Overall gay marriage support in the Senate: with map!

[socaldem]

If Kline or Paulsen cracked, it'll be the sign of the deluge.  Not that I think it's impossible.  But nationwide support for gay marriage would be like above 60% or something.

You're right. I though Paulsen was somewhat moderate but he even voted against DADT! The seats definitely need to be targets--I want a MN clean sweep!

[socaldem]

Rep. Bill Young R-FL-13*

The district does favor SSM, Young will most certainly not be changing his position and does not need to do so, and is just as likely to be knocked out of his seat by an asteroid impact as by a challenger. I think you might be overestimating how much of a wedge issue this is.

As to the value of the issue ass a wedge, it varies by state but in California and New York, being anti-gay marriage is just toxic and Dems need to take advantage of the situation if they have any hope of re-taking the house.

It could be really interesting to see the issue played in the Orange County districts.

[Seattle]

So... can we expect Susan Collins to "evolve" tomorrow or in the next few days? I mean come on. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

[Bacon King]

So... can we expect Susan Collins to "evolve" tomorrow or in the next few days? I mean come on. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

Personally, I doubt Collins will explicitly support same-sex marriage until after winning the GOP primary for her Senate seat next year. I'd imagine she's probably a bit paranoid about getting a primary challenge from a LePage type.

[minionofmidas]

I want to go on record saying that I think the term "evolve" is inane. Even if we pretend the Congressman (or prez; he coined the term) aren't just being cynical, at least have the sincerity to say they've changed their minds. Flip flopping is not evolution.

It would never occur to me to pretend any such thing. I'm using the term ironically, and its use probably will extend to other issues as well. It'll be as ubiquitous as gates in 40 years!

[memphis]

So... can we expect Susan Collins to "evolve" tomorrow or in the next few days? I mean come on. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

The moderateness of Collins is highly overrated. She almost always goes along with the party including their government by filibuster.

[ilikeverin]

If Kline or Paulsen cracked, it'll be the sign of the deluge.  Not that I think it's impossible.  But nationwide support for gay marriage would be like above 60% or something.

Which of those two would you predict first?  I'm actually inKlined to think Kline.  He has seemed more reasonable lately than usual.

I think the same.  Paulsen is the right-wing equivalent of Klobuchar.  That would be a non-default-R thing to do.

[King]

So... can we expect Susan Collins to "evolve" tomorrow or in the next few days? I mean come on. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

Personally, I doubt Collins will explicitly support same-sex marriage until after winning the GOP primary for her Senate seat next year. I'd imagine she's probably a bit paranoid about getting a primary challenge from a LePage type.

The Democratic Party of Maine sucks, though, and ballot access is easy in that state.  Even if she did lose to LePage, she'd win the general as the Independent easily.

[pbrower2a]

I want to go on record saying that I think the term "evolve" is inane. Even if we pretend the Congressman (or prez; he coined the term) aren't just being cynical, at least have the sincerity to say they've changed their minds. Flip flopping is not evolution.

The 'evolution' comes from the defeat of politicians out of touch with political reality more often than it comes from politicians deciding that what they have long stood for is indefensible.

[Benj]

Rep. Bill Young R-FL-13*

The district does favor SSM, Young will most certainly not be changing his position and does not need to do so, and is just as likely to be knocked out of his seat by an asteroid impact as by a challenger. I think you might be overestimating how much of a wedge issue this is.

Bill Young just had his closest election *ever* in 2012, despite his district being drawn to become (marginally) more Republican. Old congressmen who are personally popular have found themselves thrown out before after their districts changed enough. Not saying that this would be the issue that destroys him, but Bill Young's seat is not nearly as rock-solid as you make it out to be.

He's also hugely hostile to gay people in general, though, so he definitely won't be supportive of same-sex marriage any time soon.

[Donerail]

Rep. Bill Young R-FL-13*

The district does favor SSM, Young will most certainly not be changing his position and does not need to do so, and is just as likely to be knocked out of his seat by an asteroid impact as by a challenger. I think you might be overestimating how much of a wedge issue this is.

Bill Young just had his closest election *ever* in 2012, despite his district being drawn to become (marginally) more Republican. Old congressmen who are personally popular have found themselves thrown out before after their districts changed enough. Not saying that this would be the issue that destroys him, but Bill Young's seat is not nearly as rock-solid as you make it out to be.

2nd closest - Moffitt held him to 56.6 in 1992, less than Ehrlich's 57.6%, which is what she got in pretty much the best conditions possible (some national money, no scandals for her, Bill Young doing a few stupid things, lots of negative ads against Young, D presidential year) and she still lost big. There are maybe two Democratic candidates who could pose a serious threat to Young - one is County Commissioner Ken Welch, who is smarter than to get into the massive and uncertain battle a campaign against Young would produce, and the other is Charlie Crist, who currently has his eye on bigger offices. Young has been elected, shall be elected, and will continue to be elected. Hell, it wouldn't be surprising to see some folks play Weekend at Bernie's with Young for a few years to keep up the pork coming in. He's not vulnerable, and Democrats shouldn't waste their time targeting the seat. Go after Southerland, Webster, Buchanan (or defend Murphy, Frankel, and Garcia), or beat Scott, or Rubio, or Bondi/Atwater/Putnam, but there's no future in going after Bill Young. Not with the billions he's bringing in to this district.

Full disclosure: I am a resident of FL-13

[Linus Van Pelt]

I want to go on record saying that I think the term "evolve" is inane. Even if we pretend the Congressman (or prez; he coined the term) aren't just being cynical, at least have the sincerity to say they've changed their minds. Flip flopping is not evolution.

Their positions on gay marriage have been intelligently designed.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So... can we expect Susan Collins to "evolve" tomorrow or in the next few days? I mean come on. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

Personally, I doubt Collins will explicitly support same-sex marriage until after winning the GOP primary for her Senate seat next year. I'd imagine she's probably a bit paranoid about getting a primary challenge from a LePage type.

I would be willing to bet that this is almost certainly the case.

[MaxQue]

Rep. Bill Young R-FL-13*

The district does favor SSM, Young will most certainly not be changing his position and does not need to do so, and is just as likely to be knocked out of his seat by an asteroid impact as by a challenger. I think you might be overestimating how much of a wedge issue this is.

Bill Young just had his closest election *ever* in 2012, despite his district being drawn to become (marginally) more Republican. Old congressmen who are personally popular have found themselves thrown out before after their districts changed enough. Not saying that this would be the issue that destroys him, but Bill Young's seat is not nearly as rock-solid as you make it out to be.

2nd closest - Moffitt held him to 56.6 in 1992, less than Ehrlich's 57.6%, which is what she got in pretty much the best conditions possible (some national money, no scandals for her, Bill Young doing a few stupid things, lots of negative ads against Young, D presidential year) and she still lost big. There are maybe two Democratic candidates who could pose a serious threat to Young - one is County Commissioner Ken Welch, who is smarter than to get into the massive and uncertain battle a campaign against Young would produce, and the other is Charlie Crist, who currently has his eye on bigger offices. Young has been elected, shall be elected, and will continue to be elected. Hell, it wouldn't be surprising to see some folks play Weekend at Bernie's with Young for a few years to keep up the pork coming in. He's not vulnerable, and Democrats shouldn't waste their time targeting the seat. Go after Southerland, Webster, Buchanan (or defend Murphy, Frankel, and Garcia), or beat Scott, or Rubio, or Bondi/Atwater/Putnam, but there's no future in going after Bill Young. Not with the billions he's bringing in to this district.

Full disclosure: I am a resident of FL-13

Well, given than Bill Young isn't young anymore, I suppose he will retire at some point soon in the future.

[Donerail]

Well, given than Bill Young isn't young anymore, I suppose he will retire at some point soon in the future.

He might, though he's always struck me as the sort to stay in office until he dies. Plus, there's not really any D officeholders around here who could beat who the Rs would put up (probably somebody like Jeff Brandes).

[MaxQue]

Well, given than Bill Young isn't young anymore, I suppose he will retire at some point soon in the future.

He might, though he's always struck me as the sort to stay in office until he dies. Plus, there's not really any D officeholders around here who could beat who the Rs would put up (probably somebody like Jeff Brandes).

Well, I don't wish him ill health, but, he will die at some point. He won't live until 140.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This doesn't really belong in there, but Nate extrapolated some numbers about how gay marriage support has evolved/will evolve by State. I wasn't sure where to put it.


2008:

2012:

2016:

2020:

Honestly, even I have a hard time believing Oklahoma and Wyoming will support it by 2020... Nonetheless, that's pretty promising.

[socaldem]

Cool maps!

I don't see Nebraska coming around in 2016...Texas may be close or pro-marriage by then, though, given that Latinos tend to be somewhat supportive and that gay marriage is probably okay with a growing number of suburban GOPers...

I have a hard time believing places like Oklahoma and Kentucky would be okay with gay marriage--even in 2020. I think there might be a stubborn group who opposes gay marriage just to stick it to the elite types on the coasts...

I think Georgia will definitely flip by 2020 at least given the growth in Metro Atlanta, which is a very gay city.

This doesn't really belong in there, but Nate extrapolated some numbers about how gay marriage support has evolved/will evolve by State. I wasn't sure where to put it.


2008:

2012:

2016:

2020:

Honestly, even I have a hard time believing Oklahoma and Wyoming will support it by 2020... Nonetheless, that's pretty promising.

[7,052,770]

Iowa's had gay marriage for what, 5 years? now, and it still doesn't support it?  I just don't believe that a majority of Iowans would want to take gay marriage away after all this time.

[Nhoj]

This doesn't really belong in there, but Nate extrapolated some numbers about how gay marriage support has evolved/will evolve by State. I wasn't sure where to put it.


2008:

2012:

2016:

2020:

Honestly, even I have a hard time believing Oklahoma and Wyoming will support it by 2020... Nonetheless, that's pretty promising.

Wyoming isnt terribly socially conservative, the Gop there almost passed civil unions this year.  I do agree on OK, no way does it support it by 2020.

[Mr. Illini]

Would you consider putting Paul in the "ambiguous"?

Only if he says something to indicate he might be support gay marriage. He doesn't, though; the only remotely ambiguous comments he's made on the subject have been that he thinks it's an issue states should decide. Effectively that just means he'd oppose a Federal constitutional amendment banning it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I've always said that the states have the right to decide" - Rand Paul

Good enough? Rubio has said something similar.

I would like to say that it is very saddening to me that this is still such a party-line vote. Perhaps it is because I am young, but I talk to so many Republicans who fully support it or at the very least don't care much. Senate Republicans need to pick up on that NOW.

[socaldem]

Bump...we are now at 50 bonafide supporters for gay marriage equality in the U.S. senate.

Wow.

Meanwhile, some hardline GOPers like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake have started to get squishy on the subject...more and more GOPers are starting to use the federalism cop-out, preferring to leave the issue up to the states.

DOMA repeal would pass the senate, and I doubt there are even enough votes to sustain a filibuster against repeal at this point.

On to the House...

I figured this effortpost deserved its own thread


Democrats:
48 Supporters
6 Opponents (Carper, Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp, Johnson, Nelson, Pryor)
31 Ambiguous (Casey, Hagan, Landrieu)

Republicans:
12 Supporter (Kirk, Portman)
42 41 Opponents
2 Ambiguous (Collins, Murkowski, Kirk)

Notes:

• I counted Carper, Kaine, and Rockefeller as supporters; they haven't explicitly endorsed gay marriage, but have made statements that make their beliefs somewhat obvious (and all three signed onto an amicus brief arguing that DADT be overturned in full)
• Hagan and Tester both sound like they'd be obvious supporters of gay marriage if they didn't have reelection concerns
  
• Landrieu avoids making any statements on the issue at all costs is evolving!
  
• Casey looks to be in the middle of an "evolution" on the issue and is clearly hoping the Supreme Court solves everything so he won't have to make any difficult votes
• Donnelly sounds like he's beginning an "evolution" of his own
• Heitkamp would probably support gay marriage if she was from a liberal state; the other five Democratic opponents appear to genuinely oppose it on principle

Also here's a map!

30% shade means one Senator from the state has an ambiguous position. Gray states have one Senator in support and one opposed.

UPDATE: Included Tester.

[Gass3268]

We need an update Bacon!

[Horus]

Here is a list of all Dem congresspersons who are either against or amiguous.

Kurt Schrader (OR)
Ron Barber (AZ)
Jim Costa (CA)
Juan Vargas (CA)
Dina Titus (NV)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Ron Kind (WI)
Cedric Richmond (LA)
Filemon Vela (TX)
Gene Green (TX)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
Pete Gallego (TX)
Terri Sewell (AL)
Bennie Thompson (MS)
David Scott (GA)
Sanford Bishop (GA)
John Barrow (GA)
Corrine Brown (FL)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
GK Butterfield (NC)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Pete Visclosky (IN)
Dan Lipinski (IL)
Bill Enyart (IL)
Bobby Rush?! (IL)
John Larson?!?!? (CT)
Marcy Kaptur (OH)
John Carney (DE)
Bill Owens (NY)

The worst here are Owens and Larson. They come from states that already have gay marriage yet don't support it themselves. Titus makes no sense either. Almost all of the rest are either Blue Dogs or represent rural southern districts.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage

From this article it appears as though Butterfield and Hinojosa are now gay marriage supporters. Carney also released a statement yesterday in support.

There's a list of Democrats in the article who either oppose or have not taken a position on gay marriage. These Dems are in the above list but NOT in this websites list, leading me to be cautiously optimistic that they are also supporters.

Titus
Owens
Larson
Rush
Kaptur
Brown

[Likely Voter]

It wont be long until anti-SSM Dems will be as rare as pro-choice GOPers