a bright spot

Amidst the tawdry and the carnage, a bright spot from New Jersey.

Even if the democratic party does take control, I don’t really expect a lot to change. Pelosi, the woman who would become Speaker of the House has already said that impeachment of the president bush is just not on her agenda. The tawdry and the carnage will continue, and we’ll all just sort of bumble along to the sad denouement for the US.

When Clinton was elected President, he chose not to push a full investigation into the crimes of Iran-Contra, in order to try to restore a semblence of bi-partisanship to the US political scene. Well, we all know how that worked out. Abrams, Negroponti, Otto Reich, those guys. Guess where they are today? Yep. Working for the little georgie, and doing the same sort of things they used to.

So, besides leaving the precedents, policies, and laws of the bushistas in place, we also run the danger of seeing them back in government.

And meanwhile, we’ll all be left holding the bag while the little shrubbie dances away to Paraguay.

So. Here’s a flower for the Jersey judges.

NJ court grants gay couples equal marriage rights
Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:00 PM ET
By Jon Hurdle
http://today.reuters.com/news/home.aspx

TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - Saying times have changed, New Jersey's highest court on Wednesday guaranteed gay couples the same rights as married heterosexuals but left it 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 nuance 90-page ruling that was neither a clear victory nor a defeat for gay marriage, which is currently legal in the United States only in Massachusetts.

"Despite the rich diversity of this state, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution," the ruling said.

Stating that gay couples must have the same rights as other couples, the court said gay advocates must now "appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives."

With that in mind, the court gave the legislature six months to either amend the state's marriage statutes to include gay people, or write a new law in which same-sex couples "would enjoy the rights of civil marriage."

New Jersey's marriage statutes define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The ruling leaves state lawmakers with two options -- allow gays to marry in the same way as others, or develop a parallel system of unions for same-sex couples. That second option would leave New Jersey with civil unions akin to those in Vermont.

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' highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May 2004.

In the 2004 election, many states had ballot initiatives against gay marriage -- a factor which was credited with boosting the vote for President George W. Bush.

And much is at stake on the issue again in the upcoming elections on November 7. The gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign says voters in eight states will decide on constitutional amendments limiting gay marriage or unions.

SIGNIFICANT ADVANCE

"Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians," the New Jersey court wrote.

"We have decided that our state constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples."

"Now the legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process," the court said.

Both advocates and critics of gay marriage called the ruling a partial victory for their cause.

Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "It may not be a complete win, but it is a very substantial win."

"This is an enormous step forward -- what the ruling means is that under the state laws of New Jersey same-sex couple have to be treated just the same as heterosexual married couples," he said. "It is up to the legislature to decide what it is called, but the rights and protections must be the same."

He said that within six months, New Jersey will either be like Massachusetts with full marriage for gays or like Connecticut, California, and Vermont, which have civil unions.

Michael Behrens, an attorney for the Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage and an opponent of gay marriage, called the ruling a partial victory but which also boosted gay rights.

"Same-sex couples do not have the right to marry," he told reporters at the Trenton court. "However, the legislature must develop a statutory scheme granting homosexual couples the right to the benefits of marriage."

Another opponent of gay marriage applauded the decision and predicted New Jersey legislators would not change state law to allow homosexuals to marry.

"We feel that the legislature is going to vote in favor of defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman," said Michele Combs, director of communications for the conservative lobby group Christian Coalition.

(Additional reporting by Daniel Trotta, Christine Kearney and Ellen Wulfhorst in New York)