Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Brittain33]

I would not have bet a dime that this was going to be passed this year on its first try.

[Brittain33]

It's likely that no same-sex marriages will take place until the "people's veto" referendum is held. The bill goes on hold if they file enough signatures to get it on the ballot, and who doubts that they will?

[Brittain33]

Two states in one day!

Lynch hasn't signed yet and probably will not sign it. If he does not veto, he'll wait out the seven days to allow it to pass into law without his signature.

We've got him totally surrounded. Even Quebec is in on it.

[Brittain33]

It is the only state in the south that doesn't have an amendment banning gay marrage. The amendment never passes the house and senate. The state is becoming very progressive.

I don't see it becoming more progressive, only more strongly Democratic with a larger but still small liberal core.

I don't even see how states like Michigan and Ohio will go from constitutionally banning civil unions to allowing them within two years. I don't see the path there.

[Brittain33]

What's going on in NH now, anyway?

It's on the governor's desk. I'm guessing he's waiting 5 days for it to become law without his signature.

[Brittain33]

ok, that's what I thought....but I was under the impression that those 5 days were up yesterday....

I should have googled before I answered. It's not on his desk yet for technical reasons.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/2009/may/N-H--Governor-Has-Days-to-Make-Decision-on-Gay-Marriage.html

[Brittain33]

Any black person who opposes marriage rights for gays should have their rights taken away for awhile.

I think many would respond that they put up with discrimination on a regular basis, even with all the progress that has been made in laws in the last forty-plus years. And there's the whole religious angle which I don't know how to address.

We both know many people don't see same-sex marriage as a civil right. Most Democratic state senators are willing to engage with same-sex marriage advocates and listen to us, which is more than Republican legislators representing conservative, predominantly white districts do. It would be nice if the Democratic coalition were singing with one voice on this issue but until we get there we have to find ways to engage. I feel like the reaction to the exit poll from California last year (which was later revised down) did a lot of damage without helping.

In Massachusetts, our sole African-American state senator was a fantastic advocate for marriage equality. Again, against the interests and views of many in her district. She had plenty of ethical problems and is no longer in office, but at the time... damn. Wow. Ditto for other representatives, Benjamin Swan and Byron Rushing, the first of which didn't really have many gay constituents.

New York has a very large West Indian community, and some parts of the Caribbean are as intolerant as you can get in the world on homosexuality. I wouldn't go to Jamaica any more than I would go to Saudi Arabia. So, expecting representatives of recent immigrant communities to be at the forefront of marriage equality is a lot. 

[Brittain33]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

How does that formulation work?

[Brittain33]

What's going on with New Jersey?
I thought that was supposed to be the next target.

No movement before elections this November.

[Brittain33]

Rendell gets to play Moderate Hero! Yay!

[Brittain33]

Nevada's law creates a domestic partnership union that's available to both same-sex and different-sex couples.  Usually not what we see in America but this option is often in Europe.

Why did they do this?

Large population of retirees who don't want to jeopardize their SSA benefits by marrying, I guess. The lack of provision for them is what sunk Arizona's DOMA on its first try.

[Brittain33]

So gay marriage is almost definitely dead in NY now, with the Republicans in control of the Senate.

It was always dead for this session. The trend is clear, though, especially after redistricting.

[Brittain33]

Obama couldn't give two craps about fighting for gays, fighting for whether or not they have rights, or whether or not they can enjoy the simple right to marry someone they love.

I agree... up to a point. Obama's lack of concern for gay rights was clear during the primaries, and it's one reason I voted for Hillary. I knew she'd throw us overboard, too, but at least she'd do it with grace and I trusted her to be more effective as President. (I was probably wrong, but that's a good thing, anyway; I've been pleased with Obama as President.)

Obama isn't going to overturn DOMA. Even if he wanted to, Congress won't do it. They are never out front on any contentious issue, so why this one? Anyone who thought Obama was going to fight against DOMA in this term was guilty of wishful thinking. He's choosing his battles and we're not in the top five. He didn't go into public office to serve gay rights and many, many people were quick to project their own priorities onto his agenda.

That said, I think people go too far in reading too much into this defense, or in assuming Obama will do NOTHING for gays. On the first count, as long as the government is defending DOMA, it's going to make the strongest arguments it can; that's professionalism and the role of the administration's lawyers. Does anyone think Obama drafted this brief himself or directed people to? On the second count, there are a million things Obama and his appointees can and will do below the radar that will make our lives easier. Issues involving immigration rights, benefits, treatment of federal employees, directing enforcement of rules with discretion, and the old stand-by, appointing judges like Sotomayor instead of those like Priscilla Owen and Antonin Scalia who see us as enemies in the culture war and non-persons.

The federal government will be behind the liberal states in making changes, and also behind the courts. But is there a big difference between a Republican and a Democratic administration? On balance, yes.

[Brittain33]

Note this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=137808&mesg_id=137808

(Conservative Bush administration holdover is behind this.)

As I expected. I trust Obama's administration to defend DOMA, but I would not expect them to do it this way.

[Brittain33]

They're trying to head off protests at the upcoming fundraiser with Frank, Baldwin and Polis. So I suppose in some sense HRC did manage to get concessions.

Yay, the obnoxious DOMA brief was good for something!

[Brittain33]

Who cares? It's like giving drops of water to someone in the desert after taking away their water source.

Or rather, any chance of getting a water source.

It doesn't include health benefits. My "caring" is significantly less than it was before the announcement. Damage control without any real benefits.

[Brittain33]

How can Obama extend benefits by executive order again, if that is what is entailed here?

He's the head of the executive branch, which means about 3 million employees report to him indirectly. Can't he direct the OPM to modify their policies, in the absence of any countervailing legislation?

[Brittain33]

I don't know where public employee pay as a statutory matter ends, and public employee pay as a function of employer discretion and negotiation begins.

DOMAs come in two flavors, weak and strong. The weak DOMAs recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The strong DOMAs go beyond that to deny recognition to any relationship that approximates the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. We've seen the latter in most recent state DOMAs, notably those of Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and all of the southern states, and they preclude civil unions and have been interpreted to deny dp benefits at state universities and local governments.

The original DOMA is a weak DOMA. It does not preclude the federal government from offering domestic partnership benefits separate from those of married couples.

It's possible Congress has passed a law in the past denying dp benefits to federal employees; that we'd have to look up. It does not follow from DOMA, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if no such law exists. Even during the dark night of the Bush years from 2001 to 2009, we made tremendous progress in extending domestic partner benefits in private companies and local governments. It most likely wasn't banned by Congress during the Clinton years because no one would have thought he would have introduced them. Then we have the Bush years, when the executive branch would never have wanted to have dp benefits, so with Obama in charge, he may well have the executive leeway to do so. Let's see if he does. 

[Brittain33]

Considering that the head of OPM is openly gay, he'd have credibility if he were to come out on behalf of President Obama and say that he is forbidden to offer domestic partner benefits. If it were the case.

[Brittain33]

One person's "damage control" is another person's "patronizing bullshit."

Yes, they continue to fumble this one. Just as he fumbled every previous time he stepped on the gays.