Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We just have to win one of these to get the ball rolling...please Washington save the skin of decency, man.

There's a decent chance WA, MD, and ME will be legalizing gay marriage tomorrow. MN could go either way, but whatever, either way there's no gay marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2008 there were 2,920,214 votes cast in Minnesota. There were 2,776,561 votes cast "Yes" or "No" for the Constitutional amendment, so almost 5% of voters left it blank. Based on those numbers the "Yes" side would need around 52.6% of the votes of those cast for it to pass it so 47-48 "No" might be enough to kill it. Admittedly the 2008 vote was on a far less hot button issue, but even with half the blanks it still needs over 51%.

2.48% abstained on Prop. 8. We don't have that rule, so it still only needed 50%, but it did get a majority of all those whose voted in that election. So yeah, 51.0% would fail if it has the same number of abstentions.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

We just have to win one of these to get the ball rolling...please Washington save the skin of decency, man.

There's a decent chance WA, MD, and ME will be legalizing gay marriage tomorrow. MN could go either way, but whatever, either way there's no gay marriage.

Nope. Maine already rejected homosexual "marriage" 3 years ago for chrissake, its not going to magically turn around and embrace homosexual "marriage". American Christians know their Bible history.

[Holmes]

Someone save his quotes.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Someone save his quotes.

I beg your pardon? I've had one of my posts deleted by a particularly Stalinist moderator today, but I have high hopes that most moderators are more open to a diverse ideological presence on this forum. I will not be banned for being a passionate Christian Conservative.

[Holmes]

For when you're proven wrong, that is. Some people here delete their posts when that happens.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

For when you're proven wrong, that is. Some people here delete their posts when that happens.

It is a sin to be deceitful. I will not be proven wrong, but if I was I would not sink so low as to delete my posts!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Someone save his quotes.

I beg your pardon? I've had one of my posts deleted by a particularly Stalinist moderator today, but I have high hopes that most moderators are more open to a diverse ideological presence on this forum. I will not be banned for being a passionate Christian Conservative.

There are a number of gay posters on this board who are very emotionally involved with the results of these propositions. You certainly don't have to be supportive, but we do ask you be civil and respectful of others.

[Franzl]

Good luck on these. I hope at least WA votes in favor, but I'm always sceptical on gay marriage referenda.

[Blue3]

Majority of US-born Latinos support Gay Marriage by 56%

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Majority of US-born Latinos support Gay Marriage by 56%

source?

[Holmes]

How is same-sex marriage losing the battle, demographically? The burden of proof is on you to provide. The results from tonight prove otherwise.

[Blue3]

In March, it was 56%.


NOW... it is 59% of Latinos nationwide who support Same-Sex Marriage

(and 52% of African-Americans nationwide support SSM now)

http://news.yahoo.com/majority-latinos-support-state-recognition-gay-marriage-010146448--abc-news-politics.html

[Thomas D]

I'm optimistic about my home state of Maryland.

My Faith was rewarded.

[Benj]

(and 52% of African-Americans nationwide support SSM now)

Kinda skeptical of the 52% number given the result in PG County (51-49 Yes) since the non-black vote in PG County probably looked a lot like MontCo's 65-35 Yes. (Also, PG County blacks are higher income and more educated than the overall black community nationwide, both traits that correlate strongly with gay marriage support.) That said, it's dramatic progress nonetheless, and fighting a near-tie with black voters is still great news.

[Gass3268]

Where does marriage equality go next?

Logical next states:

- California (Will probably wait until after the Supreme Court rules on Prop
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Illinois (Redistricting greatly helped the Democrats here) 
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Rhode Island 

Longshot tries:

- Florida
- Minnesota
- Nevada

[greenforest32]

Good results.

Where does marriage equality go next?

Logical next states:

- California (Will probably wait until after the Supreme Court rules on Prop
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Illinois (Redistricting greatly helped the Democrats here)  
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Rhode Island  

Longshot tries:

- Florida
- Minnesota
- Nevada

I think the Supreme Court will narrowly overturn DOMA (allow federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where it's legal but not force recognition between states).

For the future, I think California and Illinois will legalize it in 2013 via court rulings (SCOTUS declines Prop 8 appeal and the IL Supreme Court overturns the state's statutory ban) plus Delaware through the state legislature.

Rhode Island and Hawaii really need to get it together and Minnesota/Colorado should avoid the civil union route IMO now that Democrats control these state legislatures again though Colorado does have a constitutional amendment to deal with (would be nice to have a Western sweep with CO/OR/NV in 2014/2016). Lawsuits in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and New Jersey are probably the quickest for those states considering the Republican governors.

I doubt Florida will be soon as mentioned previously that state constitutional amendments there now need 60% to pass. I can't really think of any near-term ones beyond the ones you mentioned considering the levels of support. Maybe Wisconsin (forgot there's no initiatives in WI) and Arizona...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think the Supreme Court will narrowly overturn DOMA (allow force federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where it's legal but not force recognition between states).

First off, overturning DOMA would not allow Federal recognition, it would force Federal recognition.  There's absolutely nothing preventing Congress from passing a repeal of DOMA and sending it to Obama to be signed except it doesn't want to.

Secondly, of the possible outcomes, that's not really one of them.  If the Supreme Court did that it would make the Federal government subordinate to the State governments on a particular subject.  That's not going to happen, since the trend in judicial decisions of late has been to emphasize the dual sovereignty of the Federal and State governments.  As such a decision that allows State governments to decide the issue how it wants to while denying the Federal government that option simply will not happen.  If DOMA is overturned, it will be on grounds that effectively legalize gay marriage in all fifty States as well.

I see only two possible outcomes of the DOMA case.  Either DOMA is upheld and the Federal and State governments remain free to define marriage as they wish, or DOMA is struck down and both Federal and State governments are forced to provide recognition to same-sex marriages. I think that the former is likelier than the latter and I hope I'm right.  While I favor extending government recognition to same-sex marriages, I think it should be done via the legislative rather than the judicial process.  Using the courts as a quasi-legislature is destructive of our democracy.

[greenforest32]

I was considering federal recognition as having more soft opposition compared to forcing recognition between states so I figured maybe they'd take a moderate hero route that offends the least people and do it in a way that doesn't make it a permanent decision (something like making the Medicaid expansion optional).

I don't really see the problem with court rulings overturning the legislature on civil rights/liberties issues. They could use a slap on quite a few things.

[ilikeverin]

I'm optimistic about my home state of Maryland.

My Faith was rewarded.

Heh, I got two homestates to be nice to teh gayz.  So proud!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I was considering federal recognition as having more soft opposition compared to forcing recognition between states so I figured maybe they'd take a moderate hero route that offends the least people and do it in a way that doesn't make it a permanent decision (something like making the Medicaid expansion optional).

Except your moderate hero route ain't so moderate. You like it because a few states happen to have adopted laws on the subject that you like and you want them to be able to force the Federal government to go along with them.  But what if the situation were reversed and a few states had adopted a law you didn't like and the courts were to force the Federal government to follow that law because the States had adopted it?  Indeed, by your own moderate hero position, if the Federal government repealed DOMA on its own and wanted to extend Federal benefits to same-sex couples in a state that prohibited construing a same-sex relationship as being equivalent to marriage, it couldn't, since it would be using a different definition that the State government in question had decided.

It is because I am a true federalist that I do not want the States to be able to force the Federal government to decide what to do on this issue or any other issue, save in the case of some constitutional provision that would bind both the State and Federal governments.

[greenforest32]

I was considering federal recognition as having more soft opposition compared to forcing recognition between states so I figured maybe they'd take a moderate hero route that offends the least people and do it in a way that doesn't make it a permanent decision (something like making the Medicaid expansion optional).

Except your moderate hero route ain't so moderate. You like it because a few states happen to have adopted laws on the subject that you like and you want them to be able to force the Federal government to go along with them.  But what if the situation were reversed and a few states had adopted a law you didn't like and the courts were to force the Federal government to follow that law because the States had adopted it?  Indeed, by your own moderate hero position, if the Federal government repealed DOMA on its own and wanted to extend Federal benefits to same-sex couples in a state that prohibited construing a same-sex relationship as being equivalent to marriage, it couldn't, since it would be using a different definition that the State government in question had decided.

It is because I am a true federalist that I do not want the States to be able to force the Federal government to decide what to do on this issue or any other issue, save in the case of some constitutional provision that would bind both the State and Federal governments.

Slipping through the states is not my preferred option (I would prefer a full 50 state federal mandate but it's probably too soon for that), I was talking about what I thought was most likely.

What I would really like is to abolish the states. I don't see them as some type of 'free enablers' but as a great way to divert attention and focus for divide and conquer techniques and as loopholes for national standards. I think we would have dealt more effectively with things like healthcare years ago if we had a unicameral national legislature.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What I would really like is to abolish the states. I don't see them as some type of 'free enablers' but as a great way to divert attention and focus for divide and conquer techniques and as loopholes for national standards. I think we would have dealt more effectively with things like healthcare years ago if we had a unicameral national legislature.

A man after my own heart.

[greenforest32]

What I would really like is to abolish the states. I don't see them as some type of 'free enablers' but as a great way to divert attention and focus for divide and conquer techniques and as loopholes for national standards. I think we would have dealt more effectively with things like healthcare years ago if we had a unicameral national legislature.

A man after my own heart.

[Tender Branson]

NJ (PPP):

53-36 legal

IL (PPP):

47-42 legal

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_ILNJ_120512.pdf