http://www.wkrc.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=68F133AB-7846-43E8-A251-5E29C3ABAA5F

 

TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey's highest court on Wednesday guaranteed gay couples the same rights as married heterosexuals but left it up to state lawmakers to decide if such unions can be called marriage.

 

"Times and attitudes have changed," the New Jersey Supreme Court said in a nuanced 90-page ruling certain to fuel America's culture wars ahead of November 7 elections, when eight states will vote on same-sex marriage laws

 

Comparing the decision to the days when black people were forced to ride in the backs of buses in the days of U.S. segregation, she said, "At least now we are on the bus."

 

Same-sex marriage has faced legal and political roadblocks in much of the United States and has been a hot-button issue since 2003, when Massachusetts's highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May 2004.

 

Some gay activists pledged to stop at nothing short of full marriage rights, while opponents took heart that the court chose to give the legislature a role in deciding the issue.

 

At a news conference in Newark, plaintiffs in the lawsuit said anything less than full marriage rights for gays and lesbians would make them second-class citizens.

Heard about this last night. May not have a great effect, but could do the job by getting enough conservatives out to vote that are upset with currnet Republican leadership. May keep the majority in the Senate solid Republican, and lessen the chance (although I think it happens anyway) a Democratic gain enough to become the majority in the House.

Wonder if any fallout will occur on one or both sides of the isle from the Haggard allegations.

Wonder if any fallout will occur on one or both sides of the isle from the Haggard allegations.

The only way most people will ever know who Haggard is will be through Democrats trying to smear Republican candidates with his name for political gain. An amazing number of people don't know who their Vice President, US Senators, or Congressmen in this country. Another attack on Christian conservatives by trying to paint all of them with the broad hypocrisy brush will motivate more of the Republican base to get out to vote than it will turn anybody planning to vote for Republican candidates against them.

 

There is not enough time for Democrats and their friends in the media to repeat this guy's name enough in four days to make it a household name and then use his name to demonize the Christian right. Maybe they can get something good on the old reliable whipping boys, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson by Tuesday.

 

There is not enough time for Democrats and their friends in the media to repeat this guy's name enough in four days to make it a household name and then use his name to demonize the Christian right. .

 

Two words: Willie Horton.

The only way most people will ever know who Haggard is will be through Democrats trying to smear Republican candidates with his name for political gain....

 

You don't think the Dems will try to "Swiftboat" the Republicans do you? Surely they wouldn't stoop that low, would they?

 

 

Frances

You don't think the Dems will try to "Swiftboat" the Republicans do you? Surely they wouldn't stoop that low, would they?

 

 

Frances

Is Haggard running for office? Democrats want to talk about hypocrisy in cases like this. What about the hypocrisy of arguing that what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was part of his "personal life" and nobody else's business on the one hand, and then attempting to smear a whole slate of candidates with no connection whatsoever to Haggard? So, to answer your question, Democrats can go much lower and most likely will before Tuesday.

...Another attack on Christian conservatives by trying to paint all of them with the broad hypocrisy brush ...

When you speak of trying to paint with a broad brush, did you have something like this following statement in mind?

... Democrats can go much lower and most likely will before Tuesday.

Ironic, isn't it.

 

 

 

Frances

When you speak of trying to paint with a broad brush, did you have something like this following statement in mind?

 

Ironic, isn't it.

 

 

 

Frances

No, what I had in mind was the Democrats' attempt to influence an election by rushing to label any handy right wing Christiam as a "hypocrit" [sic], whether they are running for office or not.

 

As for the New Jersey ruling, anybody paying any attention will note that many of the same Democrats applauding the ruling on gay marriage are making many gays jittery by demonizing Republican homosexuals. Apparently the DNC has no problem with gay people as long as they stay on the reservation.

... Apparently the DNC has no problem with gay people as long as they stay on the reservation.

Are you saying that it's possible that the Democrats would stoop as low as to try to hide the fact that one of their own members in Congress was gay while making outrageous claims that they were the party of "Family Values", do you?

 

Surely no party would be brazen enough to think that the American voters were that dense, when playing for votes! Why, it would practically be an insult to the intelligence of the populace...

 

 

On a side note, that was a nice catch on my spelling error. Rather odd, though, since I came across this post from another thread ...

... How many times are you going to point out that mistake? Do I need to also be running a spelling and grammar check on my posts?...

Hopefully, we won't have to go down that road...

 

 

Frances

Will this cease the weekly conference calls Mr. Haggard has with the White House?

For someone that would be the evangelical right, I had no clue who Mr. Haggard is. Now I know he has something to do with a male prostitute and a church in Colorado Springs. Doesn't affect my view whatsoever because he did not affect my view in the first place.

 

For some reason people want to continue to assume that the evangelicals walk goose step behind some supposed national Christian leader. You want to understand our mindset, read the Bible.

 

I do not follow James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc, etc and I spend very little time following what they say.

I don't assume that evangelical Christians walk lockstep behind anyone.

 

I do, however, understand that they were (and still are) pandered to by a group of politicians that simply play on their religious beliefs.

 

If that view doesn't ring true to you, then I would ask how this man Haggard (whom you have never heard of) had such access to the White House?

 

This is exactly the issue that David Kuo wrote about in his book. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24561-2005Feb14.html

 

 

Frances

Two words: Willie Horton.

Only problem is the Dem's don't have a political mastermind like Roger Ailes to make something like this happen. Roger Ailes is like the political Dr. Evil and Karl Rove is his Mini-Me.

It is no mystery why Haggard enjoyed access to the White House. The man was elected President of an organization of 30 million largely conservative Americans. This White House took his calls just as any other White House would have done when the leader of such a large constituency called. No doubt, Haggard's successor will enjoy the same consideration. as he or she should.