RECENT  POSTS:  » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/18/2013

Shorter NOM: We know we've lost Jersey

by Jeremy Hooper

Those pesky "activist judges" and their learned application of law:

Screen Shot 2013-10-18 At 5.32.53 Pm"It is extremely disappointing that the New Jersey Supreme Court has allowed the ruling of an activist judge to stand pending its appeal through the court system. The definition of marriage is something that should be decided by the people of New Jersey themselves, not by any judge or court. New Jerseyans should have the right to vote on this issue just as voters in nearly three dozen other states have done. In addition, the decision to allow same-sex ‘marriage’ to proceed even while the law is being tested in court is unfair both to the voters of the state and to same-sex couples themselves. If the state Supreme Court were to uphold marriage as they should do, then the validity of the ‘marriages’ that will be performed starting next week will be called into question. Further, the decision opens the door to a possible federal court ruling similar to what occurred in California in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal which held that once a state grants same-sex ‘marriage’ rights it can never take them away. All in all, today’s ruling is another sad chapter in watching our courts usurp the rights of voters to determine issues like this for themselves."
National Organization For Marriage president Brian Brown

He's got nothing. Even if there were to be a vote, New Jerseyans support marriage equality in sizable numbers. It's highly likely that Brian's theoretical referendum—which should never happen regardless, as minority civil rights should not be popularity contests—would go the way the four states where marriage equality prevailed in November 2012.

NOM is losing in every arena, in every way. That's what happens when you choose the losing position. I tried to tell Brian years ago (way back when he was losing in Connecticut), but he just wouldn't listen.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails