Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Franzl]

Does Lynch even have the bill yet....or is that one amendment still pending approval in the NH House? Probably the latter, although I haven't heard anything about it in the last couple of days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I guess it's still in the House.

[Lief 🗽]

So, the map looks like this now (I think). Blue = Civil Unions, Green = Marriage.

Pretty good, considering it looked like this in 1999:

[Marokai Backbeat]

I believe Hawaii had something similar to civil unions before 1999.

(Edit: And I don't think Hawaii has civil unions now anyway, just some sort of "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" thing they passed in 1997. I'd color it yellow, just to be awkward.)

[Verily]

I believe Hawaii had something similar to civil unions before 1999.

(Edit: And I don't think Hawaii has civil unions now anyway, just some sort of "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" thing they passed in 1997. I'd color it yellow, just to be awkward.)

No, Hawaii came really close to full marriage in 1998 but then pulled away. That was what started the debate and caused amendments to state constitutions to start being introduced.

Anyway, Colorado, Washington and Maryland don't actually give equivalent benefits.

[Lief 🗽]

I believe Hawaii had something similar to civil unions before 1999.

(Edit: And I don't think Hawaii has civil unions now anyway, just some sort of "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" thing they passed in 1997. I'd color it yellow, just to be awkward.)

No, Hawaii came really close to full marriage in 1998 but then pulled away. That was what started the debate and caused amendments to state constitutions to start being introduced.

Anyway, Colorado, Washington and Maryland don't actually give equivalent benefits.

Oh, lame. I'll make them light blue then.

Green = Marriage, Blue = Equal Civil Unions, Light Blue = Limited Civil Unions

[Tender Branson]

Gay marriage now legal in Maine.

Great !

What's the matter with Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington ? They seem to have big enough Democratic margins in both chambers as well as Democratic governors to attempt implementation of gay marriage or civil union. Also Minnesota and Rhode Islands, but probably with unwilling Republican governors.

[Aizen]

5 down. 45 to go.

[Devilman88]

5 down. 45 to go.

By the end of the year it will be up to 20 or so.

[Holmes]

so does this go into effect immediately? or is there like a six month wait.

There's a 3 month wait from when the session ends in July. People can gather like, over 55,000 signatures to put it on the ballot in November and they would have until September to do that, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

By the end of the year it will be up to 20 or so.

Well that would be nice... but the states that are left for 2009 are New Hampshire, New Jersey(which will do it), New York and possibly Rhode Island if their legislature has an epiphany and does a 180 on the issue(which it won't without Chafee). And maybe California....

[Verily]

I believe Hawaii had something similar to civil unions before 1999.

(Edit: And I don't think Hawaii has civil unions now anyway, just some sort of "reciprocal beneficiary relationships" thing they passed in 1997. I'd color it yellow, just to be awkward.)

No, Hawaii came really close to full marriage in 1998 but then pulled away. That was what started the debate and caused amendments to state constitutions to start being introduced.

Anyway, Colorado, Washington and Maryland don't actually give equivalent benefits.

Oh, lame. I'll make them light blue then.

Green = Marriage, Blue = Equal Civil Unions, Light Blue = Limited Civil Unions

Here's Wikipedia's map:



Red is amendment banning civil unions and marriage. Orange is amendment banning marriage. Yellow is statute banning marriage. Gray is no legislation. Green is unequal unions. Light blue is no marriage but recognition of marriages. Dark blue is equal unions. Purple is marriage.

[Rowan]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

[Aizen]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

wow. way to be a debbie downer.

[Holmes]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

Alabama voted to repeal its constitutional amendment against interracial marriages about 30 years after it became legal there.

[Verily]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

That's what the Supreme Court is for. There's this thing called the 14th Amendment. It says something about "equal protection under the law".

[Brittain33]

It's likely that no same-sex marriages will take place until the "people's veto" referendum is held. The bill goes on hold if they file enough signatures to get it on the ballot, and who doubts that they will?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So Maine is the fifth state to allow gay marriages

No, it is the second to choose to allow gay marriages.  The other three had it imposed on them by judges.  As I've said before, I favor states recognizing gay marriages, so long as it comes to pass via a legislation and not judicial dictatorship.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So Maine is the fifth state to allow gay marriages

No, it is the second to choose to allow gay marriages.  The other three had it imposed on them by judges.  As I've said before, I favor states recognizing gay marriages, so long as it comes to pass via a legislation and not judicial dictatorship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about the courts "imposing" proper civil rights protection and equal values on the population. What travesty! Of course we should have taken our good time in getting rid of segregation and allowing mixed marriages!

[Verily]

So Maine is the fifth state to allow gay marriages

No, it is the second to choose to allow gay marriages.  The other three had it imposed on them by judges.  As I've said before, I favor states recognizing gay marriages, so long as it comes to pass via a legislation and not judicial dictatorship.

It's not judicial dictatorship. Current constitutional law mandates gay marriage. That constutitional law is not being recognized by the authorities at this current moment, but that does not mean it is not there. Gay marriage has been legal since the 14th Amendment was passed. (Similarly, on the state level, many states mandate gay marriage in their constitutions but do not acknowledge this in practice, having laws against it, although some may not have equal protection in their constitutions while others have other, contradictory amendments as well.)

[Holmes]

New Hampshire House now debating the Senate's amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

That's what the Supreme Court is for. There's this thing called the 14th Amendment. It says something about "equal protection under the law".

But they already have it.  Homosexuals are allowed to marry in all 50 states, it's just that only in five of them can they marry someone of the same gender and have it recognized by a state government.  If the equal protection clause were used to overturn state laws that do not recognize gay marriage, how could it logically not be extended to polygamy?   I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get anywhere close to that issue, not when it would have to overturn existing precedent in Baker v. Nelson.

It's not judicial dictatorship. Current constitutional law mandates gay marriage. That constutitional law is not being recognized by the authorities at this current moment, but that does not mean it is not there. Gay marriage has been legal since the 14th Amendment was passed.

Incorrect.  This issue has already been ruled upon by the Supremes as I noted above, and they ruled that gay marriage was not a Federal question.  They might consider a "full faith and credit" argument under Article IV Section 1 to require a gay marriage entered into in one state to enjoy some degree of recognition in another since unlike 1972 when the Supremes issued their opinion, there now are states that do provide recognition to gay marriages, but I can't see them ever directly overturning Baker v. Nelson.

We have two contrasting definitions of marriage at work here.  One is that it is a union between two people, and the other is that it is a union between a man and a woman.  (I'll leave aside the issue of whether a marriage can only involve two parties.) Deciding which definition is to be used by a State is a decision that should be left to legislatures since there is no objective means for determining which is the correct definition.  A judiciary that involves itself in deciding subjective issues that legislatures exist to decide undermines both the rule of law and the democratic values we cherish in this country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So Maine is the fifth state to allow gay marriages

No, it is the second to choose to allow gay marriages.  The other three had it imposed on them by judges.  As I've said before, I favor states recognizing gay marriages, so long as it comes to pass via a legislation and not judicial dictatorship.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about the courts "imposing" proper civil rights protection and equal values on the population. What travesty! Of course we should have taken our good time in getting rid of segregation and allowing mixed marriages!

We did take our good time with those.  Assuming that events proceed at anything like the pace of those issues, there may well be some states that don't recognize gay marriage until the 22nd century.  The question of which definition of marriage is the "correct" definition is a subjective one.  When the courts involve themselves in subjective questions best left to legislatures, it almost always makes the situation worse.

I simply do not see whether or not a State recognizes a same-sex marriage as being a civil rights issue.  Note that if there were laws that criminalized same-sex marriage such as those that criminalized interracial marriage and were overturned by Loving v. Virginia it would be a civil rights issue, but that isn't the case in any State.  Non-recognition is not even remotely comparable to criminalization.

[Verily]

5 down. 45 to go.

Not gonna happen unless you plan on overturning constitutional amendments somehow.

That's what the Supreme Court is for. There's this thing called the 14th Amendment. It says something about "equal protection under the law".

But they already have it.  Homosexuals are allowed to marry in all 50 states, it's just that only in five of them can they marry someone of the same gender and have it recognized by a state government.  If the equal protection clause were used to overturn state laws that do not recognize gay marriage, how could it logically not be extended to polygamy?   I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get anywhere close to that issue, not when it would have to overturn existing precedent in Baker v. Nelson.

First off, I assume you also disapproved of the court decision to recognize the legalization of interracial marriage. (If not, you're inconsistent, but I can imagine you might.) Because the same extrapolation to polygamy can be drawn there.

Secondly, equal protection means equal legal treatment. Equal legal treatment is not about being able to enter a contract, it's about being able to enter a legal contract with whom you wish. Polygamy, unlike same-sex marriage, creates additional legal tensions that strain or break the validity of that contract.

Take, for example, a loan. You can enter into a loan with whom you wish; it would be a violation of equal protection to say you can only enter into a loan with some banks. (Well, maybe not, since marriage is a governmental institution while loans are not, but run with it. Say the banks are all nationalized or something.) But it would not be a violation of equal protection to say that you cannot enter into the same loan with two banks at once--because what would that even mean? It's not clear at all. In order to allow polygamy, you would need a new sort of contract that can legitimately be between three or more partners, just as to have a three-way loan you would need a new sort of contract.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incorrect.  This issue has already been ruled upon by the Supremes as I noted above, and they ruled that gay marriage was not a Federal question.  They might consider a "full faith and credit" argument under Article IV Section 1 to require a gay marriage entered into in one state to enjoy some degree of recognition in another since unlike 1972 when the Supremes issued their opinion, there now are states that do provide recognition to gay marriages, but I can't see them ever directly overturning Baker v. Nelson.[/quote]

That the Supreme Court has ruled one way on an issue has not meant that they have not changed their opinion later. The law is as it is written; the Court only interprets the law, sometimes incorrectly. Capital punishment would be the most obvious example of a reversal, but there are many others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated above, there is an objective definition--that mandated under equal protection.  You don't have any argument against it except that it leads, by slippery slope, to polygamy. Except that it doesn't; the sheer nature of polygamy makes it a different sort of contract entirely. Same-sex marriage is barely different at all.

[Holmes]

(Sorry to interupt the debate... but New Hampshire's House passed the law just now, 178-167. )

[Marokai Backbeat]

(Sorry to interupt the debate... but New Hampshire's House passed the law just now, 178-167. )

Where does it go from there?

[Holmes]

@ Verily: Well, I'll wait for the roll call but maybe a lot of people just voted "present"? But last time there were about 35 people missing. This time, it was like 55. I guess that happens in the biggest state legislative body in the US.

(Sorry to interupt the debate... but New Hampshire's House passed the law just now, 178-167. )

Where does it go from there?

Governor.