Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone have an update on Virginia? I thought a judge struck down the ban a few months ago And I'm not sure who would be appealing it at this point

The State Registrar who would record the marriage if it were recognized and the County Clerk who refused to issue the license are the defendants in the Bostic case.  While the State Registrar is not appealing, the County Clerk is appealing the district court ruling.  That ruling was stayed by the district court pending appeal.  The 4th Circuit heard the appeal last Wednesday but hasn't issued any ruling. There is also another case, Harris, in a different district, but that case has been put on hold by the judge pending the 4th Circuit's decision in Bostic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are Idaho and Arkansas orange, but not Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan and Virginia?

In those five states the decision has been stayed until heard by an appellate court, so you can't get a same-sex marriage there yet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are Idaho and Arkansas orange, but not Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan and Virginia?

In those five states the decision has been stayed until heard by an appellate court, so you can't get a same-sex marriage there yet.

I'm also confused. Same-sex couples have been married in Utah and Arkansas (and I think Michigan, but I'm not sure), but never in Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, or Virginia. That doesn't explain the map.

There were some who got married before a stay was issued in some of those states, but if you try to get a new SSM in them today, you can't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not sure why they didn't try to put it on the ballot in Colorado. Of any state currently without marriage equality, I think Colorado would be the best bet for it passing via ballot initiative (expect perhaps Nevada, where it can't be legalized until 2016).

Why it can't be legalized in Nevada until 2016?

It requires passing an amendment to the state constitution, and under the amendment process in Nevada, the earliest that could happen would be 2016.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indiana -- subject to appeal, and the Attorney General says that he will appeal the ruling. Utah -- appeal failed, so it goes white.

The legal process works. I expect to see some more appeals implode. Utah was the first.

Utah should stay as it was.  The 10th Circuit placed its decision on hold pending appeal to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, then not only Utah, but also Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming would go white.

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.
Orange -- same-sex marriage ban ruled void by a judge, but subject to a legal appeal and assumed unpopular
Dark blue -- same-sex marriage ban ruled void by a judge, but subject to a legal appeal and assumed popular enough to pass in a popular vote

Green -- current same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.6% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- ruby (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I really don't see the need for yet another category as we mark time, but if you must, then Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma should also be covered as they too are part of the 10th Circuit. (As is New Mexico, but SSM is already recognized there.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 10th Circuit holding was not predicated upon any particular clause of the Utah law, but was a generic holding that applies to any state.  I'll repeat, if you must create another distinction on the map to cover Utah, it applies to all 10th Circuit states that do not already recognize SSM.

Now it is possible that in those states where different qualifications exist for males and females in who may marry, that there will arise a lawsuit if a marriage could go ahead if one was male and one was female, but is blocked because both partners don't meet the requirements for their particular gender but would if one of them were held to the requirements of the other gender, but that is such a narrow restriction, I wouldn't even consider it germane to the broader question of whether a state must generally recognize same-sex marriages.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pbrower, I genuinely appreciate the work you do on these maps, but they're completely unintelligible.

Agreed.  He means well, but he's trying to compile too much info into a single map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It just refers to what decile would be indicated if red and green were simply ordinary candidates in a ordinary map.  We haven't simply used them all as some of choices are difficult to distinguish from each other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

Myth of any kind has no place in secular law.

Such as the myth of the informed electorate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep your version of 'God's law' for your own denomination and congregation, thank yoy; the Crusades ended centuries ago.

''My version''? There's really only one way to interpret this:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'' - Leviticus 18:22

This law may be from the Old Testament, but it still applies today because it is a moral law, as opposed to a ceremonial law (such as the prohibition on eating pork, for example).

If you interpret it literally, it means don't have vaginal sex with a man.

Considering the inferior position of womankind in the OT. another potential interpretation is that Lev 18:22 is an admonition to not treat a male sexual partner as an inferior as you would a female.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the 3rd circuit, the Northern Marianas and Guam are in the 9th circuit, and American Samoa is in no circuit and any cases arising from the High Court of American Samoa are appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  PR and VI have laws to explicitly not recognize SSM and so it's possible a case could head from them to the 1st and 3rd circuits.  The other territories don't have any provision to explicitly recognize or not recognize SSM.  If we don't get a circuit split, a case from American Samoa might well be the last chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in again on this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It sounded like a surrender.

The court still has to rule specifically in the local NC case and it is possible that there are others besides Cooper who would have the standing to defend the NC law, as happened in Virginia where the AG ceased to defend it, but some of the local officials who would be involved in the implementation of SSM recognition continued to defend not doing so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is SSM on the ballot in any state this November?

Nope.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd be shocked if there was any point to doing that save to remove some language that the Supreme Court had already struck down (assuming we get a circuit split).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I expect tho that they'll not explicitly announce they're denying cert.  AFAIK, they can just sit on a cert petition, and if they think they may have split circuits soon, they might well wish to wait for that to decide.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nevada and Idaho were removed from the club.

Nevada has already been let back in, and Idaho should be joining it shortly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Half of the remaining states are southern. I wonder if any of them will have it before a massive national ruling.

Absolutely.

Through small, regional rulings.  South Carolina will likely be fully onboard pretty soon, for example.

Define soon.  It's now looking doubtful the issue will be decided before December.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=200062.msg4337488#msg4337488

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not to be confused with the approval-disapproval ratings from YouGov. The electorate of 2014 would have voted for Mussolini if given the chance.

I seriously doubt that as the electorate of 2014 would probably vote against Mussolini if they knew he supported publicly run trains.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course it is possible, at least in theory, for the Attorney General of Michigan to come up with a stronger argument than any previous argument for an SSM ban, but to be clever enough to find such an argument one would need to come up with so good that it would convince liberals that it is right. But that is like saying that if everything goes right for the Chicago White Sox this year they will make the World Series.

No, it only needs to be good enough to convince Kennedy who is no liberal.  If anyone swings from Windsor, it would have to be him, tho I don't expect him to.  Windsor was pretty clearly a decision that was incremental rather than conclusive only so as to give public opinion more time to change before a final ruling was handed down.  Politically, that has proven to be wise, even if the tortured logic used in Windsor to justify an incremental recognition of SSM was absolutely horrible and unwise.  I'm still worried Windsor will be used as precedent in other non-SSM cases to make a hash of our Federal system of cosovereign governments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're being way overdramatic pbrower.  SCOTUS always meets behind closed doors when it decides what cases it will hear.  With the circuits split on a topic that impacts so many people (and that doesn't even count those who think their marriage would somehow be impacted by having the state recognize the marriages of same-sex couples) the only real decisions to be made are when to hear a case and which case from which circuit will serve as the lead case.  But in any event, no final decision will be handed down tomorrow.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're being way overdramatic pbrower. 

Couldn't this be repeated after pretty much every pbrower post? (No offence)

There's a difference between "overdramatic" and "way overdramatic".   More seriously, he isn't always overdramatic, even on this topic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IIRC, someone said on here, when they were discussing the radical transformation of Bush from the 2000 campaign to the post-9/11 world and the 2004 election, that the 2000 Bush campaign or the Republican Party platform was okay with civil unions at the state level if passed by referendum, or something like that.

Does anyone know if that was true?

Look it up: Historical political party platforms, 1840-2008

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No new polls lately?

Given the general expectation of how SCOTUS is likely to rule, there's not much point.