I heard of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage and it just confuses me. First of all if you say that denying homosexuals civil unions is discrimination then surely denying them marriage is discriminatory. In other words the difference between marriage and a civil union as per the Constitution of New Jersey is semantic not legal. The legislature of course can make these semantic differences, but if you claim to be interpreting the law then you can’t make these distinctions in good conscience. Then you get to the slippery slope which isn’t necessarily bad even if taken to the extreme. Polygamy although frequently criticized has no real moral problem with it (considering it was banned in Judaism only in 1000 AD and allowed in many religions.) The real problem of course is that somewhere it was decided that the state should deal with marriages in general. If the state didn’t do marriages then the problem would be solved. Whatever you could get some priest or rabbi to condone would be considered marriage for everyone who accepted that person’s authority. In addition there should be a procedure for giving somebody all the legal rights of a spouse independent of any condition of marriage between the parties.
The electoral significance of this decision remains to be seen, but this likely will help the Republicans just like Massechusetts helped them in 2004. How much this will affect the election is unknown but I would guess it is worth a seat or two for the Republicans.
As to moral issues this might help to diminish Obama’s status as the moderate savior. Supporting abortion is considered fine for a moderate, but not coming out strongly against infanticide is far worse. The link isn’t working so I’ll summarize. Obama twice voted against a bill to ban abortion after birth even after a failed abortion.