Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like "I don't agree with it but we should repeal DOMA too". Still nothing on a veto, still banking on it becoming law...

[Lunar]

No. He's been silent on the issue. I don't think he expected the Senate to pass the bill. There are some indications that the Democratic Senators (in the end, just one or two) who voted against the bill did so to spare Lynch a "tough" political decision. That is, he might only get 65% of the vote in 2010 if he doesn't veto it

he'll probably just not sign it and let it become law...

[Rowan]

I hope Scalia and Thomas retire, so obama can appoint activist judges to replace them, so they can legalize gay marriage nationwide against the will of the people.

In many states it would be against the will of the people. Check out the gay marriage bans that passed in 2004.

[Alcon]

I hope Scalia and Thomas retire, so obama can appoint activist judges to replace them, so they can legalize gay marriage nationwide against the will of the people.

In many states it would be against the will of the people. Check out the gay marriage bans that passed in 2004.

If courts are to never make decisions against the will of the people, why do we have them?

(Not that this specific instance should necessarily be such a case, but can you answer that question?)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I hope Scalia and Thomas retire, so obama can appoint activist judges to replace them, so they can legalize gay marriage nationwide against the will of the people.

In many states it would be against the will of the people. Check out the gay marriage bans that passed in 2004.

Should we have waited for interracial marriage?

[Holmes]

he'll probably just not sign it and let it become law...

Probably. At the beginning of the session, when all bills were introduced and being debated, Lynch said he would only veto three bills: the death penalty repeal, income tax and sales tax. So, those bills never passed and won't end up on his desk.

He says he's opposed, but that doesn't mean a veto. I mean, Culver is opposed too but he's working to keep same-sex marriage in Iowa. The bill makes clear the difference between civil and religious marriage, and it also makes a little changes in civil marriage too(mostly marriage license related) so they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it wouldn't become law. And it's not hard to change "fight to make Washington recognize our citizen's civil unions" to "fight to make Washington recognize our citizen's civil marriages".

[Verily]

he'll probably just not sign it and let it become law...

Probably. At the beginning of the session, when all bills were introduced and being debated, Lynch said he would only veto three bills: the death penalty repeal, income tax and sales tax. So, those bills never passed and won't end up on his desk.

He has said that he will, at least, veto the medical marijuana bill the Senate passed at the same time as the gay marriage bill.

[Holmes]

He has said that he will, at least, veto the medical marijuana bill the Senate passed at the same time as the gay marriage bill.

He has?

[Verily]

He has said that he will, at least, veto the medical marijuana bill the Senate passed at the same time as the gay marriage bill.

He has?

Okay, it wasn't an explicit veto threat, and I think the House hasn't voted on it yet, so they may make amendments on what Lynch complains about.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090430/FRONTPAGE/904300305

I guess the bit about "growing their own marijuana" means Lynch wants the state to have a monopoly on medical marijuana sales. New Hampshire is weird like that; they have a state alcohol sales monopoly.

[Holmes]

You know what though, I think the fact that patients have to grow it themselves is kinda sad. I mean, what terminally ill patient who's taking chemo(for example) has the time and patience to actually grow some?

[Lunar]

It certainly seems like the House isn't the problem in Maine, with a 2-1 Democratic majority; the Senate is a lot closer (20-15), and Baldacci is on the fence.

The Senate just passed it... 20-15

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/newsupdate.php?updates/gay-marriage-passes-on-first-vote

And the Gov. has shown he's going to sign it:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10699/an-unexpected-conversation-with-the-governor

here's some quotes:


I was extremely impressed by the arguments for both sides, but especially by the proponents.
They were very respectful- I liked that they turned their backs when they disagreed.

I was truly impressed by the people who spoke for the bill.

I was opposed to this for a long time, but people evolve, people change as time goes by.

[Lunar]

looks like ME will be the next state, and the second state to legislatively, pass gay marriage!

New Hampshire's next, let's go!

[Brittain33]

This will be followed by a referendum in Maine, almost certainly... it's going to get ugly but at least this time the pro-marriage side will be organized instead of dropping the ball like in California.

[Lunar]

This will be followed by a referendum in Maine, almost certainly... it's going to get ugly but at least this time the pro-marriage side will be organized instead of dropping the ball like in California.

"An amendment aimed at putting the bill to referendum failed amid a debate in which one legislator said that Pontius Pilate had put Christ's fate to a referendum."

[Brittain33]

This will be followed by a referendum in Maine, almost certainly... it's going to get ugly but at least this time the pro-marriage side will be organized instead of dropping the ball like in California.

"An amendment aimed at putting the bill to referendum failed amid a debate in which one legislator said that Pontius Pilate had put Christ's fate to a referendum."

Voters can get a referendum on the ballot with about 50,000 signatures. I am sure the web servers are crashing in Provo and Mesa this minute.

[Franzl]

This will be followed by a referendum in Maine, almost certainly... it's going to get ugly but at least this time the pro-marriage side will be organized instead of dropping the ball like in California.

"An amendment aimed at putting the bill to referendum failed amid a debate in which one legislator said that Pontius Pilate had put Christ's fate to a referendum."

Voters can get a referendum on the ballot with about 50,000 signatures. I am sure the web servers are crashing in Provo and Mesa this minute.

I'd like to see a referendum on this! It'd be really interesting.

Guess there's some danger that they'd vote against legalization...but that might be worth the risk

Seriously, what could a theoretical referendum result look like? Without any special knowledge....I'd guess 55-45 YES.

[Rowan]

Seriously, what could a theoretical referendum result look like? Without any special knowledge....I'd guess 55-45 YES.

I'd agree. But I'll say 54-46 just to be different.

[Holmes]

looks like ME will be the next state, and the second state to legislatively, pass gay marriage!

New Hampshire's next, let's go!

Yeah! The events in Maine will help Governor Lynch as well!

Anyway I think they only have till June to submit for a people's veto anyway(before the session ends) and I dunno much else. Or care, really.

[Verily]

It certainly seems like the House isn't the problem in Maine, with a 2-1 Democratic majority; the Senate is a lot closer (20-15), and Baldacci is on the fence.

The Senate just passed it... 20-15

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/newsupdate.php?updates/gay-marriage-passes-on-first-vote

And the Gov. has shown he's going to sign it:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10699/an-unexpected-conversation-with-the-governor

here's some quotes:


I was extremely impressed by the arguments for both sides, but especially by the proponents.
They were very respectful- I liked that they turned their backs when they disagreed.

I was truly impressed by the people who spoke for the bill.

I was opposed to this for a long time, but people evolve, people change as time goes by.

Were there any crossovers, or was the vote strictly partisan? I know the House committee vote in Maine had some Republicans voting in favor.

[Brittain33]

Were there any crossovers, or was the vote strictly partisan? I know the House committee vote in Maine had some Republicans voting in favor.

There was something like one or two Republicans voting yes and two Democrats voting no, I think.

[Holmes]

Two Republicans voting for it, one Democrat against it. The Democrat called himself a coward for not voting based on his own conscience.

[Brittain33]

Map of gay marriage licenses issued by county in Iowa.

http://data.desmoinesregister.com/samesexmarriage/iowa-gay-marriage-map.php

Sorry guys, no same-sex couples getting their license in Sioux County!

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I'm not optimistic at the odds of gay marriage overcoming a "citizen's veto". Maine only upheld an anti-discrimination statute in 2005 by a 45-55 vote.

[Aizen]

I daresay we have come a long way as a society since 2005...

[Holmes]

I'm not optimistic at the odds of gay marriage overcoming a "citizen's veto". Maine only upheld an anti-discrimination statute in 2005 by a 45-55 vote.

I'm cautiosuly optimistic. EqualityMaine and the powerful GLAAD have been working on that and laying out a ground game for that for over a year now, and they also have the NAACP and HRC and quite a few religious institutions(but not all of course) that are helping out too, and if NOM gets involved it'll help us too -- people in Maine don't care too much for Miss California and Mormons.

We have a lot of surporters identified and we'd definitely be able to get out the vote, and I'd have more confidence in Maine than I would on No on 8. Polls would be useless because if it were to happen, it would be all about ground game.