I understand that there are arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue that folks find persuasive. But yesterday's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court should frighten and offend folks on either side of the issue. After all, it is a case of judicial activism run amok.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that gay couples are entitled to rights no different from those of heterosexual couples.

The court gave state legislators 180 days to craft a bill offering same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, though it appeared to leave open a choice between calling the status "marriage" or "civil unions."

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling.

Now the problem here should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking at the decision from a "results-oriented" perspective. The justices do not find a right to gay marriage in the state's Constitution -- and then go on to overturn the status quo anyway on vague theory taht "the status quo is intolerable". They order that the legislature act in 180 days to create gay marriage -- in fact, whetehr or not they do so in name. And the minority dissented not because of this radical judicial activism -- no, they don't feel the court was activist enough! they wanted teh court to create gay marriage and implement it through judicial fiat! In both cases, however, they ignore th specific policy decisions of the state legislature to NOT create gay marriage when they passed a domestic partnership law.

This could have some serious impact in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The New Jersey decision could stoke the fires for social conservatives elsewhere in the nation, who during this election cycle have complained loudly of their unhappiness with the Republican Party. New Jersey, however, tends toward social liberalism -- albeit with strong pockets of social conservatism. As the court's decision stops short of mandating same-sex marriage, few expected it to unhinge a taut race for the U.S. Senate between Sen. Robert Menendez (D) and Republican Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to political observers. Menendez and Kean oppose same-sex marriage, although Kean has gone further and called for a state constitutional amendment to ban it.

"If the Supreme Court had flatly forced the state to recognize gay marriage, it would have had a negative effect and rallied the conservative Republican base in New Jersey and hurt Robert Menendez," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "As it stands, he should be okay, but this could rally evangelicals elsewhere."

I disagree. The Kean-Menendez race has been tightening. I think it could be enough to push Tom Kean over the top -- all without becoming "unhinged".

If Kean were to focus on the issue of judical activism and the importance of keeping a GOP majority to ensure that judges who recognize the constitutional limits of their office are confirmed, it could gain him votes. Ditto a stronger emphasis on the constitutional amendment issue.

On the other side of the river in Pennsylvania, this could help Rick Santorum defeat Bob Casey, Jr..

In Maryland, this could help Michael Steele garner a few more black votes for his GOP race, given that blacks tend to be conservative on the gay marriage issue.

Similarly, this could swing a few House races to the GOP as well.

And those eight gay marriage referenda around the country? I think they could now be wins for the traditional marriage side of the issue, which was in doubt after New York and California courts refused to do what the New Jersey judges have.

UPDATE: And that is a new direction being tried by conservatives around the country.

MORE AT: Malkin, Hot Air, Church & State, Blogs for Bush, Ace of Spades, Riehl World View, Wide Awakes, Gay Patriot, Wizbang, Don Surber, Stop the ACLU