Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[pbrower2a]

2015 will be the year that SSM becomes legal in every state. This is an incredible statement to write, but the time has come.

As a rule I do not predict the results of court rulings or jury verdicts, but on this I concur.


The cases against same-sex marriage (SSM) have shown consistently so weak irrespective of the means of the enactment of the law (amendment in the State constitution, legislation, or even initiative and referendum) that it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court not invalidating all remaining State laws against SSM. The Supreme Court has ruled already against the Governors and Attorneys-General of states in which legalization of SSM through state action was least likely (like Utah and Oklahoma).

The critical decision will most likely be on the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court, an anomalous decision. Should the US Supreme Court overturn the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court, no anti-SSM law is safe in America.

The Michigan Snake Government has fought SSM so hard that it has brought up everything wrong with anti-SSM social policy. Ironically Michigan voters, had they had the choice by initiative or referendum, would likely have voted for the abolition of the state's anti-SSM ban.

Homophobia guts respect for law and order, it messes up family life, it fails to account for human nature without due cause, and it is even bad for business.

Respect for law and order? That's my personal concern. I have been threatened with gay-bashing, and I came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't that the fool who threatened me got my sexual preference wrong because he thought that my failure to exude masculinity was that I was a sissy. The problem was that he thought it acceptable to beat gays. The more that people see same-sex marriage as a norm, the more they will accept it. I quit making jokes about homosexuality after I was gay-bashed.

Messes up family life? Sure. For some people the only love that they can enjoy is homosexual. Gays and lesbians can be fine parents -- of kids who may end up straight. If allowance of SSM means that some kids can be adopted into solid households that might otherwise not be so adopted, then SSM is good for children.

Fails to account for human behavior? Sure -- because nobody yet has found a cause of homosexuality. It's time for those of us who cannot yet accept homosexuality to grow up.   

Bad for business? The gays or lesbian couples could be the people who decide based upon law whether to bring a professional practice into or start a business in a state.
 

[pbrower2a]

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.

We shall see. The argument that 'homosexuality is evil and hurtful' is itself dead except in the most refractory minds.

...All in all it may be better that the rulings on SSM have been made so far on a Circuit-by-Circuit basis instead of depending upon on big ruling like Loving v. Virginia.  Eventually the last states to hold bans on SSM will have to defend their laws against decisions in other Circuits. So what makes Michigan's ban so much more valid than the ones invalidated in Indiana and Wisconsin?   

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A preview:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/florida-marriage-equality_b_6415530.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[pbrower2a]

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who opted in October not to take up the issue of state bans on gay marriage, are set to meet behind closed doors on Friday to consider once again whether to hear any cases on the contentious issue.

The court has five cases pending concerning same-sex marriage prohibitions in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Louisiana.

The legal issue is whether the state bans violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. An announcement could be made as soon as Friday after the justices meet as part of their customary private deliberations over which new cases to hear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_6436332.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[pbrower2a]

IT'S HAPPENING

Not usually at 9PM. Hold your horses. The law does not change until the decision is made and published.

Good reasons exist for this decision being made behind closed doors. Some of the arguments of some State officials could be unduly explicit. Such would likely backfire, but they would also be inappropriate for those who might be obliged to see this case changing a basic legal reality in American life. Are there more same-sex couples than there are mixed-race couples involving blacks, whites, or Asians?

Because of the number of people involved, this is likely more important than Loving v. Virginia. Imaginable results that I see are:

1. That the US Supreme Court finds in the arguments by the defendants of bans on SSM that a new and compelling reason exists to make SSM  either illicit altogether (almost certain not to happen!) or a states' right option (in either case the Supreme Court would have to repudiate a recent decision, which the Supreme Court almost never does). States seeking to overturn bans on SSM would need specific legislation to permit SSM.

2. That the Supreme Court upholds SSM bans that have not yet been abolished, letting the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court stand but recognizing the decisions of lower courts to allow SSM. Does the Attorney-General of Michigan have a stronger case than the other defenders of SSM? We cannot be absolutely sure until the decision is made.

3. That the Supreme Court recognizes a right granted by a Circuit Court and recognized by the Supreme Court in other states is valid elsewhere. Thus if there is no compelling principle for an SSM ban in Wisconsin or Indiana, there is no compelling principle for a ban on SSM in Michigan, either. 

Possibility #1 undoes most decisions of courts abolishing SSM bans. Possibility #2 maintains the current status of SSM bans. Possibility #3 abolishes all SSM bans.

[pbrower2a]

Here's how Case 1 would go:

from this

Method of legalization of SSM

resulting from a state court decision invalidating an SSM ban
resulting from state legislation
resulting from the decision of the DC Council
resulting from a statewide initiative or referendum
resulting from a decision by the US Supreme Court
resulting from a decision by a federal court subsidiary to the US Supreme Court

Method of legalization of SSM

resulting from a state court decision invalidating an SSM ban
resulting from state legislation
resulting from the decision of the DC Council
resulting from a statewide initiative or referendum


Even the legalization of SSM in California would be nullified because the final decision was by the US Supreme Court. Appellate findings that nullified SSM bans in Oregon  and Pennsylvania would also be set aside.  Of course the Democratic-controlled state legislature of California would quickly re-establish the legality of SSM by legislation, and very quickly. Others? Don't be so sure.  The next chance for many states to allow SSM would either be late in 2016 (initiative or referendum) or specific legislation by non-GOP state legislatures elected in November 2016.

[pbrower2a]

Here is Case 2, in which remaining SSM bans are upheld but existing bans remain intact:


States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages.

[pbrower2a]

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 -- and we may have nothing more than a date on which oral arguments are made.

If anything, Michigan seems to be the most likely case because it has multiple issues related to SSM and SSM family life.  

I can make wild predictions on what the Supreme Court will decide as alternatives because Judicial findings are invariably capricious -- until they are made. Then, and only then, are they final.  

Some decisions will be made by the Fifth Circuit Court on Friday.

[pbrower2a]

You're being way overdramatic pbrower. 

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

I do not predict jury verdicts or judicial findings. Crazy-seeming results are possible, and some of those have bizarre consequences.

We may have a definitive answer very soon after which case this thread gets locked. 

[pbrower2a]

TEXAS, Louisiana, and Mississippi may be next

(size is proportional to electoral votes)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/5th-circuit-looks-poised-strike-down-same-sex-marriage-bans

[pbrower2a]

South Dakota --

A judge ruled South Dakota's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier wrote that the plaintiffs in the case "have a fundamental right to marry."

"South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier wrote.

The decision is stayed pending a possible appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/south-dakota-gay-marriage_n_6458402.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

[pbrower2a]

Michigan -- same-sex marriage is recognized, but with a catch:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/michigan-recognize-gay-marriage_n_6479500.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

Only during a narrowly-opened window of opportunity before an appellate court denied further marriages. No further same-sex marriages need be permitted under this ruling.

A federal judge just nullified one of the most egregious denials of marital rights in one state.

 

[pbrower2a]

Meeting behind closed doors on Friday, the nine justices decided to review a 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The decision by two judges on the Cincinnati-based court, both appointed by President George W. Bush, marked the first time a federal appeals court backed a same-sex marriage ban after other appellate courts had found similar bans unconstitutional. That split among the circuit courts likely drove the justices to pick up the case.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments and probably rule by June.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_6439926.html

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/gop-gay-marriage-2016_n_6525360.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[pbrower2a]

A federal judge...U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, ruled that Alabama's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, known as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, violates the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.

"If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children," Granade writes. "Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/alabama-gay-marriage_n_6535610.html"

[pbrower2a]

This isn't exactly an approval-disapproval poll, but it allows some conclusions:

January 15-18, 2015
Survey of 1,042 Pennsylvania voters

Pennsylvania Survey Results
Q1
Has the legalization of gay marriage in Pennsylvania had a positive or negative impact
on your life, or has it not had any impact at all?

11% Positive Impact
...............................................

23% Negative Impact
..............................................

65% No Impact at All
...............................................


This looks like overall endorsement of the status quo.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_129.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Same-sex marriages now taking place in Alabama --  (at least for now the US Supreme Court says so). Judge Roy Moore has a poor track record in getting his way. What is it with Arkansas and Mississippi?

White -- SSM equality by law.
Yellow -- toss-up

 

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district in those in which SSM will not have been permanently legalized as of 10 AM EST on 6 January 2015:

Status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Marianas not shown.

5th circuit
6th circuit*
8th circuit
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors for districts have no other political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th appellate districts have legalized SSM.


Here are the numbers:

Compiled results are listed below. The headers for each column are: State/ Support Legalising Gay Marriage/ Oppose Legalising Gay Marriage/ Net Support.

MA    71    19    +52
VT    71    20    +51
RI    68    20    +48
NH    63    24    +39
CT    61    26    +35
NY    61    27    +34
HI    59    26    +33
CA    58    31    +27
ME    63    37    +26
NM    57    32    +25
WA    57    32    +25
NV    55    31    +24
DE    54    31    +23
NJ    54    32    +22
OR    56    35    +21
IA    53    33    +20
IL    53    33    +20
CO    54    35    +19
MN    52    34    +18
AK    50    36    +14
WI    51    37    +14
MD    48    36    +12
PA    49    38    +11
ND    48    39    +9
MI    47    39    +8
AZ    47    40    +7
VA    47    40    +7
FL    46    40    +6
OH    45    40    +5
MT    45    41    +4
KS    44    41    +3
SD    43    43    0
IN    43    45    -2
NC    42    46    -4
MO    41    47    -6
NE    40    46    -6
LA    39    46    -7
WV    39    48    -9
GA    37    47    -10
SC    37    47    -10
KY    38    50    -12
TX    37    50    -13
OK    37    51    -14
WY    33    50    -17
ID    33    51    -18
AR    32    54    -22
UT    34    56    -22
MS    29    56    -27
TN    29    58    -29
AL    28    60    -32

US    48    39    +9

[pbrower2a]

It's not in the United States, but it is interesting. An extensive law against same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and whether parents can exclude their children from sex education was rejected in a popular referendum in Slovakia despite strong support from the Catholic Church.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Basically, people could vote against the three referenda by not voting).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/08/slovakia-anti-gay-rights-referendum_n_6641666.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[pbrower2a]

Public Religion Research Institute just released a poll of all 50 states:

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PRRI-Views-on-Gay-Marriage-by-State.pdf


New Hampshire   75   19
Massachusetts   73   21
Rhode Island   70   19
Connecticut   67   26
Vermont   67   32
New Jersey   66   27
Hawaii   64   31
Maine   63   30
New York   63   28
Oregon   63   30
Washington   63   29
California   61   31
Colorado   60   32
Nevada   60   32
Illinois   59   34
Wisconsin   59   33
Arizona   58   33
Minnesota   58   33
New Mexico   58   36
Delaware   57   31
Iowa   57   37
Maryland   56   37
Pennsylvania   56   37
Michigan   55   37
Alaska   54   35
Nebraska   54   39
Idaho   53   41
Ohio   53   39
Florida   52   40
Kansas   50   43
North Dakota   50   39
Virginia   50   43
Texas   48   43
Indiana   47   45
Missouri   47   44
Montana   47   43
Oklahoma   47   48
Georgia   44   47
North Carolina   44   49
South Dakota   44   48
Utah   43   50
Louisiana   42   48
Wyoming*   41   49
Kentucky   40   54
South Carolina   39   54
Tennessee   39   55
West Virginia   37   55
Arkansas   36   59
Alabama   32   59
Mississippi   32   61

[pbrower2a]

@pbrower:  If you're trying to divide that poll into legal ssm/ssm illegal states, note that ND is in the 'illegal' group.

Done.

New Hampshire   75   19
Massachusetts   73   21
Rhode Island   70   19
Connecticut   67   26
Vermont   67   32
New Jersey   66   27
Hawaii   64   31
Maine   63   30
New York   63   28
Oregon   63   30
Washington   63   29
California   61   31
Colorado   60   32
Nevada   60   32
Illinois   59   34
Wisconsin   59   33
Arizona   58   33
Minnesota   58   33
New Mexico   58   36
Delaware   57   31
Iowa   57   37
Maryland   56   37
Pennsylvania   56   37
Michigan   55   37
Alaska   54   35
Nebraska   54   39
Idaho   53   41
Ohio   53   39
Florida   52   40
Kansas   50   43
North Dakota   50   39
Virginia   50   43
Texas   48   43
Indiana   47   45
Missouri   47   44
Montana   47   43
Oklahoma   47   48
Georgia   44   47
North Carolina   44   49
South Dakota   44   48
Utah   43   50
Louisiana   42   48
Wyoming*   41   49
Kentucky   40   54
South Carolina   39   54
Tennessee   39   55
West Virginia   37   55
Arkansas   36   59
Alabama   32   59
Mississippi   32   61

[pbrower2a]

TEXAS

It is would be a posthumous and common-law marriage, as well as same-sex. Pointless? No!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/texas-gay-marriage_n_6701426.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/nebraska-gay-marriage_n_6783464.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

There will be an appeal by the Attorney General of Nebraska. He is confident that the Eighth Circuit will uphold the appeal. In view of the record of such appeals, he must be an extreme optimist about the federal courts upholding such an appeal.

[pbrower2a]

Status of lawful same-sex marriage when the 8th Circuit Court approved Nebraska's ban in 2006:

White -- same-sex marriage permitted by law

Things have changed, have they not?

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/scotus-gay-marriage-date_n_6809100.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6819712.html