Right Hopes for Boost From N.J. Ruling

Ed Mather of Morristown, N.J. hands out 'Marriage Equality' signs to people who gathered at a rally in Montclair, N.J. on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006. New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. (AP Photo/Tim Larsen) (Tim Larsen - AP)

-- The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that ordered equal rights for same-sex couples was instantly hailed by gay-rights leaders, but it also energized their conservative adversaries, who predicted a backlash in their favor in the Nov. 7 election.

"This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn't need constitutional protection," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has opposed same-sex marriage in numerous court cases nationwide.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, called the ruling "a plus" on the premise it would stir up resentment of "arrogant judges" and boost conservative election prospects.

Eight states _ Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin _ will be voting Nov. 7 on constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriages and, in most cases, civil unions as well.

To conservative activists, the logic is that right-of-center voters who may have felt alienated by events such as the House page scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley will now be motivated to go to the polls. And those voters will be more inclined to pull the lever for Republican candidates in key races such as that of GOP Sen. George Allen in Virginia.

Gay rights leaders disagree, saying gay marriage is not as volatile an issue as it was in the 2004 election, which took place only months after the nation's first legal gay marriages in Massachusetts.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, noted that the New Jersey high court had given the state legislature 180 days to decide whether to offer same-sex couples marriage or some other form of partnership such as civil unions.

"The ability of the radical right to whip their base into a frenzy is limited," Solmonese said. "Voters are angry _ they're looking for their leaders to talk about issues like the war in Iraq, and aren't having any part of throwing a group of Americans out there as a wedge issue."

Evan Wolfson, a gay-rights lawyer who heads Freedom to Marry, said the eight anti-gay marriage amendments likely would have passed even without the New Jersey ruling.

"It's always been an uphill fight to defeat any of these attack measures," he said. "I don't think today's ruling will make much difference. If we see margins of defeat smaller than before, that will be sign of progress."

Twenty states have previously passed constitutional amendments aimed at blocking gay marriage, mostly by large margins. But gay-rights activists have nurtured hopes of breaking that streak in one or more of the eight states with marriage ballot measures this year.

Hopes for an upset victory have been particularly high in Wisconsin, where a broad coalition of unions, church leaders, students and others has been opposing the proposed ban.

Mike Tate, campaign leader for the anti-ban group Fair Wisconsin, was hopeful that voters would not overreact to the New Jersey ruling.

"I don't think this decision is going to help the other side mobilize its base," he said. "They will try, but I don't think today changes one iota and one vote in Wisconsin."

However, Julaine Appling, head of the campaign advocating the marriage ban, said the court ruling only helped what she already considered a winning cause.

"At the expense of the people of New Jersey, this is the very best example of what our amendment is trying to prevent," she said. "This is a court redefining marriage without any input directly or indirectly from the people."

Matt Daniels, who as head of the Alliance for Marriage has been seeking a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, said the New Jersey ruling would re-energize his cause _ even if Democrats gain seats in Congress and thus diminish the prospects for such an amendment.

"We're not going to fold up our tents and go home," Daniels said. "This is going to be settled at the national level, one way or the other. We can't have a cohesive society if it's left to the option of the states."