Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Lunar]

What states will have gay marriage and civil unions in 10 years?

Here's my map. Red = gay marriage, blue = civil unions, gray = neither:

Vermont and New Jersey might have gay marriage too, but there might be less of a push for it due to them currently have civil unions.

Isn't it funny that this map was only posted a couple months ago and it already has three states blue that currently have gay marriages legalized?

[Lunar]

BRTD, you break my heart when you assume that the majority of hispanics are automatically against it. Anyway, it's good to read about a state legislature that's not in New England for once...

---

I really don't get how 40% of people can think that being gay is a choice. Like, that doesn't make sense at all to me. Heterosexual people don't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I didn't make the conscious choice of liking girls one day. I just realized I did at one point. Why should it be any different with homosexuals?

That's a fairly bad question since it assumes if you're not born a gay baby it must be a choice.

There's some middle room there.  Someone doesn't have to be born with schizophrenia to have it not be their choice to have it, for example.

[RI]

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.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

     That a defense of marriage proposition lost 9% of the population that supported it in 2000.

Compare: 2008 vs. 2000

I made swing and trend maps for 2008 from 2000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bonoff's comment that I found shows guaranteed support of civil unions and likely support of gay marriage. She said that's she's opposed to any constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (state or federal) and does support giving homosexual couples equal recognition of their relations (but stopped at saying marriage.) That sounds like she basically does support gay marriage but is too scared to come out and say it outright. At least she isn't pretending to oppose it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Re: Silver's point on Hispanics, while very valid, he's comparing to whites nationally, not just whites in the Twin Cities. The Hispanic communities in the Twin Cities are undoubtedly more opposed than the white population, even if they're close to 50/50.

Kind of moot anyway though, since the Hispanic population is small, largely doesn't vote and controls no districts (There is a Hispanic State Senator, but she votes the liberal line on everything and is from a plurality white district.)

[Holmes]

Compare: 2008 vs. 2000

I made swing and trend maps for 2008 from 2000.
http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp131/rarohla/2000-2008CAGayMarriageSwingandTrend.png

Man. We could've won, and now I hate how the loss has freaked everyone out and they say putting on the 2010 will be bad because one poll says we'd be at a 1% disadvantage in '10 compared to '12. Sigh. Seriously. If they go grassroots for the next year, run a good and positive campaign with effective rebutals, don't ignore the Central Valley + everywhere outside of San Diego, and have officials up for re-election(statewide or not) stump for them once in a while, it can be won in 2010.

And, I personally think having it on the ballot in a non-presidential year is for the better. Everyone was using their time and ressources for Obama in states near California. It was too late when they realized that their help would've been better with no on 8.

[Sbane]

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.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

     That a defense of marriage proposition lost 9% of the population that supported it in 2000.

Compare: 2008 vs. 2000

I made swing and trend maps for 2008 from 2000.

Wow this map almost directly correlates with how many whites there are in those counties. Not only did prop 8 do bad with minorities, but the campaign was unable to change their minds as well. If gay marriage is to be passed, they will have to concentrate their efforts in minority communities.

Another reason for the swings could be that republicans and independents leaning republican reflexively voted against gay marriage in 2000. They might have given it more thought this year and many of the highly educated ones changed their minds.

[ilikeverin]

Someone doesn't have to be born with schizophrenia to have it not be their choice to have it, for example.

Bad example; schizophrenia is one of the most heritable psychological conditions and also has some influence from prenatal situations: people born in April (IIRC... sometime in spring I believe) are significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than the general population.  This seems to have something to do with the fact that people whose mothers had the flu during pregnancy also being more likely to develop schizophrenia, and those born in the spring were more likely to be in the womb during flu season!  So, there's lots of evidence pointing to it being highly probable that schizophrenics are essentially born with schizophrenia.

Anyway, moving along...

[Holmes]

Golly gee, the haters in Maine sure aren't holding back this year for their referendum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yum, legalizing discrimination in the Human Rights Act.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sounds like they might be shooting themselves in the foot. Turning a referendum to block gay marriage into an all around anti-gay vote that's much less likely to pass.

[Holmes]

The nickname for these things are "people's veto", but I learned that the real name is "people's affirmation" btw.

Anyway, I see the legality of putting the gay marriage issue on the ballot because the legislature did just pass it and all that. But they didn't address the issues of civil unions, adoption, the Human Rights Act, or funding to civil rights programs, so I don't see the legality of putting those on the ballot -- referendums in Maine are for these affirmation things only. Nonetheless, whatever. Maine voters already said they want sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act, so using this to try to remove that is stupid. They're gonna lose votes.

[Lief 🗽]

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

[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.

[Holmes]

Marriage equality in New York is not dead. Or at least, as alive as it was before the events yesterday.

Both men discussed the issue with the Post's Fred Dicker on Albany's TALK 1300 this morning. Espada expressed hope that the bill would come to a vote, while Skelos, according to Newsday, "didn't disagree." "We should vote up or down on bills, that's part of the reforms we've brought," Skelos said.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Someone doesn't have to be born with schizophrenia to have it not be their choice to have it, for example.

Bad example; schizophrenia is one of the most heritable psychological conditions and also has some influence from prenatal situations: people born in April (IIRC... sometime in spring I believe) are significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than the general population.  This seems to have something to do with the fact that people whose mothers had the flu during pregnancy also being more likely to develop schizophrenia, and those born in the spring were more likely to be in the womb during flu season!  So, there's lots of evidence pointing to it being highly probable that schizophrenics are essentially born with schizophrenia.

Anyway, moving along...

...Assuming that Schizophrenia is a condition that actually exists and isn't just a label attached to a variety of different problems.

Or assuming that Schizophrenia can be diagnoised in any quasi-scientific way (ha!).

But as you said, moving along...

[Lunar]

[insert a different, less hereditary mental disorder.  Hell, you could probably even take a personality trait]

The point was that it's a false dichotomy to place choice as everything that isn't "born gay." 

[Verily]

Marriage equality in New York is not dead. Or at least, as alive as it was before the events yesterday.

Both men discussed the issue with the Post's Fred Dicker on Albany's TALK 1300 this morning. Espada expressed hope that the bill would come to a vote, while Skelos, according to Newsday, "didn't disagree." "We should vote up or down on bills, that's part of the reforms we've brought," Skelos said.

I would actually expect Skelos to push it to a vote. It's easier to argue against a bill that has been rejected than one you've blocked from reaching the floor. Anyway, Espada is actually a cosponsor of the bill. It's hard to see how having him as Senate President would kill the bill any more than it was previously.

New Hampshire did shock me, so I'm leaving open the possibility that New York will do the same. I learned today from a friend who is working at the Bloomberg mayoral campaign that Human Rights Campaign has given up doing calls, however; they were previously using space within the Bloomberg campaign headquarters donated by the campaign (!)* to do a phone bank in support of the legislation.

*Gutsiest thing I've heard of any significant politician doing in support of gay marriage. It's part of what makes Bloomberg great, the gutsiness.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

*Gutsiest thing I've heard of any significant politician doing in support of gay marriage. It's part of what makes Bloomberg great, the gutsiness.

It's only gutsy if you think he has aspirations for higher office.  Can't see where it would hurt him  for reëlection to his current office.

[Holmes]

Joe Bruno, former New York GOP Majority Leader, calls for marriage equality.

[Smash255]

Marriage equality in New York is not dead. Or at least, as alive as it was before the events yesterday.

Both men discussed the issue with the Post's Fred Dicker on Albany's TALK 1300 this morning. Espada expressed hope that the bill would come to a vote, while Skelos, according to Newsday, "didn't disagree." "We should vote up or down on bills, that's part of the reforms we've brought," Skelos said.

I would actually expect Skelos to push it to a vote. It's easier to argue against a bill that has been rejected than one you've blocked from reaching the floor. Anyway, Espada is actually a cosponsor of the bill. It's hard to see how having him as Senate President would kill the bill any more than it was previously.

New Hampshire did shock me, so I'm leaving open the possibility that New York will do the same. I learned today from a friend who is working at the Bloomberg mayoral campaign that Human Rights Campaign has given up doing calls, however; they were previously using space within the Bloomberg campaign headquarters donated by the campaign (!)* to do a phone bank in support of the legislation.

*Gutsiest thing I've heard of any significant politician doing in support of gay marriage. It's part of what makes Bloomberg great, the gutsiness.

Interesting to see how Skelos would vote on it.  He use to be against it claiming most New Yorkers were against it as his reasoning, but hasn't said much on it since polls have started to show New Yorkers support gay marriage.  And while he is a long term incumbent and pretty safe at that he does represent a Democratic leaning district.

[aaaa2222]

Marriage equality in New York is not dead. Or at least, as alive as it was before the events yesterday.

Both men discussed the issue with the Post's Fred Dicker on Albany's TALK 1300 this morning. Espada expressed hope that the bill would come to a vote, while Skelos, according to Newsday, "didn't disagree." "We should vote up or down on bills, that's part of the reforms we've brought," Skelos said.

I would actually expect Skelos to push it to a vote. It's easier to argue against a bill that has been rejected than one you've blocked from reaching the floor. Anyway, Espada is actually a cosponsor of the bill. It's hard to see how having him as Senate President would kill the bill any more than it was previously.

New Hampshire did shock me, so I'm leaving open the possibility that New York will do the same. I learned today from a friend who is working at the Bloomberg mayoral campaign that Human Rights Campaign has given up doing calls, however; they were previously using space within the Bloomberg campaign headquarters donated by the campaign (!)* to do a phone bank in support of the legislation.

*Gutsiest thing I've heard of any significant politician doing in support of gay marriage. It's part of what makes Bloomberg great, the gutsiness.

I love Bloomberg, he is certainly one of my favorite politicians. A truly excellent (Independent!!!!) leader, that this country could use in higher office.

[Scam of God]

[insert a different, less hereditary mental disorder.  Hell, you could probably even take a personality trait]

The point was that it's a false dichotomy to place choice as everything that isn't "born gay." 

The point ought to be that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. It harms no one, any more than does heterosexuality or my own penchant for transsexuals. Hence it ought to be embraced, in keeping with the maxim of liberal democracy that individual freedom and choice is the greatest possible good in this world.

[Holmes]

Obama defended DOMA today, said it was constitutional and marriage is not a fundemantal right. And banning same-sex marriage benefits the federal goverment.

No comment.

[Nutmeg]

Obama defended DOMA today, said it was constitutional and marriage is not a fundemantal right. And banning same-sex marriage benefits the federal goverment.

source, plz

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Obama defended DOMA today, said it was constitutional and marriage is not a fundemantal right. And banning same-sex marriage benefits the federal goverment.

No comment.

Oh, I've got a comment for ya.

*ahem*

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. Obama cares about winning re-election in 2012, and he wants to do everything he can to again carry Indiana, that CD inside Nebraska, and North Carolina. Reassuring people that gays will never get the right to marry in their states is a damn good way of winning votes there. Maybe he'll pick up Georgia too, wouldn't that be grand!  ~~

Obama is, and has been since starting the campaign, using gays as political pawns. It's not just Obama who's guilty of this—half the Democratic party does. I can't count the number of times when I've heard, "oh, we can't do this, it's an election year." There are plenty of good politicians out there who will fight for gay causes; who will vote for gay marriage even when its a lost cause. It just happens that Obama isn't one of them.

Way too many people, gays included, bought his hype. "Change" was just a slogan. There was nothing in his background that hinted that Obama was a different kind of politician or special in any way. Everyone was so eager to get behind him that no one thought to put any kind of checks on him.

And it's sadly frustrating that even after repeated slights to the gay community, people continue to be okay with Obama and are patiently awaiting whatever the hell this "Change" for gay people was supposed to be. Spoiler alert: It ain't coming, kids.

There's never a time when a group of people have won their rights by graciously accepting steps backward as "progress." We didn't fight and win the Revolutionary War through negotiation and compromise. We didn't free the slaves by slowly electing presidents who said, "well, hold on now guys, these southerners have some valid points here—it's too much too soon." We didn't win civil rights for African Americans by having the White House support briefs in favor of Jim Crow laws.

The only way we'll see gay marriage nationwide in our useful lifetimes is through a decision in the Supreme Court. That's it. South Carolina isn't going to slowly warm up to it. Alabama isn't going to slowly warm up to it. Their hands need to be forced. And eventually, after a few years of gays being allowed to marry, they'll grow to accept the idea as inevitable and realize its not so scary after all. That's precisely how civil rights were won in the south—through the courts.

Damnit, rights are only won through fighting for what we believe in, and for way too long, we've simply been allowing ourselves to be used as pawns of the Democratic party and letting them believe that our votes are going to default to them, rather than forcing them to accept that our votes need to be earned. Obama doesn't need to force the Senate to vote on gay marriage tomorrow, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let him chip away at what we've been trying to build piece by piece for the last couple of decades.

Ever since he took office, Obama has done nothing but allow the football on gay rights to be pushed back further and further for the sole reason of his own political gain.

I call shenanigans on that. Get out your motherin brooms.