“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” he said at an appearance in Des Moines, Iowa.

“We believe in family values, we believe values are important and we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization,” he said, echoing a theme that served Republicans well in the 2004 elections.

I’d rather the state get out of the business entirely of blessing certain relationships, but if it does give my wonderful relationship with my boyfriend the same status as that of my parents, or that of him and Laura, it simply isn’t going to destroy a fundamental institution of civilization. It isn’t going to harm family values at all.

If conservatives on this site want people like me to vote Republican — and it’s not out of the question that I someday would do that — they’ll have to get their leaders to focus on truly reducing government, and not to say stupid stuff like this.

No, but he has been bleating about being Jesus to Hugh Hewitt’s Pharisee. See here.

I’m not saying yey or nay to abortion – that’s not my point. But look at what Roe did to the Democratic party. Do we want that to happen with the Republican Party? That is why Connecticut’s civil union has gone on peacefully, while ‘liberal’ Massachusetss still suffers.

If the Democrat left believed in this principle, they wouldn’t be rooting for America to lose a war for the sake of their own political power, much less leaking classified information that helps the enemy.

Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 1:16 pm – October 26, 2006

I may be partisan when it comes to this brand of GOP…but you sir are the TOOL! The GOP had thier chance and BLEW IT for ALL AMERICANS….country before party!

It amazes me how conservative gays never seem to be happy when gay rights are advanced in any way. The court was interpreting laws already created by the legislature. They aren’t making it up as they go along.

1. “Harold Ford’s opposition to SSM is tantamount to supporting the Klan over the Civil Rights movement.”
2. “I hope he wins in a landslide.”

We’re all holding our noses this November, but that seems almost like battered wife syndrome.

I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there’s a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage – I am voting for it.

Isn’t it Ironic…while I hope Ford wins by a landslide…it’s strange, that 40yrs ago…the ONLY thing Mr Ford would be running for in Tennessee would be, “HIS LIFE” from the KKK……but, now that he HAS his RIGHTS..it’s FINE & DANDY, A-OK to trample on the RIGHTS of others. While the struggle for Blacks Civils Rights are /were Different…..there are TOO MANY similarities to dismiss. Hopefully Mr Ford will SEE BEYOND his BIBLE and realize this – sometime in the very near future! Maybe he needs to READ UP on the MANY quotes of CORRETTA SCOTT KING pertaining to Gays and Lesbians!

Well no, segregation was ended by the Legislature.

If you want to live in an absolute monarchy, let me suggest Saudi Arabia.

Plus, the genie is now out of the bottle–gay marriage is now a reality. Its effects can be observed. People are already growing used to an idea which would have been outrageous a few years ago.

As for how it is achieved, if the cause is just, and I believe it is, I am indifferent to whether it is comes by vote or judicial fiat. To believe otherwise is to favor process over principle. Was Lincoln truly within his rights to free the slaves? Were the post-Civil War civil-rights ammendments invalid because they were passed by a rump Congress not truly representing Southern interests? Do I care? No, not really. Was there a backlash against these actions? Absolutely.

Should we have waited until Southern opinion evolved to embrace black equality before enforcing civil rights, in some cases by judicial activism? We’d still be waiting.

1. Redifining marriage (as in specifically marriage)
2. Various legal advantages (and disadvantages) conferred by marriage
3. Imposition by the courts

It seems the NJ court tried to skirt the third issue by first telling the legislature what they had to do, then throwing it back on the legislature. I find it disingenuous. At any rate, if nothing else, it will motivate voters.

From what I’ve read of the actual decision, it doesn’t seem as if the court legislated from the bench. Rather, I interpreted the decision in the 90-page text to clarify the question of the law, then put into the hands of lawmakers the responsibility of making the law match the state’s constitution.

As I told a friend, it’s definitely nice to see the “establishment” treat us like human beings.