Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Holmes]

I'm a big follower of marriage equality in the US and I'm really up to date. 10 years is a looooooong time, but if I were to guess what it'd look like...

Red = marriage, blue = civil unions, green = domestic partnership, grey = banned or other

I was on the fence with North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and West Virginia, so if they look weird, I understand, but I think they'll be more accepting of gay people by then enough to give domestic partnerships. 10 years. I dunno.

New York was supposed to get it this year, but sh**t happened. It'll happen next year or in 2 year the latest. Vermont and Maine will get it by the end of the year, New Hampshire's looking not bad, New Jersey was promised by Corzine and the legislature, and Iowa is in court right now(the arguments were in December) - people say they're optimistic so I guess I am too, but I don't know anything about Iowa's supreme court, so. Washington is getting it this year without the name, so just wait for it. It had a hearing in Maryland the other week and got a lot of support, from civil rights leader to Wayne Gilchrest. But Maryland's session for this year ends soon, I'm not expecting it this year. Rhode Island also had a hearing but Donald Carcieri.

Hawaii and Illinois should have civil unions by the end of the year, unless some freak accident happens. Then it's only a matter of time. Also, Florida is debating a domestic partnership bill right now. It'd be great if it passed, but it'd also be a miracle. Don't expect much. I just hope the homosexual protection bill passes.

It's not crazy to think that most states that have protection to gay people will upgrade to at least domestic partnerships in the next 10 years.

Oh, and Minnesota's bill. Even if it passes this year, it won't be signed into law until at least 2011. People who expect Pawlenty to sign it are just... way too optimistic in my opinion.

edit: If you want my uneducated guess, I would say that most states that have it allowed in my map will get it passed relatively quickly, then not much will happen on the marriage front, but more states will allow domestic partnerships or civil unions. I guess I'm predicting a cycle.

[Holmes]

I hope all 50 have marriage.  But I know it won't happen.  <sigh>

Unless Scalia has a heart attack. It won't happen.

Besides, at this point in time, I'd be afraid for a gay couple's safety to get married in a place like Utah or Alabama...

[Holmes]

Haha, is there a gay mafia in New York?

Vermont's senate is gonna pass the gay marriage bill later today. It should get at least 25 votes out of 30. As for Maine, the bill got over 60 co-sponsors. The max is 10, and 10 senators sponsored it first, followed by 50 representatives. There was one Republican senator who also co-sponsored, and she said that she knows of 2 Republican senator colleagues who will vote with her. The governor also sees the momentum - he went from being opposed to being "totally open to whatever happens"(paraphrasing).

[Holmes]

Progress on this sort of thing usually snowballs. Look at the increase in acceptance in 10 years. Note how Prop 8 did compared to California's old proposition to ban gay marriage. Prop 8 wouldn't pass in 10 years, and will likely be repealed.

Are you talking about Virginia? The ban isn't going anywhere soon. Even Tim Kaine campaigned on anti-gay stuff. First move in the right direction for Virginia is to start electing accepting governors, no offence to Tim Kaine.

Also Vermont so could've allowed gay marriage years ago, probably after Massachussets, but they only decided to do it now thanks to Connecticut.

[Holmes]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

[Holmes]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

You beat me by two minutes.

Did you watch the vote/debate? It was really great.

And I just wanna say, funny thing, 4 Republicans voted for this, as opposed to 3 who didn't. The majority of senate Republicans support marriage equality in Vermont.

[Holmes]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

You beat me by two minutes.

Did you watch the vote/debate? It was really great.

And I just wanna say, funny thing, 4 Republicans voted for this, as opposed to 3 who didn't. The majority of senate Republicans support marriage equality in Vermont.

Yeah, I was watching it over at Burlington Free Press.

The one Democrat who voted against this was Bobby Starr of Essex. What is it with people named Starr and being against gay marriage?

I only worry about what Douglas will do. Do the Dems have enough votes in the House to override a potential veto? Will the fact that the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill influence his decision?

Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, but he didn't say that he would veto it.
With margins like that, a veto would be futile, so it's highly unlikely that he will use it.

After all, it's not like he has presidential ambitions.

Do you think the House will also pass it by a veto proof margin? I don't know.

Somehow I think Douglas will sign it, though.

The House could. There are 96 Democrats, but to say they'll all vote for it is kinda naive. Although the same can be said for Republicans, there'll be quite a few of them who vote for this. Even the House Republican leader strongly supports this. The only thing I can say for certain though, is that all the Progressive members will vote for it.

[Holmes]

Oh, the person who introduced the bill in Vermont had a good rebutal to that. He said that the definition of marriage has been re-defined numerous times. At first, in the Bible, it was a union between a man and all the woman he could have. Then it went to marriages being all about property, land and wife included. He said when the US was founded, married women had no rights when it came to marriage, that they were the man's property. He brough up Loving and what the Court Justice said about how marriage is about love. The definition of marriage has been re-defined many times, not only in this country, but in history as well. It's not a valid argument to hide behind the word "definition" just because your sacred book tells you it's bad.
 
It's a matter of respect and equality. Also my definition of God is different from yours. If he really created everyone and intended for all his creations to be equal and loved, why this discrimination?

[Holmes]

^ Yes, I think that was in Florida. They even had adopted kids and they were on a family vacation.

Anyway, happier news. New Hampshire's House will vote on their bill tomorrow! I don't wanna predict because there's so much House members there and I really don't know anyone, but I'm told to be optimistic, even by the guy who introduced the bill in the House. Happy days.

[Holmes]

The margins in NH will be much smaller than in Vermont. If it does pass, would Lynch veto it? The only quote I've seen from him is not promising. They would certainly not be able to override a veto there.

I think they're able to pass it, but yeah. I don't know about Lynch. I mean, I know governors are usually cautious with this kind of thing. The only one I know that has come out in full support in a state that doesn't allow it yet is Corzine. But I think he'll do the right thing.

Also, Rhode Island and Maryland will have it before Illinois. It takes a few years of civil unions before people realize "omg the world hasn't ended". And hopefully Iowa and California too.

And apparently there's rivalry between Vermont and New Hampshire to see who'll allow it first, at least on the places I go for info. It's cute.

[Holmes]

Deleware's not gonna ban gay marriage, they're gonna remain in status quo for a while.

I heard that New Hampshire's House was supposed to vote on the bill today, but according to their site, they didn't. Apparently it's in que to be voted on either tomorrow or Thursday.

[Holmes]

Alaska? Explain please? The fundies would be all over that...

[Holmes]

"My name is nowhere in this bill, and I don't see how it would affect me, so I'll veto it! Equal rights? Me, me me."

I think it's time to make 2008 the last year Vermont re-elected this joke, and the last time the Vermont Democratic party nominates jokes.

[Holmes]

Really? He's always been a weasel. Actually, I think this gives the Vermont House more incentive to veto-proof it.

[Holmes]

Really? He's always been a weasel. Actually, I think this gives the Vermont House more incentive to veto-proof it.

Democrats+VT Progressives have a veto-proof majority (barely, 96+5 of 150). Not sure on which Democrats will vote against/which Republicans will vote for, though. I would assume the 5 VT Progressives are a lock. There are also two independents whose ideology I don't know.

That's true, but we know that not all Democrats will vote for it. I think people are saying that we have at least 95 votes for it, but I personally wouldn't know. I do know, though, that the Republican minority leader also fully supports it, so I think that'll help get some Republican votes.

(North Carolina)

To be quite honest, I dunno what to expect from North Carolina... I mean, it's the only southern state not to ban it, and its younger generation and transplants are way more liberal than the rest of the population, but that's hardly enough. I think that they'd be able to push civil unions, but it'd be a long and difficult fight. I'm not going there.

Bloomberg urges state senators to pass gay marriage
Bill to allow gay marriage to be introduced in DC city council in April

Also, the New Hampshire House is finally voting on it today... in an hour! But that's when I gotta go to school, argh!

[Holmes]

YESS!!!!

But we can't celebrate completely yet! We gotta start focusing on the state senate now!

[Holmes]

I don't mean to be a pessimist or anything, but even if it passed the Senate, Lynch will not sign it, and there is no way they can override his veto.

Governor Lynch is a centrist, but he's not a slimeball like Douglas. If it was his intent from the start to veto it, he would've said so at the start, like he has with other legislation that passed the House recently. It's more important to work on the state senate now than worry about what he does.

Also, whoever brought up Deleware, told you so.

[Holmes]

Hmm? What'll happen in less than that?

Also can anyone confirm that the Vermont House votes on it on Friday? I think I remember reading about that, but to be honest I forgot the source, or I don't know whether it even happened. If it is Friday though, I'll miss the vote and won't find out till Monday.

[Holmes]

Well, if you look up "centrist" in the dictionary, you will definitely see Lynch's picture. But like I said, if he planned to veto it, he would've said so like he did with legislation that the House passed at the same time.

The Vermont House votes today! But I might miss it, since I'm leaving this afternoon, but whatever. I'm glad to hear that, if Douglas vetoes it, the Democratic caucus agreed to vote together to override it no matter what.

[Holmes]

BREAKING!! We'll find out in 30 minutes. And if it is decided tomorrow, it'll be at 8:15am.

I won't have access to the internet so I won't find out until days later!

[Holmes]

Blah. Vermont's gonna have to go through a veto override, maybe.

No one was crazy enough to predict that there'd be gay marriage in Iowa.

...

[Holmes]

Ok... I read Nate's marriage article. It was alright but I kinda have my doubts about it. Not because I don't agree with the fact that the country is becoming more accepting and tolerant, but if I understand correctly, he assumes that every state will move 2% closer to equality every year?

That's definitely not the case. States(and countries, too) that allow gay marriage move towards accepting it much faster than the rest of the country, and neighbouring states move towards it faster too, but not as fast. But some states are too stuborn. I mean, Utah in 2013? Maybe if everyone in the 40+ age group all die and young voters(even mormons) become more politically involved, then maaaaaaaaybe there's a chance of overturning the ban getting 40%.

To be quite honest, and I know people willl laugh, but I think his Wyoming prediction is kinda true. Maybe not in 2011, more like 2014, but yeah. Gut feeling. I'll see what happens.

And I hope his Colorado prediction is correct too. The issue is supposed to be on the ballot in 2010. But you know the next door mormons will freak out and break the law and besmirch gay people again when it happens.

His article's only saving grace was at the end when he said "there are other variables that might speed up the process". Yeah, he nailed that one...

ANYWAY I've been posting in marriage threads a lot recently. But congressional races have been so boring lately, so. Ho hum.

[Holmes]

Aw geez, don't fight.

Anyway, ha! Take that Douglas, you class A douche.

It's only the start in DC and they're gonna bring up full marriage soon, but hum. I don't wanna get into that. But personally, I'd love to get married right beside Coburn's office.

[Holmes]

Oh, Alcon. I actually have a question... I know the Washington legislature is gonna pass something about this issue, but what is their solution even called? Cause I know saying "everything except the name marriage" is kinda weird to say.

[Holmes]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?