Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[pbrower2a]

The Conch (Republic) speaks!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/florida-gay-marriage-ban_n_5596032.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

(It applies only to Monroe County, and not statewide).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There's one law that no federal judge will EVER be able to overturn...and that's God's law.

Deep, man.  Deep.  You are the first person to ever have said that.

[SNJ1985]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

[Nutmeg]

it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

Why is that not ceremonial as well?

[MaxQue]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

As far I as know, there is no mention of "moral laws are still valid, ceremonial laws aren't somewhere in Gospels".

[SNJ1985]

Here's a site that explains the concept pretty well:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/5272/why-homosexuality-is-a-sin-but-shellfish-are-ok/

[MaxQue]

Here's a site that explains the concept pretty well:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/5272/why-homosexuality-is-a-sin-but-shellfish-are-ok/

The Acts are describing the decisions of the First Christian Leaders. There is no intervention of God, Jesus or a prophet there. I don't see why we should feel compelled to follow their HUMAN decisions.

[Flake]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

None of the old testament is applicable to Christians today, when Jesus died on the cross it ended the laws of the old testament.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." - Romans 10:4
"by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace," - Ephesians 2:15
"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, tin order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian," - Galatians 3:23-25

Don't use the bible to justify your bigotry.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

Myth of any kind has no place in secular law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

Myth of any kind has no place in secular law.

Such as the myth of the informed electorate?

[pbrower2a]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

Obsolete concern.

Male homosexuality was a threat to an adequate birthrate. It was assumed that male homosexuality would prove an attractive alternative to procreative sex with a wife that makes children possible. Add to that, much  of the homosexuality in non-Jewish cultures was associated with temple prostitution, a genuine abomination to Jews because such was typically a sacrifice to some God other than The One.  

Ancient societies needed high birthrates simply to offset the severe losses from plagues and famines -- and of course a very high death rate among children. That is over.

The people who should know, the Jews, seem relatively liberal on homosexuality... so long as it does not involve minors, rape, or temple prostitution. Christians who wish to interpret the Old Testament for their own ethical values might as well ask the experts -- contemporary Jews who know what the traditions are and which ones are still valid.

[Hatman 🍁]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

If you interpret it literally, it means don't have vaginal sex with a man.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

If you interpret it literally, it means don't have vaginal sex with a man.

Considering the inferior position of womankind in the OT. another potential interpretation is that Lev 18:22 is an admonition to not treat a male sexual partner as an inferior as you would a female.

[Bojack Horseman]

To paraphrase every single Republican Governor/AG who's had their ban struck down,

"When the voters approve a law, that exempts it from any constitutional scrutiny at all. Even if Florida voted to ban Islam or make Christianity the official religion, the courts shouldn't be able to strike that law down simply because the people voted."

[pbrower2a]

Marquette University, Wisconsin

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.

Green -- same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.6% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- ruby (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I know why you don't include data on states with SSM, but I think it would make the map more interesting to start including it. Just my opinion.

[Peeperkorn]

I know why you don't include data on states with SSM, but I think it would make the map more interesting to start including it. Just my opinion.

[pbrower2a]

Just because the U.S. is currently a secular society doesn't mean it should be.

Which sect other than yours would you prefer established the rules by which we are all to go?

We have a secular society because we could never decide upon a dominant religion.

[pbrower2a]

I know why you don't include data on states with SSM, but I think it would make the map more interesting to start including it. Just my opinion.

Here is how it started nearly three years ago (August 2011):

Here is a gay marriage map of recent state polling by PPP and others:

Note:

The NY polls are from Quinnipiac and Marist, both of them showed support for gay marriage above 50%.

The CT poll is from Quinnipiac.

The MD poll is from the Washington Post.

Red favors SSM and blue shows disfavor on the oldest map. Green shows a tie.

The map that I show shows states with legal SSM statewide in white. I would show  the status of polls if there were some legal effort to rescind a decision -- which in practice is shown where an appeal stays the legalization of SSM.

White on my maps means 'likely to stay' in practice. Show evidence to the contrary for any state and I will adjust. A poll after legalization might be interesting, but it is likely irrelevant. Entrenched law makes public opinion irrelevant.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

States that already have gay marriage are polled far less often and are likely to be majority in favor anyway, neglecting the obvious exceptions.

[pbrower2a]

A judge in Miami-Dade County concurs with a judge in Monroe County.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gay-marriage-ban-florida-dade-overturned-20140725,0,2555350.story

Florida may be next. The state will have to deal with the constitutionality of SSM.

[pbrower2a]

4th Circuit Court, MD/NC/VA/WV

Richmond Times-Dispatch

RICHMOND — A federal appeals court panel today struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges upheld U.S. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's ruling in February that the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision will not take effect immediately. It will go into effect in 21 days, unless the defendants file a motion to stay the ruling – which they are likely to do. The case will then head to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.  

Today’s decision is significant because it also renders unconstitutional similar marriage bans in North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia – states that are part of the 4th Circuit. Same-sex marriage is already legal in Maryland, which is also in the circuit.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/appeals-court-strikes-down-va-same-sex-marriage-ban/article_0a448216-167c-11e4-8f75-0017a43b2370.html

[pbrower2a]

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.

Green -- same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.6% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- ruby (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

In view of the decisions of the 4th Federal Circuit Court, tan for states in which states have until August 18, 2014 in which to appeal the decision: 

[pbrower2a]

Another map for your convenience.

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district:

I do not know the status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Marianas.

4th circuit*
5th circuit
6th circuit
7th circuit
8th circuit
9th circuit
10th circuit*
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors have no political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd circuit courts have legalized SSM.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the 3rd circuit, the Northern Marianas and Guam are in the 9th circuit, and American Samoa is in no circuit and any cases arising from the High Court of American Samoa are appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  PR and VI have laws to explicitly not recognize SSM and so it's possible a case could head from them to the 1st and 3rd circuits.  The other territories don't have any provision to explicitly recognize or not recognize SSM.  If we don't get a circuit split, a case from American Samoa might well be the last chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in again on this issue.