I posted this as 3 comments on a board elsewhere, but wanted to add it here also. If you've heard similar tones voiced where you're at, well here's what I think. (If not, then it probably won't make much sense to you.) As you may tell, I really do think it takes all types. (And, in general, never ever underestimate the beauty of a solid rushing game. #34 ! :-)
--------------

...Anytime it has come up for a vote, overwhelmingly it has been voted down, averaging 70% of the vote."

Except for politicos,
how many people here think the game ends on Nov 7 (election day)?

The NJ Ct ruling appears judicially solid, according to legal experts.

Why put all of your faith in a "passing" game, when the "rushing" option is perfectly legit too?

Despite the labelling of "activist state judges" from people outside NJ who just disagree with the ruling, the state Constitution -- the traditional contract that guides all New Jersey citizens -- was unanimously interpreted by the rules established in our democracy. Citizen's majority rule is not promise of all branches.

So, if amendments in other states -- which may or may not have been fated to pass -- are affected by NJ's legitimate decision, so be it. If federalism means the laws in the various states will vary, that is part of the democratic arrangement. State constitutions are tailored for the needs of that state.

Acknowledging that the game now solidly includes both the "pass" and the "rush" options will be considered a win in some quarters, whether one backs any particular team, or the parity of the system in general.

Suddenly, with more options working and setting up who knows what, things are looking competitive again, no matter what the next few plays may bring. (I'm seeing opponent defensive, not offensive moves, and not so strong to regain any yardage. Here's betting a NJ state amendment would not pass)

I know, I know. Keep your joy quiet if you're not sitting with like-minded fans as the realities of the game sink in...
-----------
It's fun watching some of you begin to grapple with reality. I think denial is the first stage, then anger...

You really believed that homosexuals would have to grovel and jump through whatever hoops you threw up, stay polite and become whatever you wanted them to be, because as majority you held the absolute power and they had to come to you for special favors to improve the quality of their lives. It was easy to say, I'm for gay rights, but through the legislative process. Never thinking that day would come, until you were "ready".

Must hurt. Even if you don't live in NJ. You can smell what's coming and you don't like it much.
-----------
Fitz,

New Jersey has "gay rights" protected in the state Constitution. As do other states.

Even if some states amend their constitutions today, without a Federal Amendment, you can't keep 'em all down. It's a symbolic power loss for the idea that only the majority gets to decide on this specific issue.
-----------------------------------------
Minnnesota's Dale Carpenter,
on Volokh:

Of course no court can mandate social acceptance; but that is not what gay-marriage litigants asked for. What a court can do is remove any role the law might play in reinforcing social inequality. Denying the status of marriage to gay couples lends some continued legitimacy to the idea that they should not be accepted socially as the equal of married couples. For many people, that may be the correct message to send. But we cannot deny that it is sent and that law has played a role in sending it. Erasing that final status distinction at least ensures that, if social inequality between gay and straight couples remains, it will be no fault of the law.

I strongly believe in the force of this argument and believe it has been underplayed to this point. My own speculation:
Social communities -- including ethnics, immigrants, and African-American -- have a greater respect for "the law" than many realize.

The legitimizing power of the Law on gay relationships of residents in these early states ("We're married" / "Is it legal?" even if not Church-blessed ), will go great lengths in overcoming the social acceptance of such relationships in these communities.