Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Associate Justice PiT]

What be it based on?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

Not the greatest methodology.  Too little consideration for socially progressive Protestants, and excessively high ranking for less-religious but still bedrock-conservative states.  Wyoming before Illinois?  Utah up so high?  Please.

The gist is right, though:  New England, the Pacific Northwest, minoritied Democratic states, the Midwest and Southwest, the Rocky Mountain states (which I'm moving for them), the Plains States, the peripheral South, the Deep South.

A big part of the problem is that he considered evangelical Christians but not Mormons as a factor against gay marriage. Obviously, Utah would be one of the last states willing to support it, same with Idaho. Wyoming I'm not so sure about; it doesn't have many Mormons, either.

     Wyoming is also one of the few states in the interior west to not have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It's something of an oddball historically; it became the first state to grant women the right to vote back when it joined the union in 1890. It's also nicknamed the Equality State.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I bet there is going to be an initiative to get it on the ballot? Or is that not possible?

Its Vermont, even if it finds its way to the ballot, it would go down in flames.  Douglas just lost re-election if he runs again because of this.

     Douglas really had a sweet deal going. I'm disappointed that he would throw his political career away by vetoing this. I used to think he was fairly reasonable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     What is it with Governors? It seems like you can't get a single one to support increased rights for gay couples, let alone gay marriage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Didn't Governor Lynch of NH threaten to veto a bill that allowed gay marriage though? I might be remembering incorrectly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A single mom's sexuality cannot be determined.  Especially if she is adopting a child by herself.

OK...    But I'm comparing the mother who had a child and didn't marry the biological father.   AKA "the single parent home" as they call them.     You are saying that homosexuals can raise children just as good as the traditional mother/father home. I'm telling you NO they can't.

There is no replacement for the mother and father ran home.

My father was a drunk who beat me. My mother worked three jobs to make up for my lazy father and I hardly every saw her. Meanwhile, my best friend was raised by two gay men who held normal 9-5 jobs, always had time for their family, and loved my friend unconditionally.

Which household was it better for a child to be raised in?

Still the heterosexual biological mother and father home.  

Wow.

     Quoted for truth. I can't believe that he actually said that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So, to all the gay people and left wing people in America, the UK is the place to live!

Unless you believe in freedom of speech of course.

     Or handgun ownership.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So, to all the gay people and left wing people in America, the UK is the place to live!

Unless you believe in freedom of speech of course.

So, where's your evidence that there's no Freedom of Speech in the UK then?  Hmm?  I can assure that there's plenty.   

     He's referring to the strict slander & libel laws in the UK.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

     That a defense of marriage proposition lost 9% of the population that supported it in 2000.

[Associate Justice PiT]

All I can say to that is:

Post of the year.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Missouri is odd because of the lack of progress it has made in the last 10 years compared to other states. It went from having the same amount of support as in Oregon to the same amount of support as in Georgia.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

     That's great news!