Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Aizen]

And support in Colorado is good, I heard they're gonna try put it on the ballot every election until they get it. Hur.

sweet

[Holmes]

NOM did a poll in Rhode Island. It's emberassing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sigh. It's almost as good as the one in New Hampshire where they asked "Should marriage between one man and one woman be illegal?"

[aaaa2222]

All I can say to that is:

Post of the year.

I'm going to agree, this is one issue I really feel passionately about, and it will be a major problem (At least for me) Should the Obama administration maintain the status quo on it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NOM did a poll in Rhode Island. It's emberassing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sigh. It's almost as good as the one in New Hampshire where they asked "Should marriage between one man and one woman be illegal?"

The age demographics and wording are enough reason to toss this one.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31396079/ns/politics-white_house/

[Verily]

They're trying to head off protests at the upcoming fundraiser with Frank, Baldwin and Polis. So I suppose in some sense HRC did manage to get concessions.

[Brittain33]

They're trying to head off protests at the upcoming fundraiser with Frank, Baldwin and Polis. So I suppose in some sense HRC did manage to get concessions.

Yay, the obnoxious DOMA brief was good for something!

[Holmes]

Who cares? It's like giving drops of water to someone in the desert after taking away their water source.

Or rather, any chance of getting a water source.

[Brittain33]

Who cares? It's like giving drops of water to someone in the desert after taking away their water source.

Or rather, any chance of getting a water source.

It doesn't include health benefits. My "caring" is significantly less than it was before the announcement. Damage control without any real benefits.

[Torie]

How can Obama extend benefits by executive order again, if that is what is entailed here?

[Ogre Mage]

While this change in benefits for federal workers is (mildly) good, its impact will be minimal and is obviously an attempt at damage control for that atrocious DOMA brief, so color me less than impressed.  Obama had to throw the gay community some bone.

On another note, there are two elements to DOMA:

1.  A state does not have to recognize gay marriages legalized in other states.
2.  The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage.

I agree that No. 1 won't be repealed for quite some time.  Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate would staunchly oppose such a move.  Repealing No. 2 only, however, would probably only be a moderately difficult political lift.  And it could have a big impact in terms of federal benefits to gay couples.  Reversing the second part of DOMA was the position that then-candidate Clinton took.  The Sec. of State has already extended benefits to same-sex partners in the State Dept.

Then-candidate Obama promised to repeal all of DOMA.  That didn't strike me as particularly realistic and his pro-gay rhetoric has been at odds with his actions both during the campaign and after.

Up to this point, the Obama Campaign and Administration has shown incompetence and indifference on gay rights.

[Brittain33]

How can Obama extend benefits by executive order again, if that is what is entailed here?

He's the head of the executive branch, which means about 3 million employees report to him indirectly. Can't he direct the OPM to modify their policies, in the absence of any countervailing legislation?

[Torie]

How can Obama extend benefits by executive order again, if that is what is entailed here?

He's the head of the executive branch, which means about 3 million employees report to him indirectly. Can't he direct the OPM to modify their policies, in the absence of any countervailing legislation?

I don't know where public employee pay as a statutory matter ends, and public employee pay as a function of employer discretion and negotiation begins.

[Brittain33]

I don't know where public employee pay as a statutory matter ends, and public employee pay as a function of employer discretion and negotiation begins.

DOMAs come in two flavors, weak and strong. The weak DOMAs recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The strong DOMAs go beyond that to deny recognition to any relationship that approximates the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. We've seen the latter in most recent state DOMAs, notably those of Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and all of the southern states, and they preclude civil unions and have been interpreted to deny dp benefits at state universities and local governments.

The original DOMA is a weak DOMA. It does not preclude the federal government from offering domestic partnership benefits separate from those of married couples.

It's possible Congress has passed a law in the past denying dp benefits to federal employees; that we'd have to look up. It does not follow from DOMA, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if no such law exists. Even during the dark night of the Bush years from 2001 to 2009, we made tremendous progress in extending domestic partner benefits in private companies and local governments. It most likely wasn't banned by Congress during the Clinton years because no one would have thought he would have introduced them. Then we have the Bush years, when the executive branch would never have wanted to have dp benefits, so with Obama in charge, he may well have the executive leeway to do so. Let's see if he does. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't know where public employee pay as a statutory matter ends, and public employee pay as a function of employer discretion and negotiation begins.

DOMAs come in two flavors, weak and strong. The weak DOMAs recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The strong DOMAs go beyond that to deny recognition to any relationship that approximates the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. We've seen the latter in most recent state DOMAs, notably those of Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and all of the southern states, and they preclude civil unions and have been interpreted to deny dp benefits at state universities and local governments.

The original DOMA is a weak DOMA. It does not preclude the federal government from offering domestic partnership benefits separate from those of married couples.

It's possible Congress has passed a law in the past denying dp benefits to federal employees; that we'd have to look up. It does not follow from DOMA, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if no such law exists. Even during the dark night of the Bush years from 2001 to 2009, we made tremendous progress in extending domestic partner benefits in private companies and local governments. It most likely wasn't banned by Congress during the Clinton years because no one would have thought he would have introduced them. Then we have the Bush years, when the executive branch would never have wanted to have dp benefits, so with Obama in charge, he may well have the executive leeway to do so. Let's see if he does. 

     MS & TN have weak DOMAs, I think. If they wanted to, they could institute civil unions for homosexual couples. You are certainly correct that the large majority of DOMAs passed have been strong ones, though.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

How can Obama extend benefits by executive order again, if that is what is entailed here?

He's the head of the executive branch, which means about 3 million employees report to him indirectly. Can't he direct the OPM to modify their policies, in the absence of any countervailing legislation?

I don't know where public employee pay as a statutory matter ends, and public employee pay as a function of employer discretion and negotiation begins.

This indicates he can unilaterally implement the benefits   http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090617/D98SDLD80.html

[Brittain33]

Considering that the head of OPM is openly gay, he'd have credibility if he were to come out on behalf of President Obama and say that he is forbidden to offer domestic partner benefits. If it were the case.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

One person's "damage control" is another person's "patronizing bullshit."

[Brittain33]

One person's "damage control" is another person's "patronizing bullshit."

Yes, they continue to fumble this one. Just as he fumbled every previous time he stepped on the gays.

[Holmes]

Opponents in Maine hired the out of state yes on 8 firm today. Supporters teamed up, hired the man who successfully led the 2005 anti-discrimination fight and other powerful Mainers, and set up a PAC.

And Wisconsin is getting (weak) domestic partnerships soon. They passed it with the budget just recently.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And Wisconsin is getting (weak) domestic partnerships soon. They passed it with the budget just recently.

     That's great news!

[MK]

Just chill out.

Obama is playing this smart and knows that he has to get the economy in shape by 2012.  If that time comes and the only thing he's done is gay Rights issues, then he's going to have a problem winning again. The republicans are just waiting for President Obama to place himself in a liberal box and not fix the economy.   Right now theres bigger problems then gay rights.

Obama won't do anything about this issue BIG until the last parts of his second term.  But he has to get reelected to do so.

This is a calculated political move.

In due time.

[Holmes]

Well, anyway.

I hate polls that ask the question with three choices. Wy not just ask two questions - civil unions or not, and marriage or not. Oh well, here's one from Texas with the three choices in one.

Most Texans don't oppose same-sex unions, but they're split in their support for marriage or civil unions. While more than a third (36%) oppose either arrangement, 32% said they would support civil unions and another 25% think same-sex marriages should be permitted. The poll found a distinct partisan difference, with civil unions as the preference of 29% of Democrats, 31% of Independents and 37% of Republicans; same-sex marriage the preferred alternative of 36% of Democrats, 25% of Independents, and 14% of Republicans. Allowing neither of those alternatives was the preference of 29% of Democrats, 35% of Independents, and 43% of Republicans.



Shocked to see more Republicans than Democrats support civil unions. I just think it's weird that Texas Democrats are instead throwing their support behind marriage.

[ilikeverin]

I'd suspect most Texas Democrats are either quite liberal or quite conservative; the Austin metropolitan area, for instance, has the sixth largest LGBT population as % of total population in the country, but Texas probably still has quite a few DINOs.

[Holmes]

I know that the young Democrats in Arkansas are really progessive, maybe the same can be said about Texas too. Plus the urban effect that you mentioned. But I guess I just have this image in my head that all Democrats in Texas are Dixiecrats... maybe I shouldn't.

Here's one from New York by Quinnipiac, but it's hardly shocking.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York State voters have shifted their support for the first time to a slim majority backing a law to allow same-sex couples to marry, Quinnipiac University said in a poll released on Tuesday.

The poll found 51 percent of voters supported gay marriage versus 41 percent who opposed it, with 8 percent undecided.

The poll was released as a bill seeking to legalize gay marriage languishes in the State Senate due to a leadership battle between Democrats and Republicans.

The Siena one that had it at 46-46 last month has it at like 52 - 43, or in that range, I think. But they're kinda junky in their polls with this issue.