Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

THIS DAY IN HISTORY:

On this day 11 years President George W. Bush announced his support for an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban Same Sex Marriage.

So, how's that goin'? 

More likely than not Bush supports SSM today.

What's the evidence for that? Besides his father's possible endorsement of it (H.W. has served as witness to 1 gay wedding, but, to the public's knowledge, has never outright said "I support Same Sex Marriage".), I honestly don't know of anything. I could see W. Bush endorsing state's rights on the issue nowadays, seeing as even Ted Cruz supports that, but W. Bush actually supporting federal legislation allowing SSM? That'd really surprise me.

Bush said he supported Civil Unions after his presidency. (Of course, nobody supports Civil Unions anymore). His dad(as you mentioned), wife, and daughters, and former VP all support SSM. It's been 11 years since he said that, and now SSM is legal in almost 40 states. Bush refuses to express his opinion, but with all of those factors, it's safe to say that, more likely than not, he supports it, and if so, not openly.

This idea that everyone either supports full marriage or nothing at all is ridiculous. First off, PPP has consistently found that in the South, a significant proportion of those who oppose SSM do support Civil Unions (I can find examples if you like). Also, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both voiced support for some form of domestic partnerships during the 2012 primaries (I can find the quotes if you like), and they obviously don't support SSM now.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

THIS DAY IN HISTORY:

On this day 11 years President George W. Bush announced his support for an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban Same Sex Marriage.

So, how's that goin'? 

More likely than not Bush supports SSM today.

What's the evidence for that? Besides his father's possible endorsement of it (H.W. has served as witness to 1 gay wedding, but, to the public's knowledge, has never outright said "I support Same Sex Marriage".), I honestly don't know of anything. I could see W. Bush endorsing state's rights on the issue nowadays, seeing as even Ted Cruz supports that, but W. Bush actually supporting federal legislation allowing SSM? That'd really surprise me.

Bush said he supported Civil Unions after his presidency. (Of course, nobody supports Civil Unions anymore). His dad(as you mentioned), wife, and daughters, and former VP all support SSM. It's been 11 years since he said that, and now SSM is legal in almost 40 states. Bush refuses to express his opinion, but with all of those factors, it's safe to say that, more likely than not, he supports it, and if so, not openly.

This idea that everyone either supports full marriage or nothing at all is ridiculous. First off, PPP has consistently found that in the South, a significant proportion of those who oppose SSM do support Civil Unions (I can find examples if you like). Also, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both voiced support for some form of domestic partnerships during the 2012 primaries (I can find the quotes if you like), and they obviously don't support SSM now.

Mittens and Newtie are far more relevant today than Bush the Lesser is now.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6819712.html

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

8th circuit issues a stay on the ruling against Nebraska’s ban!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/us/nebraska-same-sex-marriage/

[Ebowed]

This idea that everyone either supports full marriage or nothing at all is ridiculous.

Well, the frame of the debate has advanced to the point where these are the two fundamental positions; as you can observe, the fact that anti-marriage people continue to have to moderate their position (maybe in favor of EDNA, probably in favor of civil unions) indicates just how much ground they have lost.  Now, while you might consider yourself a noble exception, a stalwart for civil unions regardless of the political climate, perhaps; in the wider reality of this debate, if your opinion were of any political consequence at all, you would be squarely in the camp of the evangelical movement doing whatever it can to halt the continuation of marriage equality across the country.  Indeed, the way you present some of your arguments on this issue hardly does much to dispel that this is the essence of your philosophical motivations.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is more directly affected by this policy change.  It is now the norm that marriage equality would be tolerated and accepted; for you to say that, no, these rights must be rolled back, you may as well support "nothing at all."  Does that make it a little bit more clear?

[pbrower2a]

Significant because it shows how a religious body well known for its social conservatism can adapt to legal change that it may have dreaded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/utah-anti-discrimination-bill_n_6854624.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

Although any public official can refuse to issue a license for a same-sex marriage (but only on religious reasons), that official must designate someone willing to authorize the marriage.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Here's the states without SSM from most to least populated, just because:

1. Texas (2nd Overall)
2. Ohio (7th Overall
3. Georgia (8th Overall)
4. Michigan (10th Overall)
5. Tennessee (17th)
6. Louisiana (25th)
7. Kentucky (26th)
8. Mississippi (31st)
9. Arkansas (32nd)
10. Nebraska (37th)
11. South Dakota (46th)
12. North Dakota (47th)

If not for that terrible Circuit 5 ruling, there would be only 8.

[pbrower2a]

PUERTO RICO!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/22/puerto-rico-gay-marriage-ban-_n_6913554.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-marriage

[pbrower2a]

Can someone add Puerto Rico to the map?

[SteveRogers]

Can someone add Puerto Rico to the map?

Don't add it to the map until people actually start marrying. Technically the district judge's ruling upholding the state's ban is still in effect until the first circuit reverses that decision.

[pbrower2a]

Can someone add Puerto Rico to the map?

Don't add it to the map until people actually start marrying. Technically the district judge's ruling upholding the state's ban is still in effect until the first circuit reverses that decision.

I'm talking about adding the image of Puerto Rico to the map for SSM rights. This map has nothing to do with elections.

[SteveRogers]

Can someone add Puerto Rico to the map?

Don't add it to the map until people actually start marrying. Technically the district judge's ruling upholding the state's ban is still in effect until the first circuit reverses that decision.

I'm talking about adding the image of Puerto Rico to the map for SSM rights. This map has nothing to do with elections.

Oh, gotcha. I just meant don't color it in on the map yet. I forgot that it literally wasn't on the map.

[pbrower2a]

I tried creating a map based on a year 2036, figuring that Puerto Rico then has statehood adding a line for Puerto Rico.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I tried creating a map based on a year 2036, figuring that Puerto Rico then has statehood adding a line for Puerto Rico.

Oddly enough, the map software for this forum at one time did include Puerto Rico on maps if you set the year to be 2008.  For obvious reasons, that was changed as 2008 approached, but in a manner that eliminated the ability to include Puerto Rico at all.

[pbrower2a]

Guam:

HAGATNA, Guam (AP) — Guam's attorney general and governor are at odds over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, a change that would make it the first U.S. territory to allow gay marriage.

The territory's top law enforcement officer directed officials Wednesday to begin processing marriage license applications from same-sex couples. But the governor said he wanted to study the issue further, and the public health director said he wouldn't accept the applications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/guam-gay-marriage_n_7067378.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-marriage

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So that's 38 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam all have SSM in some way, shape, or form.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So that's 38 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam all have SSM in some way, shape, or form.

Puerto Rico doesn't have it yet, the first circuit has to get around to officially overturning the district court ruling upholding the ban.

[pbrower2a]

A record-high 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and a similar share say individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


Q: Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?


Support 61%

Oppose 35%

Q: Overall, do you support or oppose allowing individual states to prohibit same-sex marriages?


Support 36%

Oppose 61%



Q: Overall, do you support or oppose requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states?


Support 62%

Oppose 35%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_395.xml

America is ahead of its elected officials on this.

[pbrower2a]

The oral arguments have begun today.

Imaginable themes:

1. Are the arguments used in defending SSM bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee any different from those arguments that failed in districts other than the 6th?

It would take a thoroughly novel as well as convincing argument to stop SSM in any one of the states. Some of the arguments against SSM are shown below, but lined-out if proved invalid:

a. It violates Biblical law
b. Marriage exists to promote procreation.
c.  It's unpopular.
d. What about the children?
e. It violates millennia of tradition.
f.  God Almighty disapproves!
g. There will be earthquakes, storms, and floods.
h. Gays and lesbians simply seek special privileges.
i.  If SSM is allowed, then people will soon seek incestuous or polygamous marriages, marriages with animals, or with inanimate objects. 
j.  It will wreak havoc upon my genealogical software.

I made up "j" --- and it is something that I can live with. (So will people living to age 150!)

2. Federal law and the interpretation of the Constitution can differ between the States only for compelling reasons. Thus a state with a heritage of discrimination in employment might be obliged to apply Affirmative Action to hiring but other states with no such a heritage might be under no such obligation.  But the issue is not a pattern of discrimination on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or national origin.

Uniformity of Federal law between the states is a fact. The federal tax schedules are the same for all states. The federal minimum wage is identical in all states. The formula for distributing state and federal aid to highways is the same for all states. Federal criminal codes operate the same in all states. The military draft acts the same way in all states. Constitutional protections are the same in all states.   

[pbrower2a]

Status of SSM in America, 28 April, 2015 at 9AM EDT:

White -- SSM equality by law.
Yellow -- toss-up
Gray -- local option

 

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district in those in which SSM has not  been permanently legalized as of 9 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
Missouri -- local option.

*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 (local option)
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

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

i.  If SSM is allowed, then people will soon seek incestuous or polygamous marriages, marriages with animals, or with inanimate objects. 

Well, one of the phrases that SSM supporters sprout is that "love is love" and applying that logic as a reason for SSM would also be just as easily applied to polygamy/incest/bestiality.

[pbrower2a]

i.  If SSM is allowed, then people will soon seek incestuous or polygamous marriages, marriages with animals, or with inanimate objects. 

Well, one of the phrases that SSM supporters sprout is that "love is love" and applying that logic as a reason for SSM would also be just as easily applied to polygamy/incest/bestiality.

It is the fallacy of the slippery slope -- that people allowed to marry people of the same gender will get to marry a gun or a car.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

i.  If SSM is allowed, then people will soon seek incestuous or polygamous marriages, marriages with animals, or with inanimate objects. 

Well, one of the phrases that SSM supporters sprout is that "love is love" and applying that logic as a reason for SSM would also be just as easily applied to polygamy/incest/bestiality.

It is the fallacy of the slippery slope -- that people allowed to marry people of the same gender will get to marry a gun or a car.

People actually do advocate polygamy.  I've never heard any one advocate ballistigamy or automotivigamy.  So you'll need to come up with better examples if you're asserting such arguments are a slippery slope.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

i.  If SSM is allowed, then people will soon seek incestuous or polygamous marriages, marriages with animals, or with inanimate objects. 

Well, one of the phrases that SSM supporters sprout is that "love is love" and applying that logic as a reason for SSM would also be just as easily applied to polygamy/incest/bestiality.

It is the fallacy of the slippery slope -- that people allowed to marry people of the same gender will get to marry a gun or a car.

"Love is love" is a very broad statement. That statement can apply to anything. It's a fact, not a fallacy.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Keep in mind that you can't actually get a gay marriage in Alabama at the moment. But if you were lucky enough to get one before the counties united in defiance of the district court ruling, then that union is still recognized. And if you're distinguishing 'local option' now, KS should also be included there, as a few rural counties don't issue licenses, and the state makes no attempt to force them to do so.