Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[pbrower2a]

More victories this week in some very conservative states. We're now closer than ever to the start of marriage equality in Arkansas and Mississippi. Florida is refusing to issue drivers' licenses to a gay couple after they married and changed their last name. And support for marriage equality has skyrocketed in Wyoming.

There's a new lawsuit in Florida. The state cancelled the drivers' licenses of a gay couple after they married in New York and hyphenated their last name. Even though it's their new legal name, the state of Florida is refusing to recognize it, so they've sued.

.......

Over in Wyoming, a new survey shows support for marriage equality is up to 53 percent, vs. 39 percent opposed. That's a big jump from 10 years ago, when support was at just 24 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/florida-dmv-married-gays_b_6246502.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[pbrower2a]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them. 

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

[Flake]

Maybe one map for legalization and one map for approvals?

[pbrower2a]

Maybe one map for legalization and one map for approvals?

I have a list for approvals along with a map that shows either legalization or approval/disapproval.  I also have one for legalization or the relevant District Court. I could in theory add a color for states in which SSM has gone through its final district appeal and will ultimately be decided in the US Supreme Court.

For now I do not see SSM going away where it is already lawful. Such would be relevant where an effort to get an SSM ban is on some state's initiative or referendum... but nothing of the sort is likely soon. The Michigan Republican party knew what it was doing by keeping SSM off the ballot in 2014.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

[Person Man]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

I think there was a time where it was like that, but the energy boom of the late 2000s brought in a lot of white trash. I think as the value of Hydrocarbons decreases, that these people will move out and things may or may not turn to normal in the next few years. Though even then, I don't think they are anti-Government as they are "we don't really care about feminism or civil rights or religion for that matter, we just want to get rich and enjoy the outdoors".

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

I think there was a time where it was like that, but the energy boom of the late 2000s brought in a lot of white trash. I think as the value of Hydrocarbons decreases, that these people will move out and things may or may not turn to normal in the next few years. Though even then, I don't think they are anti-Government as they are "we don't really care about feminism or civil rights or religion for that matter, we just want to get rich and enjoy the outdoors".

Yea, but I always thought that "I don't care" was not to include actively opposing.  50% opposition to gay marriage at this point is striking, as it's basically one of those progressive issues that has come full circle.  Definitely "it's here, it's queer, get used to it", and those people still fighting it just come off as hateful. 

[Alcon]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

I think there was a time where it was like that, but the energy boom of the late 2000s brought in a lot of white trash. I think as the value of Hydrocarbons decreases, that these people will move out and things may or may not turn to normal in the next few years. Though even then, I don't think they are anti-Government as they are "we don't really care about feminism or civil rights or religion for that matter, we just want to get rich and enjoy the outdoors".

Wyoming's population hasn't really changed enough to cause any kind of seismic shift in their politics.  Also, I doubt that young energy industry workers are substantially more socially conservative than native Wyoming citizens.  They probably vote at fairly poor rates, too.

The interior west may have a "leave me alone" approach to politics, but that often takes the form of "don't force social liberalism on me and my family."  I guess that's libertarian in a way, but in a socially right-wing way.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Here's where YouGov most recently had Wyoming on approval and disapproval on same-sex marriage (SSM):

WY    33    50    -17

I don't know where the 53-39 poll came from. If such is the pattern, then it would seem that soon after SSM is tolerated by law, the public follows. Maybe people find that it does not hurt them.  

PPP could poll North Carolina. This could compel me to update the approval rating for SSM in at least one state.

Why does Wyoming get this reputation of being all libertarian and whatnot... like a gaggle of cowboys that don't want the government involved in anything?  They are clearly just a bunch of nasty hicks like the rest of Republamerica.  

I think there was a time where it was like that, but the energy boom of the late 2000s brought in a lot of white trash. I think as the value of Hydrocarbons decreases, that these people will move out and things may or may not turn to normal in the next few years. Though even then, I don't think they are anti-Government as they are "we don't really care about feminism or civil rights or religion for that matter, we just want to get rich and enjoy the outdoors".

Wyoming's population hasn't really changed enough to cause any kind of seismic shift in their politics.  Also, I doubt that young energy industry workers are substantially more socially conservative than native Wyoming citizens.  They probably vote at fairly poor rates, too.

The interior west may have a "leave me alone" approach to politics, but that often takes the form of "don't force social liberalism on me and my family."  I guess that's libertarian in a way, but in a socially right-wing way.

Yea... "leave me alone"... but "go get them!"  That's called hypocrisy. 

[Thomas D]

Florida Joins the club on January 6.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/19/us-usa-florida-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0JX2J620141219

[pbrower2a]

This is my most conservative prediction of how SSM will be on 6 January 2015 -- less than three weeks from now. I have seen nothing about stays that were supposed to expire in Arkansas and Mississippi:

White -- SSM equality by law.
Yellow -- toss-up

 

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district in those in which SSM will not have been permanently legalized as of 10 AM EST on 6 January 2015:

Status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Marianas not shown.

5th circuit
6th circuit*
8th circuit
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors for districts have no other political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th appellate districts have legalized SSM.


Here are the numbers:

Compiled results are listed below. The headers for each column are: State/ Support Legalising Gay Marriage/ Oppose Legalising Gay Marriage/ Net Support.

MA    71    19    +52
VT    71    20    +51
RI    68    20    +48
NH    63    24    +39
CT    61    26    +35
NY    61    27    +34
HI    59    26    +33
CA    58    31    +27
ME    63    37    +26
NM    57    32    +25
WA    57    32    +25
NV    55    31    +24
DE    54    31    +23
NJ    54    32    +22
OR    56    35    +21
IA    53    33    +20
IL    53    33    +20
CO    54    35    +19
MN    52    34    +18
AK    50    36    +14
WI    51    37    +14
MD    48    36    +12
PA    49    38    +11
ND    48    39    +9
MI    47    39    +8
AZ    47    40    +7
VA    47    40    +7
FL    46    40    +6
OH    45    40    +5
MT    45    41    +4
KS    44    41    +3
SD    43    43    0
IN    43    45    -2
NC    42    46    -4
MO    41    47    -6
NE    40    46    -6
LA    39    46    -7
WV    39    48    -9
GA    37    47    -10
SC    37    47    -10
KY    38    50    -12
TX    37    50    -13
OK    37    51    -14
WY    33    50    -17
ID    33    51    -18
AR    32    54    -22
UT    34    56    -22
MS    29    56    -27
TN    29    58    -29
AL    28    60    -32

US    48    39    +9

[pbrower2a]

SSM bans are crashing. The US Supreme Court does not so far accept pure delaying tactics.  

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

9 in the South, 6 in the Midwest. If it weren't for that terrible circuit 6 ruling, there'd be 3 Midwest and 8 South.

[pbrower2a]

9 in the South, 6 in the Midwest. If it weren't for that terrible circuit 6 ruling, there'd be 3 Midwest and 8 South.

The ruling in the Sixth Circuit was weak. All US Supreme Court rulings in the last year or two have upheld the right to SSM. We're getting quite an education here.

[pbrower2a]

Louisiana's case goes to the Supreme Court on January 9. No prediction here. I'm very cautious about predicting USSC rulings. Most likely the ruling will be "no case" for the SSM ban.

[The_Doctor]

Question - why is this thread stickied, around this particular issue?

[pbrower2a]

Question - why is this thread stickied, around this particular issue?

A huge change in American family life. Same-sex marriage is a break from an ancient tradition of exclusively-heterosexual marriage.

We get to see history in the making. Unlike the case with interracial marriage we have a rapid change in policies on a state-by-state basis, often due to decisions of courts.

Should this issue be settled in the US Supreme Court with a decision that invalidates all state bans on SSM, then the creator of this thread would almost certainly lock it. 

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does preponderance matter in splits among appellate courts?

...Papers may be filed in time, but arguments rejected in other appellate courts (I think of the contrast between the 6th and 7th Circuit Courts) are likely to be rejected in the Supreme Court. If the arguments for SSM bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee are no stronger than those for Indiana and Wisconsin, then I expect those arguments to fail.

Of course it is possible, at least in theory, for the Attorney General of Michigan to come up with a stronger argument than any previous argument for an SSM ban, but to be clever enough to find such an argument one would need to come up with so good that it would convince liberals that it is right. But that is like saying that if everything goes right for the Chicago White Sox this year they will make the World Series.

[The Mikado]

2015 will be the year that SSM becomes legal in every state. This is an incredible statement to write, but the time has come.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

2015 will be the year that SSM becomes legal in every state. This is an incredible statement to write, but the time has come.

The Walrus said

[pbrower2a]

2015 will be the year that SSM becomes legal in every state. This is an incredible statement to write, but the time has come.

As a rule I do not predict the results of court rulings or jury verdicts, but on this I concur.


The cases against same-sex marriage (SSM) have shown consistently so weak irrespective of the means of the enactment of the law (amendment in the State constitution, legislation, or even initiative and referendum) that it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court not invalidating all remaining State laws against SSM. The Supreme Court has ruled already against the Governors and Attorneys-General of states in which legalization of SSM through state action was least likely (like Utah and Oklahoma).

The critical decision will most likely be on the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court, an anomalous decision. Should the US Supreme Court overturn the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court, no anti-SSM law is safe in America.

The Michigan Snake Government has fought SSM so hard that it has brought up everything wrong with anti-SSM social policy. Ironically Michigan voters, had they had the choice by initiative or referendum, would likely have voted for the abolition of the state's anti-SSM ban.

Homophobia guts respect for law and order, it messes up family life, it fails to account for human nature without due cause, and it is even bad for business.

Respect for law and order? That's my personal concern. I have been threatened with gay-bashing, and I came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't that the fool who threatened me got my sexual preference wrong because he thought that my failure to exude masculinity was that I was a sissy. The problem was that he thought it acceptable to beat gays. The more that people see same-sex marriage as a norm, the more they will accept it. I quit making jokes about homosexuality after I was gay-bashed.

Messes up family life? Sure. For some people the only love that they can enjoy is homosexual. Gays and lesbians can be fine parents -- of kids who may end up straight. If allowance of SSM means that some kids can be adopted into solid households that might otherwise not be so adopted, then SSM is good for children.

Fails to account for human behavior? Sure -- because nobody yet has found a cause of homosexuality. It's time for those of us who cannot yet accept homosexuality to grow up.   

Bad for business? The gays or lesbian couples could be the people who decide based upon law whether to bring a professional practice into or start a business in a state.
 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Question - why is this thread stickied, around this particular issue?

MAPS CAL! MAPS

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course it is possible, at least in theory, for the Attorney General of Michigan to come up with a stronger argument than any previous argument for an SSM ban, but to be clever enough to find such an argument one would need to come up with so good that it would convince liberals that it is right. But that is like saying that if everything goes right for the Chicago White Sox this year they will make the World Series.

No, it only needs to be good enough to convince Kennedy who is no liberal.  If anyone swings from Windsor, it would have to be him, tho I don't expect him to.  Windsor was pretty clearly a decision that was incremental rather than conclusive only so as to give public opinion more time to change before a final ruling was handed down.  Politically, that has proven to be wise, even if the tortured logic used in Windsor to justify an incremental recognition of SSM was absolutely horrible and unwise.  I'm still worried Windsor will be used as precedent in other non-SSM cases to make a hash of our Federal system of cosovereign governments.

[pbrower2a]

Of course it is possible, at least in theory, for the Attorney General of Michigan to come up with a stronger argument than any previous argument for an SSM ban, but to be clever enough to find such an argument one would need to come up with so good that it would convince liberals that it is right. But that is like saying that if everything goes right for the Chicago White Sox this year they will make the World Series.

No, it only needs to be good enough to convince Kennedy who is no liberal.  If anyone swings from Windsor, it would have to be him, tho I don't expect him to.  Windsor was pretty clearly a decision that was incremental rather than conclusive only so as to give public opinion more time to change before a final ruling was handed down.  Politically, that has proven to be wise, even if the tortured logic used in Windsor to justify an incremental recognition of SSM was absolutely horrible and unwise.  I'm still worried Windsor will be used as precedent in other non-SSM cases to make a hash of our Federal system of cosovereign governments.

We shall see. The argument that 'homosexuality is evil and hurtful' is itself dead except in the most refractory minds.

...All in all it may be better that the rulings on SSM have been made so far on a Circuit-by-Circuit basis instead of depending upon on big ruling like Loving v. Virginia.  Eventually the last states to hold bans on SSM will have to defend their laws against decisions in other Circuits. So what makes Michigan's ban so much more valid than the ones invalidated in Indiana and Wisconsin?   

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A preview:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/florida-marriage-equality_b_6415530.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices