel arrangement-- for homosexuals to have the civil status of marriage.
Was anybody out there looking for an October surprise? Voila!
There are any number of problems with this ruling, but I'll just highlight one (from NRO's Bench Memos) to pique your interest and get you looking around:
The court’s opinion (37-43) provides a clear warning to any states that are thinking about providing significant statutory protections to gays and lesbians: Once you do so, judges will rule that your failure to provide all the rights and benefits of marriages is irrational.
Keep that in mind, those of you out there still a little undecided about Referendum I: once you provide some statutory rights, the black robes will surely swoop down and mandate marriage.
Something tells me the "conservative base" is not going to have any trouble showing up for the Constitutional right and duty on November 7th. The only thing at issue is whether the candidates can turn this to the right advantage. Let me take a quick pass:
[candidate Bob Beauprez alone on screen]
Does it really matter who is governor?
In New Jersey and Massachussetts, the liberal activist State Supreme Courts have mandated that those states recognize gay marriage, or some close copy of it. And even though those two states' legislatures have said marriage is between one man and one woman, seven men and women in black robes have decided that the judgment of elected officials don't matter.
In Colorado, for the last two years the state legislature has been run by Democrats--the only thing standing between them and a bench full of liberal activist judges and--to use the Rocky Mountain News' own words--"cockamamie schemes", has been the common sense of a Republican governor. A state with a Democratic legislature and a Democratic executive always ends up with a Court system packed with liberal activist judges.
So if it matters to you that marriage be a matter between a man and a woman, and if it matters to you that your elected representatives actually get to make decisions instead of 7 unelected men and women in black robes, then I urge you on November 7th to vote Republican. And, while you're at it, vote Yes on Amendment 43 and No on Referendum I.
Some things are important enough that the voice of the people should be heard--not just the voice of a handful of activist judges.
Does it matter who is governor? You bet it does.
Not exactly poetry, but you get the gist.
If the Dems were hoping the GOP faithful would stay home this election, they just got the worst news they could get--nothing animates the Right like the imperial judiciary.
thank you, New Jersey.