The New Jersey ruling opening the door to gay marriage in the state is a last minute boon to Republicans. While Democrats will say that Republicans are using the politics of division (as they supposedly did in 2004) to get votes in November, the reality is, it was never Republicans putting gay marriage on the agenda, it was the Democrats. And here again, they shoot themselves in the foot.

Nothing gets the evangelical groups up in arms like gay marriage. I’m against it, but I am not all that fired up on the issue. However, that group who was tuning out just got a wake up call. A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate means no defense against judicial activists (I doubt any federalists or strict constructionists will make it past a Democratic Senate) and certainly no laws stopping this behavior will be pondered on a House agenda driven by San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi.

The result is, the before the stakes could be rationalized as low by some voters and that idea got put to death. Now the stakes are high to the evangelical vote (and others who don’t want to see gay marriage rammed down the throat of the American public without so much as a simple consultation) and there is a tangible issue that they don’t want to lose that’s now on the line.

The Foley story is old news and few people but the party faithful read all the hit piece books that come out in October. People see this ruling and their paying attention. It just gave the Republican faithful another big reason to come out and vote in 2 weeks.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Posting out of turn for breaking news.

Via Stop The ACLU: New Jersey rules in favor of Gay Marriage.

New Jersey’s highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union. Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections. Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.

New Jersey is one of only five states where there is no law or constitutional amendment specifically barring same-sex marriages. This ruling changes the dynamic of the debate significantly. However, this ruling is significant because it impacts things on a national level. Massachusetts has a law barring out-of- state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their own states. New Jersey has no such law. Gay-rights groups are already poised for lawsuits in which couples marry in New Jersey and sue their home states to recognize their marriage. Currently the Defense Of Marriage Act would prevent something like this. However, groups are poised to challenge this now. However, the court stopped short of actually ruling for gay marriages. This looks like a mixed bag as it is sent back to the legislative branch for a decision to ban or allow them. The court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits of marriage. Whether those benefits are “marriage” or an equivalent form is left to the democratic process. Or in other words, the court just mandated gay marriage in all but name. People should stay aware on this because it opens all kinds of doors. While gay-advocates view this as a milestone and a victory it very well could cause a backlash. Overall, I think attempting to push such things on the people hurts the gay-rights movement more than it helps it. Many state courts have ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages or unions only to have amendments proposed, voted on by the people, and added to the constitutions of the states to barr them. I think pushing this issue on the people is the wrong way to go. I think gay advocates should convince the people of their cause if they want any real momentum. When you push something on people that are not willing to accept it they will fight back that much harder. So now the question is..with six months for the legislative branch to act…will this get conservatives out to the polls? Red State sees a backlash possibility as well.

If NJ legalizes homosexual marriage Wednesday, joining MAssachusetts as the second state to do so, we’re two weeks out from the election with conservatives suddenly bombed with yet another activist court redefining marriage. Apart from a particular spike in conservative turnout in the states with pending marriage amendments on their ballots (AZ, CO, ID, SC, SD, VA, TN, WI), we could see conservative invigorated across the country. Note that we’ve got the key Senate races in TN and VA on that list, Governor runs in AZ and WI, and scattered House races in AZ and CO in particular.

The ACLU of NJ was involved here, and I’m not quite sure how they will react to this ruling. October surprise? I guess we will soon find out. Even though the court pushed this back into the legislative area…with six months for lawmakers to act on this it very well could be a GOTV for conservatives in New Jersey and other states as well. Roundup of reactions at Stop The ACLU

Radio Show Host Says Ad Won’t Affect Midterm Elections’ Outcome

Oct. 25, 2006 — - Conservatives came to the defense of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh over his accusation that actor Michael J. Fox’s appearance in a political ad about stem cell research was “purely an act.”

ABC talk radio host Sean Hannity told “Good Morning America” that Fox deserved to be criticized.

This is a familiar (and tired) play by the left. Front a “spokesman” with a personal tragedy to take the moral “high-ground” and hold them out as being above criticism. See, Sheehan, Kerry and Murtha (war heroes, allegedly), Christopher Reeves et. al. We’re tired of this ploy and they most assuredly are open to criticism, just like any other advertising hack.

“Michael J. Fox admits now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before Congress,” Hannity said. “You have a right to speak up, but he also has a right to be criticized.”

Fox cut a highly emotional spot for several Democratic candidates, including Missouri’s Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.

Limbaugh questioned whether Fox’s very real physical tremors had been faked.

Hannity is spot-on being able to criticize anyone that speaks publicly on any issue. Even more contempt should be directed at Fox for putting aside his personal health to engender and appearance reinforcing his assumed moral high-ground. Talk about a real shill for a favorite cause. It does give us some insight into the determination of the leftist in using anything and anyone to advance their causes.

“In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it’s purely an act,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh apologized after his listeners clued him in that Fox was not acting, but some Democrats say the conservative radio host didn’t seem sincere.

That was his mistake. The point being that by his own admission, Fox discontinued his medication. There is no doubt his symptoms include tremors, but what possible interest would be served by his wilful act, knowingly making his appearance as a victim would be enhanced. Rush was right and shouldn’t have apologized.

“There are some inaccuracies in the ad that need to be debated,” Hannity said. “Unfortunately he wants to create an impression where Republicans don’t care about the health of people. This is only about the funding of federal stem cell issues.”

“Bottom line: Did Rush Limbaugh go too far? My take is that he was referring to his own admission in his own book. He didn’t talk about the congressional testimony. Everybody wants Michael J. Fox to get well. It is a difficult disease,” Hannity said.

“What’s unfortunate and deceiving about the ad is that this is about the federal funding of embryotic stem cells,” he said, alleging that congressional candidates didn’t have a say in those decisions.

A desperate left, again shows it’s willingness to use any tactic they can to influence their reacquisition of power.

As for the results of the midterm elections, Hannity wasn’t sure what the outcome would be.

“If I could pick those, I think I would be a pretty wealthy guy,” he said. “But, I sense being on radio talking to people three hours a day, that there’s been a shift.”

“I think this Michael J. Fox [ad controversy] is going to backfire,” he said. “I think the race ultimately is going to be decided on issues: national security, immigration, taxes. And when people focus on that, I think it benefits the Republicans.”

Correct, the race will be decided on issues that are really important to voters. We stay home on November 7 and let the left, frame the “issues” to their strong suit (victimhood, class warfare) and let the lemmings put them back in the driver’s seat of power.

We know what the left cares about the issues of vital interest to our immediate safety. They are only interested in issues that ensure voting blocs for them.