Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, October 30, 2006
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jersey same-sex ruling may energize conservatives
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Republican prospects in November's elections are decidedly brighter today as result of the ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court on same-sex marriage.

The court ruled that same sex partners must be granted the same rights and benefits afforded opposite-sex couples under New Jersey's civil marriage statues, but deferred to the state legislature the decision on whether the same sex arrangement should be called marriage. So the court essentially said that same sex partnership walks like a duck, looks like a duck and should be granted all the rights and benefits of a duck, but concluded it didn't have the authority to call it a duck.

Now the state legislature has 180 days to decide whether to call it a duck, or to call it a goose that has the same legal standing as a duck. It will decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage, or whether these homosexual partnerships should exist under a separate but equal civil union regime.

I guess you might call the latter possibility, which local pundits say is the more likely outcome, the Plessy V. Ferguson equivalent of same-sex marriage. Plessy, of course, was the Supreme Court ruling in 1896 that found segregation in public facilities constitutional as long as the separate facilities were of equal quality.

How the New Jersey legislature handles this will not be known until well after the November elections. But those who are saying that this decision, because it fell short of outright legalization of same sex marriage, will not be the adrenalin injection to disillusioned and apathetic conservative voters that Republicans claim it will be, are wrong.

Conservatives are not as dumb as liberals might think we are. You might call a duck a goose, but we really know a duck when we see one.

Consider the disappointment among homosexual activists in the wake of this decision. Listening to these folks make their case for same sex marriage over recent years, you would really have thought that this was all about complaints about discrimination in rights and benefits.

But if that was what this was all about, they'd be ecstatic with this decision. Same sex partners in New Jersey now have identical rights and benefits to those of traditional marriage. The complaint about legal discrimination is off the table.

Their disappointment emerges from the fact that homosexual activism is as much about legitimacy and acceptance as rights and benefits. It's about culture and values.

A club that is not enthusiastic about my becoming a member may grant me all the benefits of membership, but withhold the designation "member." When I show up for functions, even though I can do everything everyone else does, I'm still an outsider. I'm still different.

Conservatives understand that this movement is about rewriting our cultural script, and redefining our values, as it is about legal technicalities and rights and benefits.

But if this is the case, why should the New Jersey decision, which falls short of outright legalization of same sex marriage, be a motivator in boosting Republican turnout in November?

Because the decision moves the ball a long ways downfield.

The court concluded the absence of the identical rights and benefits for same sex couples that traditional opposite sex married couples enjoy constituted a violation under the equal protection clause of the state constitution. This reasoning, therefore, established essential equivalency between traditional marriage and same-sex unions. On what basis the court felt that it had authority to make this leap of equivalency is totally unclear.

We only learn, in the decision, that "times and attitudes have changed."

Reading through the decision, you wouldn't get a clue that there might be legitimate challenges to what is offered as fact that individuals have no choice in their "sexual orientation." The slope down which we've slid to arrive to where we are today has been so slippery that most don't even realize we've been on a journey.

Regardless of what the New Jersey legislature does three months from now, whether they legalize same-sex marriage or call it a civil union, same-sex unions have achieved a decisive and significant new level of legal, and hence social, acceptance as result of this decision.

Prior to this week, same sex partnership in New Jersey was not a duck. Now it is. We just can't call it one _ yet. Our traditional understanding of marriage and family, has been placed under siege.

Let's recall Confucius' observation that "When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty."

The New Jersey decision will shake many depressed, alienated, hostile and apathetic conservatives out of their doldrums. It will remind them of the damage that those to whom they're prepared to abdicate power can really do.

Many decisive races are very close and even a small boost in turnout will make a difference.

Virginia and Tennessee, both of which have very close senate races that could determine control of the Senate, have same-sex marriage bans on their ballots.

We have had to pay a price in New Jersey. But Republican prospects are looking much brighter today than they looked a month ago.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Mac Zed
"When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty."

I'd love to hear your opinion on that.

Losing the meaning...
How many times have we heard the words "living" and "evolving" applied to the Constitution? Simply put, don't those words say the Constitution has lost its ORIGINAL meaning, at least to those who have applied them for the sake of their own agenda?

One only has to look back to "eminent domain" to see liberty lost when old meanings get changed and old traditions get tossed aside.

Of course, Confucious was not the only one to warn people. We had ample warnings from the Founders about politicians and the courts and even about "the People" who can vote money from the Treasury for themselves.

Conservative Does Not Mean Republican
Starr Parker interchangeably uses the terms "Republican" and "conservative" without seeming to seriously recognize how estranged those former word partners have become. As evidenced in New Jersey, it was former "Republican" Governor Christine Todd Whitman who nominated the most rabid of the radical supremacists on Jersey's high court. Three of her protégé dissented in the decision -- and not because they disagreed with extending "more" special rights to homosexuals. To the contrary, Whitman's clones on the Court dissented because they also wanted to bestow the "full title" so highly prized by the homosexual agenda -- and with no need to respect the voice of the people represented in the State legislature.

Whitman's "It's my Party, Too” PAC ally, Tom Kean Sr., happens to be the father of…State Senator Tom Kean Jr...who happens to be the "Republican" running for U. S. Senate against another corrupt Democrat. Tom Kean Jr., (a "Republican" but not a "conservative" since he supports embryonic stem cell research and cloning), quickly pandered to the right stating he would support a State Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage. However, he would not support a federal Constitutional Amendment with the same intent. Hrmn... If "Republican" Kean Jr. gets elected to the U. S. Senate, he wouldn't help conservatives and traditional marriage. But, if he stays in the State Senate, he will. Thus, conservative New Jerseyans would be wise to keep this “Republican” home -- at least through the same sexriage battle.

Being a Republican has little to do with conservatives in this regard. And, looking ahead to 2008, that distinction will become more apparent if the Whitman wing of the GOP takes control.

Let’s not confuse conservatives with Republicans unless the facts are clearly known and stated -- no matter the issue.

New Jersey
Governments regulate the production, sale and distribution of new products like genetically engineered corn, rice and grasses in the name of public safety, while at the same time allowing the production, sale and distribution of naturally occurring counterparts to enter commerce almost unmolested.
Over the past ten million years of evolution, nature has added some built in safety factors to the process of human procreation. The female reproductive tract has become resistant to infection by many disease causing pathogens. This resistance to infection is not present in the same degree in the epitheliums found elsewhere on the body.
Marriage, in the past, was created by the state and the church, as a means of deriving revenues by licensing procreation.
For ten extra quiz points find or demonstrate the reproductive uterus in the procreating male pair in your "Gray's Anatomy" textbook or elsewhere.
Muhammed is not the only one that has brought only "inhumanity and evil" into the world.

We discussed this topic to death...
on McCullough's column. But I want to add, many of you concerned about changing the traditional definition of marriage, and rightly so. Unfortunately, the definition WAS changed decades ago, when marriage ceased to be considered a life-long committment by the larger culture.

It's not enough to be against GAY marriage. If families are to become strong once more we need to embrace GRAY marriage - a marriage that lasts until the couple is old and gray.

Read it again
Or maybe you need to read the decision for the first time, Ms. Parker, as it seems likely you haven't done so at all.

The Court did not rule that same sex couples must be granted the same rights as everyone else. The Court ruled that under the state constitution, same sex couples have the same rights as everyone else. Unless you can cite a section of the New Jersey State Constitution which denies to same sex couples the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, it is you who are attempting to force the issue, not the Court.

When did forcing your preference for lifestyles on everyone else become a concervative theme?

Truth Be Told
When man learns a distaste for woman, Man suddenly becomes attractive, thus showing his manly powers, and learns to love himself. In this great love for himself, he convinces himself and another man, that they are made for each other. Then starts the very difficult task of going through the masses of men to discover their very special interest. How can they make their deviant interest seem real? Seem plauseable? Seem sane? Then the diease strikes, but man knows best, they can lick this minor affliction, because after all, this is just a minor setback, so they learn to live with the sickness, it becomes them, overtaking their very bodies and minds. Convinced they can conqueer thier disabilities. For Man, father knows best and they are eqquipped to teach thier offspring. Woman is convinced that these men deserve each other and deciede Whats Good For The Goose Is Good For The Gander.

justpaul
When did forcing your definition of marriage on everyone else become a liberal theme?

Look, homosexuals can have all the sex they want. They can live together until death parts them if they want. But they can't marry, because marriage is the union of one man and one woman. No one is interfering with their lifestyle. That's a tired argument.

The leadership of the homosexual rights movement have all said the marriage issue is not about benefits, it's about forcing American society to accept homosexuality on the same moral level as heterosexuality. They don't care if they destroy the cornerstone institution of society to acheive it. A few homosexuals understand what traditional marriage means to society and have spoken out against it. I hope that more see the light.

It is the advocates of homosexual marriage that are doing the forcing around here, sir. We just want things left as they are.

Question??????
Will Homoseekuals ConQueer Marriage????

Question???
Can a Heterosexual transfer their marriage to a state that does'nt allow homoseekual marriage???

Who decides?
If "times and attitudes changed", who decides, the elite in black robes and ivory towers or the people through their elected representatives?

This is just one more govenment PLOT
Maybe it's a PLOT by the government to get married people divorced, then the govenorment can gain more tax dollars.

Here at Home
Here at home, all we want to keep buring is the homefries, not devaint sexual practices.

The NJ Supremes crossed a bright line
sedonaman has it right. The really shocking element in this decision, & the one in Massachusetts 2 yrs ago, is that the respective Supreme Courts in these states have presumed to ORDER legislatures to pass particular laws. IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF ANY JUDGE TO ORDER ANY LEGISLATURE TO PASS ANY PARTICULAR LAW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. This is a blatant violation of separation of powers, & the NJ legislature should respond by giving it the Andrew Jackson treatment, as well as at least seriously discussing the "I" word.

Yes, McCullogh's column sparked a big conversation, but Ms. Parker has pointed out something significant here. IMO, it was the Massachusetts decision that really motivated conservatives to turn out & push Mr. Bush over the top without leaving much room for any more Florida nonsense. I really think we probably would be saying "President Kerry" otherwise.

NJ Supreme Court ruling last week
The ruling last week was 4 to 3. 3 of those 4 judges supporting the ruling were appointed by former disgraced governor McGreevey. He left office because of homosexual conduct and all 3 of the judges he appointed support the homosexual marrage position. I guess govornor races are more important than I thought. (see http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme for basic infomation on each member of the NJ supreme court)

Manufacturing Rights
The U.S. Constitution protects but does not confer individual rights, not the rights of groups. In order to receive the benefits of due process, equal protection or any other constitutional guarantee, the right(s) must already exist. The right of individuals to marry is so fundamental that its purpose and nature have only recently been challenged. Even the definition of sex itself has become so fuzzy that now we have something called "phone sex"--what our parents called "dirty talk". The Puritans had a term for unnatural acts. They called them "unnatural acts" and passed laws against them for the good of their society. Today, some of those laws seem, well, puritanical, but what rights did they suppress? There is no right of oral or anal intercourse. Similarly, there is no right of same sex couples to marry. They may live together and call it marriage--no one is trying to stop them--but for the moment they must do so without the imprimatur of social acceptance (most places) enjoyed by traditional marriage since time immemorial. Has our modern society discovered some new right that has escaped every previous generation going all the way back to the dawn of man (and woman)?

They should call it smut
Big Belly,

If you don't think homosex is unhealthy, it is not about love, it is about confused hurt people trying to called deviant sex love. Love is when you care enough about yourself and others not to cause hurt, sickness or illness. For your information they are teaching children deviant sexual practices in the schools. This is a direct violation of their protection as innocent youths and their parents rights to protect their children.

Jerubaal,
re: words and meaning

Having spent quite a bit of time on TH, I'm sure you've noticed that many of the Lefties here are all about the nebulous meaning of words. I think the tie to loss of liberty comes when one group can define the words they use to mean one thing and then define those same words when used by the opposition a different way. The result is something like university speech codes where lefties can say whatever they want, but anyone else is taken to task if they say something the lefties don't agree with (it's hate speech when you say it, but not when I say it).

NJ Supreme Court Ruling
I agree with the column, but my question is, what happens if Republicans win next week? They haven't done much of anything to stem the tide of judicial tyranny. Even if we "disillusioned" conservatives come out now & vote Republican & the Republicans keep control of Congress, what reason does anyone have to believe things will be any different two or four years from now?

When it is boiled down
The entirety of the leftist agenda (I believe they call it their quest for their rights) seems to be that of making sure that a person who chooses not to participate in what the majority is doing will not feel left out. In spite of the fact that they have, in fact, chosen to be left out.

Look at everything they do in the name of “Individual Rights” and you see this common thread running throughout it. They seek to smite any suggestion to the people who “opt out” that they, in fact, have opted out.

Yet in the end, what they are championing is not the rights of individuals, or even the equality of individuals. What they are championing is the promotion of fringe groups to center stage. All the while they trample upon the rights of anyone who happens to be “opted in” to the actual mainstream.

just my thoughts

Dear 2liveiscrhist2dieisgain
You are asking the wrong question. Don't fall for the pre-supposed premise.

The question isn’t how will things be different than they are…

It is how will they be different than the Dems will make them if they gain control?

Satan The Great Counterfeiter
There is a spiritual battle going on in our country. It isn't about DEMS or REBS. Satan is the great counterfeiter and for everything good that God has in place he will try to place a counterfeit of his own. Just when the conservative voters thought they had the right court in place to overturn years of liberal court decisions, we see a Republican governor appointing liberal judges.

Notice how god has used this decision though to counteract the Foley scandal. Now Christians are outraged about homosexuality and a liberal decision.

Good column
Though I may disagree with some of the finer points, I have to admire the more rational, less polemical tone Ms. Parker used in her column, as opposed to Kevin McCullough's brouhaha about the same subject.

Now, one point of contention...

"Reading through the decision, you wouldn't get a clue that there might be legitimate challenges to what is offered as fact that individuals have no choice in their "sexual orientation."

That's because there really aren't legitimate challenges, in my opinion. You can choose behavior, yes, but orientation is much more engrained. I definitely didn't choose mine (who in their right mind would choose it, after all?) Yes, there are "ex-gay ministries" that claim to be able to turn homosexuals straight. I'm still very skeptical of them, on theological grounds if nothing else (I see little Biblical evidence that God would take away one's temptations; I do see a call to chastity for homosexuals though, and that's how I'm living).

Now, even if most conservatives do believe homosexuality can be changed, they haven't (in my experience) done much in the way of supporting the ministries that set out to do just that. So, if you're going to tell a gay person that they can be straight, it would be wise to at least tell them how.

Again, great column. I look forward to more.

McGreevey Judges ?Better? v. Whitman's
Roo writes: Monday, October, 30, 2006 9:41 AM
NJ Supreme Court ruling last week
The ruling last week was 4 to 3. 3 of those 4 judges supporting the ruling were appointed by former disgraced governor McGreevey. He left office because of homosexual conduct and all 3 of the judges he appointed support the homosexual marrage position. I guess govornor races are more important than I thought. (see http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme for basic infomation on each member of the NJ supreme court)


Roo, you're missing an important point. Please read my original post. The "dissenters" (3) wanted the title and everything else. These "more" rabid dissenters were Whitman judges. The judges who approved the "everything else" but NOT the TITLE represented the leadership of the McGreevey judges. Actually, and this is a shocker, although the McGreevey judges and the Whitman judges are both legislative supremacists, the worse ones who wanted it ALL were Whitmans'. McGreevey appointees were the head honchos who stopped the whole title and everything else being given in the decsion with no chance for the voice of the people to speak through legislators.

New Jersey is New Jersey. But the Whitman Court -- not the McGreevey Court -- has led it to its full fledged, dubious title as being the most activist in the country. That's no honor that I, as a conservative and a registered Republican, want to have replicated.

Judicial Apointments
Lee may have good reason for his concerns. This one does go to the core of things that are very important. I have to ask Lee, given his conservitive views, Would he like a Democrat to win New Jersey's Senate race if it meant that the Democrats thereby won control of the US Senate? Should the Democrats gain control they will likly block any of the President's conservitive judicial nominees. Lately it looks like Judicial appointments are quite significant.

RW&B--your 8:12 post simply BRILLIANT!
And brilliantly simple---especially this extract:

"It is the advocates of homosexual marriage that are doing the forcing around here, sir. We just want things left as they are."

I also appreciated your perceptive comments about GRAY marriage in your earlier post.

Hi Jay in NC--couple of ?? for you---
Actually, at least 3 questions, not meant in any way to be hostile, but because I'm curious as to your thoughts on these:

1. Have you ever talked with any men who are "former" homosexuals, now married to women, and loving them and the children they now have?

2. If sexual orientation is inborn (or maybe that's not what you mean by "not a choice"?), then how do you explain that in studies of identical twins (see http://www.narth.com) where one identifies as being homosexual, in the great majority of cases the OTHER identical twin is heterosexual?

3. Another subject (but I never see this explained, and maybe you can since you seem quite well-informed). Since homosexuals group themselves with bi-sexuals, among others, and most homosexuals say that their orientation is not a choice--then do you believe that the "bi" orientation is "not a choice" either, or is that a DIFFERENT situation entirely?

Jay, I appreciate reading your posts and gaining some greater understanding, so I look forward to your responses.

Lets get back to right and wrong.

If I were King

1. No lawyer would be allowed to run for any political office.
2. No lawyer could be appointed as a judge.
3. A judge who lets a criminal off on a technicality or other scheme must receive the same sentence that the criminal gets if he is caught and tried again.
4. The word “alleged” cannot be used when there is video or confession of a crime.
5. Before a new law is passed it must be accompanied by the repeal of 10 laws.
6. No child can graduate without passing a test on the Constitution.
7. No college can issue a degree of any sort without passing that same test.
8. The Gettysburg Address must be memorized by any office holder, city thru federal.
9. Every citizen must recite the Ten Commandments in English before voting.
These tenets can only be added to, not changed or deleted.

And another thing. . . think about this.

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back into bondage.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN, points out some interesting facts concerning the Year 2000 Presidential election:

Best vote. Ed

Thanks Mac Zed
And Cynewulf too.

That's gonna take me a minute to digest.

Tricia
Hey Tricia. It's always good to hear from you, and of course I don't mind the questions. Forgive me if the responses are somewhat inadequate (I have a Halloween Party to get ready for tonight :-)

1. I actually have. One of my favorite bloggers (Disputed Mutability) was a former lesbian who is now happily married (no kids yet, though). She's somewhat critical of ex-gay ministries too, but like me she supports them in the purest sense. She and I have had some great e-mail exchanges and it was she that inspired me to start a blog of my own--through which I've met several different people from every branch on the spiritual/sexual tree.

I don't doubt the personal experiences of some "former homosexuals" (I put that in quotes because even DM admits that she still feels same-sex attraction to a certain degree). However, a change in attraction is not something that I'm counting on. If it so happens that I meet a woman I'm attracted to: great. But I'm not going to try and force it. I'll let God's will be done.

2. I basically meant that it's not a choice. It may not be genetic, but I don't think it's entirely environmental either. Of course the situation differs from person to person. In my case, I wasn't abused/neglected as a child. My relationship with my father was very good, actually. However, there have been studies that show a correlation between the age of the mother, a later birth order, and homosexuality. My mother was 45 when she had me, the youngest of 3 children, so that makes sense for me. Not that it really matters, though, in the scheme of things.

3. Oh, the luxury of being bisexual! I really draw a bit of a blank there. I mean, if I was attracted to women as well as men, why would I choose to be with a man? Even if I wasn't a Christian, the social stigma would be enough to keep me out of that. I really consider it another field entirely, and one that I'm not really informed on.

Well, I hope that answered your questions. Have a good night.

Re: Same Sex Union Ruling In New Jersey
As I read the article, it is stated that the NJ Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to enact a statue legalizing same sex marraige. The Legislature's only option is what to call it. My question is what is stopping the NJ Legislature from telling the Court to take a hike, that they (the Legislature) don't work for nor report to them (the Supreme Court)? Since when can one body of government order another (supposedly equal) body what to do? Is this part of the New Jersey State Constitution?

Does anyone know?

New Jersey Judges
The governor matters less than some here might think. New Jersey's Supreme Court has a 4-3 division, no matter who the governor is. The Republicans can run the state house for the next twenty years and the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the Supreme Court of New Jersey will remain 4-3.
When a Republican judge retires he is replaced by another Republican, even if the governor is a Democrat. Even though Whitman appointed several Supreme Court justices, she was still bound by this practice. Protocol meant she couldn't appoint conservative Republicans to replace retiring liberal Democrats.

rinos
ive been watching tv ,hanity and others talking about the polls that put dems. up and that the repub. lagging and they say that the election this time will be more about the base than the swing voters,we have conservatives saying that the bush administration is not doing what a true conservative wants them to be doing so they either will not vote or may go democrat, i gotta tell you people that think like that if you are dissapointed now with bush a repub. you aint seen nothing ,how bummed will you be if the dems. get into power and everything you supposedly believe in will be out with the trash",THINK ABOUT THAT" before you give power to democrats, "so get up off your dumb a$$ and get out there and vote republican"!!!!!!!!

Make Up of Jersey Supremacist Court
Jerseygirl writes: New Jersey Judges
The governor matters less than some here might think. New Jersey's Supreme Court has a 4-3 division, no matter who the governor is. The Republicans can run the state house for the next twenty years and the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the Supreme Court of New Jersey will remain 4-3.
When a Republican judge retires he is replaced by another Republican, even if the governor is a Democrat. Even though Whitman appointed several Supreme Court justices, she was still bound by this practice. Protocol meant she couldn't appoint conservative Republicans to replace retiring liberal Democrats.

Reply from Lee:
That "formula" for Jersey judges cited by Jersey Girl doesn't work out as simply as stated.
Consider:
1. The "Republicans" chosen by former Gov. Whitman were more like liberal Democrats, and quite rabid in their ideology.
2. The one "Republican" thus far chosen by current Gov. Corzine, Helen Hoens, is more like a liberal Democrat.
3. One "Republican" judge chosen by McGreevey actually contributed to Democrats.
4. The Poritz/Whitman Court, until recently, was known for its 7-0 decisions -- decisions always pushed to the left by Poritz - Whitmans' protege. The 4-3 decision was a stinging defeat for Poritz who, as part of the 3 dissenters, wanted the title of marriage and given without any involvement of the voice of the people in the legislature.

Thus, in effect, the "Republicans" on the New Jersey Supremacist Court are, in effect, no better, if not worse, than liberal Democrats. As stated, this *is* New Jersey. Yet, it is the fault of CPOs like RINO Whitman that caused this mess. Dems never appoint conservatives, while RINOS always appoint liberals.




Primary Challenges May Purify Process
John writes:
Re: Same Sex Union Ruling In New Jersey
As I read the article, it is stated that the NJ Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to enact a statue legalizing same sex marraige. The Legislature's only option is what to call it. My question is what is stopping the NJ Legislature from telling the Court to take a hike, that they (the Legislature) don't work for nor report to them (the Supreme Court)? Since when can one body of government order another (supposedly equal) body what to do? Is this part of the New Jersey State Constitution?

Does anyone know?

Reply from Lee:
The legislature "could" tell the Court to take a hike. However, this *is* New Jersey and the libs are in control of both Houses and the Governor's seat. The only possibility to stop the enactment is to consider that the entire NJ State Assembly and Senate are up for re-election in 2007. Look for reluctant Dems to drag their feet on carrying out the wishes of the supremacists, particularly if there's rumor of challenges by conservatives. If enough money can be raised, those challenges will come.

I'd bet that this 180 day decision is dead in the water until at least after the June 2007 State Primary. Consider the State shut down their operations because they couldn't come to an agreement about the budget by the "legal" due date.

Remember Whitman v. Florio
Roo writes: Monday, October, 30, 2006 3:39 PM
Judicial Apointments
Lee may have good reason for his concerns. This one does go to the core of things that are very important. I have to ask Lee, given his conservitive views, Would he like a Democrat to win New Jersey's Senate race if it meant that the Democrats thereby won control of the US Senate? Should the Democrats gain control they will likly block any of the President's conservitive judicial nominees. Lately it looks like Judicial appointments are quite significant.

Reply from Lee:
Back in 1994, someone asked if I wanted Florio to win? My answer then ... and now to Menendez winning is ... "Of course not!" But, I would not vote for Whitman and I would not vote for Kean. Why? Kean's a nice guy, but tied to the Whitman/Kean wing of the party that will energize them in 2008? Menendez will probably be indicted for something anyway.

Now, let's take a good, close look at the "conservative" judges Bush is (not) appointing. Sad to say, we who gave up lots of fun and frolic for his election and re-election for those very judges, recognize three disappointments:
a. Harriet Miers was not conservative nor even judicial. How dare Bush do that to his conservative base?! Roberts is a smart fella but a mere Rehnquist replacement, nothing much greater there, and he'll be there for 25 years! And, Alito, well, we'll see. He better be better than O'Connor. But, there were better conservative judges out there that Bush ignored because he didn't want to fight for them.
b. The "5" judges in the lower courts floundering in the appointment process and which have to be reappointed again got no place becuase Bush/Rove did not fight for them as hard as they should have.
c. Chertoff's seat was not replaced with a conservative and Alito's seat is still hanging. Where is President Bush with all these conservative judges?!
d. Only about 100 of over 7000 cases are accepted by the U. S. Supreme Court. That's why the lower courts are so important. And, Bush has NOT been appointing conservatives to the lower courts.




APR's True Identity
I found out his name is really Bob Witherspoon.

Here's his picture:

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/images/WitherspoonJr.jpg
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.