Probably not. But today's WSJ coverage of the issue caught my eye for two reasons.
Today, New Jersey's Senate approved, by 24-16, a bill legalizing gay marriage. The bill now moves to the State Assembly, where it faces an uphill slog. And ultimately a veto from Governor Christie.
Interestingly, two Republican Senators defied the Governor and voted for gay marriage -- Jennifer Beck and Diane Allen. Governor Christie is well-known for punishing those Republicans who vote against his wishes. It is one of the ways the Governor has maintained such tight control over the State's Republican legislators. It will be interesting to see if the Governor takes any shots at Beck and Allen.
The second thing that caught my eye is probably the single most tasteless quote from an opponent of gay marriage that I have ever read. "When you give special rights to a small sexual minority, you rape the [First Amendment rights] of the majority," said Gregory Quinlan of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Really -- rape?
I've become to immune to statements like that from Republican Senator Gerald Cardinale, who stated that "[i]ncest produces negative impacts on our society. But if we open marriage to some same-sex couples in the name of anti-discrimination, why not to all couples?" It's like Rick Santorum (I'm secretly rooting for you, Rick) saying why stop at letting two men marry, why not three, or more? Or like Rick Santorum comparing gay marriage to bestiality.
But rape is beyond the pale. To say that allowing gay marriage is committing rape on the rights of straight people shows a lack of respect both for gay people and to women -- it's a double smack against lesbians, I guess.
Can we all agree to keep our homophobia within socially acceptable parameters? If I agree to allow poligamy, incest and bestiality comparisons, can we agree to draw the line at rape?