Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Brittain33]

Vermont is in the middle of pushing for gay marriage. 

Well, so is Minnesota, but that doesn't mean it will happen

Lots of states have bills in the hopper. Some are more quixotic than others. Vermont's Senate (or a Senate committee; big distinction, I know) just passed a gay marriage bill. That's a huge step that is not going to happen in Minnesota this year.

[Brittain33]

New York was supposed to get it this year, but sh**t happened. It'll happen next year or in 2 year the latest.

New York is going to happen when the Democratic Senate majority grows and consolidates. I don't think it was ever realistic to expect it with a 32-30 Senate, but given some more Republican retirements and defeats, it will move through. So I'm hoping for 2011, especially because they will have either a new Democratic governor or an incumbent who owes a lot of favors to the gay mafia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Vermont maybe, but is there momentum in Maine? I think the bill was just introduced for the first time. I can't see it happening in the first session. Maine is not a state at the social vanguard.

[Brittain33]

Blue: no homosexual unions are recognized

New Hampshire already has civil unions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a somewhat inaccurate reading of current law. A photo from Rock Hudson's perfectly legal wedding:

[Brittain33]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

[Brittain33]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

Thanks, darling!

[Brittain33]

Why has Sam basically become a troll lately?

He's not trolling. Everyone just needs a little extra attention some times.

[Brittain33]

Iowa's supreme court ruled for marriage equality.

[Brittain33]

How far is $1.5 million going to go in "NY/NJ"?

I suspect they're targeting free media only...

[Brittain33]

Is that in any way related to sex with pie?

Wisconsin Supreme Court may look at the marriage amendment. But it still wouldn't allow marriage equality.

Good. It's an absolute sin that people who voted "to keep marriage between a man and a woman" had this translated into canceling domestic partner health benefits at the University of Wisconsin, which is a hell of a lot stronger.

[Brittain33]

Wow, you gave some great detail on why you believe that. You've convinced me now.

What's more, it doesn't matter. It's never going on a ballot in New York. The only reason to poll on this is to convince state senators they won't pay an electoral cost for voting for it.

The interesting result is that support is strongest upstate, albeit within MOE. No doubt immigrants are much more conservative on this issue than others. And yet upstate is an almost solid bloc of Republican state senators. Unfortunately city Democratic senators have constituency incentives to vote against gay marriage, while upstate and Long Island Republican senators have partisan incentives to not stick their necks out on the issue. This whole thing sadly looks like a Hail Mary pass by Paterson. I would be pleasantly shocked if it passes before 2010.

[Brittain33]

Wow, you gave some great detail on why you believe that. You've convinced me now.

Okay, how about this, its only up 5 points in a poll of adults. Turn that into a likely voters poll, it's probably a 2 gap, so it's all down to turnout. Who does a better job of turning out, conservatives or liberals?

Liberals, these days. But, also, that's beside the point. While gay marriage always polls greater support than it gets on Election Day, that has nothing to do with turnout models. Most likely it's because some share of people don't want to admit over the phone to opposing it.

[Brittain33]

Subsample MoE is worth noting, although I am shocked by the lack of support in NYC.

So was I 'till I remembered it's minority-majority.

And many people in NYC are recent immigrants from places that are very anti-gay. West Indies, Pakistan, Middle East, Africa.

[Brittain33]

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, is going to announce that Republicans should endorse same-sex marriage both on its merits and for the political future of the party.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/04/mccain-guru-urg.html

I can not believe we are living in the same decade as 2004.

[Brittain33]

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, is going to announce that Republicans should endorse same-sex marriage both on its merits and for the political future of the party.

It'll never happen. Where will the white working class go then? These Republican assholes seem to forget that they like the Democrats on economics. They just don't like them on virtually anything else.

There are other wedge issues that don't show the same clear trend that same-sex marriage does.

[Brittain33]

50% say gay marriage should be banned nationwide.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f975bd27-33a6-4579-8716-7bc0fe49a96b

I bet a bigger percentage said the same thing about interracial marriage circa 1967.

Yeah.

I thought the "controversy" over the beauty pageant's answer was overblown. She could have phrased it a little better, I'm sure, but I don't think her answer was unacceptable or bad. She was being honest about her views.

[Brittain33]

Oh my god.

Not only is the fact that this is in Louisiana delicious, but I just learned that the oldest man in the couple is 33, and the youngest is 18. I have nothing against age difference, but...

I'm guessing this is a really unfortunate individual case and not something promoted by a rights organization.

[Brittain33]

Really not worried.

I am cautiously optimistic, but how can you not be worried? Maine voting for marriage equality on the first try would be unprecedented for both Maine and for marriage equality. Vermont had nine years of civil unions first.

[Brittain33]

The NH Senate vote is today, if you want some bad news to calm your optimism.

LOL.

[Brittain33]

Back to the House for the amendment, though. I have no objection to the amendment, although I think it's frivolous. (Basically, saying that the state won't force churches to conduct marriages--which is implicit anyway.) I can't see the House rejecting this version after passing the earlier version.

Wow. Unexpected.

The amendment isn't necessary, but it was worth spelling out to dispel one of the more pernicious myths out there about same-sex marriage, which is that churches will be forced to perform them... as if religious anti-discrimination laws have compelled Catholic priests to marry two Jews, for example.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Brittain33]

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 share your concern, but I am buoyed by the knowledge that Equality Maine should know exactly what's ahead of them and has a strategy for fighting the veto. If the pro-marriage side in California had been organized and savvy, we would have defeated Prop 8. We have experience from Massachusetts about runnning media campaigns to forestall an amendment. I have to hope that people involved have gained knowledge about what works and what doesn't and Maine is a small enough market that we'll be able to try them all.

So we may well lose, but it will be a fair fight.

[Brittain33]

However, the fact is that if a state supreme court decides that based on their state constitution gay marriage can't be denied, voters can still simply change the constitution, as they have done in so many states in this country in the last few years.

So if we're looking for the institutionalization of gay marriage, imposing it on a hostile population only makes it more likely that gay marraige will be postponed for a longer time due to heat-of-the-moment constitutional referendums.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree on your assessment of the tactics. Without Massachusetts's SJC having forced same-sex marriage in 2004, I feel confident that no state would have passed it legislatively. The court moved the ball forward. Similarly, without Vermont's Supreme Court having found for civil unions in 1999, Massachusetts wouldn't have gone whole hog for same sex marriage, nor would Vermont have become the first state to legislatively pass marriage ten years later.

Most states that amended their constitutions did so with legislative approval and 50%+1 of voters. Admittedly, in a lot of states the yes votes were way beyond 50%, but the point is that the threshold for amending the constitution in those states was very low. On such a contentious issue, the anti- side was always going to fight back. In most places, these amendments merely set the status quo in the constitution. The important part is, the threshold required to introduce gay marriage is the same as that required to overturn these past amendments. So we haven't lost anything at all by having the present mass opposition to gay marriage codified in the constitutions. Was South Carolina, Michigan, or Ohio going to pass same-sex marriage but only for these amendments?

There are exceptions. Amendments passed in states like Ohio and Michigan have led to the cancellation of DP benefits for government employees; that is a real loss for the duration of that policy. However, that is not an effect of DOMA that has majority support, and it's something we can fight back on. People can understand how it isn't just a symbolic issue, but has real effects for people.

Court rulings moved the ball way forward. It was then moved back, but not all the way back. We lose some battles but I have no doubt we will win the war, and the rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts were the equivalent of Anzio and Normandy.

In the meantime, the courts have provided a fair and educational hearing on the issues and the rulings have provided a road map to arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. The evidence has been heard and weighed. Discussions in state legislatures are rarely as enlightening and thoughtful.