Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Smash255]

In addition say they are vacationing in some place without these laws and one of the partner falls ill, their partner wouldn't even have a right to see them. I was reading a story in some other thread where a partner was not allowed to see her dying significant other because they were not in a "gay friendly city". A 16 year relationship was invalidated by one asshole. Are you ok with that?

The story about this can be read here:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flrxgaysuit0626sbjun26,0,3396801.story

On a somewhat related note, I read that Chuck Schumer has shifted from supporting civil unions to full-blown gay marriage and a repeal of DOMA.  With Sen. Gillibrand and Gov. Paterson and former Gov. Spitzer also supporting it, this now appears to be the mainstream position in New York Democratic politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/nyregion/24schumer.html

Cuomo and DiNapoli as well.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Also, Delaware's State Senate (16-5 Democratic majority) is considering a bill to ban gay marriage and civil unions. The bill is sponsored by 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Not looking too progressive there.

[Holmes]

Deleware's not gonna ban gay marriage, they're gonna remain in status quo for a while.

I heard that New Hampshire's House was supposed to vote on the bill today, but according to their site, they didn't. Apparently it's in que to be voted on either tomorrow or Thursday.

[CultureKing]

I know Washington basically has gay marraige but just not the name. The bill giving full rights to civil unions has now passed and I don't think it will be much longer before gay marriages are state law (perhaps in the next 3-4 years?). Oregon could also be quick to adopt something like this, they may not be extremely liberal as a state but they are quirky. Alaska is a possibility too.

[Meeker]

I know Washington basically has gay marraige but just not the name. The bill giving full rights to civil unions has now passed and I don't think it will be much longer before gay marriages are state law (perhaps in the next 3-4 years?). Oregon could also be quick to adopt something like this, they may not be extremely liberal as a state but they are quirky. Alaska is a possibility too.

Not with Sarah in charge.

[CultureKing]

I know Washington basically has gay marraige but just not the name. The bill giving full rights to civil unions has now passed and I don't think it will be much longer before gay marriages are state law (perhaps in the next 3-4 years?). Oregon could also be quick to adopt something like this, they may not be extremely liberal as a state but they are quirky. Alaska is a possibility too.

Not with Sarah in charge.

No of course not, but I don't think she will be content to stay as governor of Alaska.

[Holmes]

Alaska? Explain please? The fundies would be all over that...

[Speed of Sound]

Alaska? Explain please? The fundies would be all over that...

No question. It would be shot down like a exhausted wolf (from a helicopter). They would slap some libertarian spin on it (no matter the logic) and it wouldnt even get the Governors desk, let alone be signed there.

[Holmes]

"My name is nowhere in this bill, and I don't see how it would affect me, so I'll veto it! Equal rights? Me, me me."

I think it's time to make 2008 the last year Vermont re-elected this joke, and the last time the Vermont Democratic party nominates jokes.

[Franzl]

a shame really, I actually do like Douglas.

That said, bad move if he vetoes it.

[Holmes]

Really? He's always been a weasel. Actually, I think this gives the Vermont House more incentive to veto-proof it.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Red=gay marriage
Dark blue=Unions with rights more or less equivalent to marriage
Light blue=Unions with limited rights/domestic partnerships
Gray=none

[Verily]

Really? He's always been a weasel. Actually, I think this gives the Vermont House more incentive to veto-proof it.

Democrats+VT Progressives have a veto-proof majority (barely, 96+5 of 150). Not sure on which Democrats will vote against/which Republicans will vote for, though. I would assume the 5 VT Progressives are a lock. There are also two independents whose ideology I don't know.

Frankly, it says volumes about Vermont that a majority of the Senate Republican caucus voted for gay marriage.

[ilikeverin]

Why is everyone so gung-ho about Wisconsin?  Seems like a random state to be obsessing over, save for Ms. Baldwin.

[Holmes]

Really? He's always been a weasel. Actually, I think this gives the Vermont House more incentive to veto-proof it.

Democrats+VT Progressives have a veto-proof majority (barely, 96+5 of 150). Not sure on which Democrats will vote against/which Republicans will vote for, though. I would assume the 5 VT Progressives are a lock. There are also two independents whose ideology I don't know.

That's true, but we know that not all Democrats will vote for it. I think people are saying that we have at least 95 votes for it, but I personally wouldn't know. I do know, though, that the Republican minority leader also fully supports it, so I think that'll help get some Republican votes.

(North Carolina)

To be quite honest, I dunno what to expect from North Carolina... I mean, it's the only southern state not to ban it, and its younger generation and transplants are way more liberal than the rest of the population, but that's hardly enough. I think that they'd be able to push civil unions, but it'd be a long and difficult fight. I'm not going there.

Bloomberg urges state senators to pass gay marriage
Bill to allow gay marriage to be introduced in DC city council in April

Also, the New Hampshire House is finally voting on it today... in an hour! But that's when I gotta go to school, argh!

[RI]

The measure passed the NH House by the slimmest of margins. The bill initially failed by one vote, 182-183. However, there was a motion to reconsider, and several congressmen switched their votes, leaving the final tally at 186-179.

http://www.wmur.com/news/19019103/detail.html

[Holmes]

YESS!!!!

But we can't celebrate completely yet! We gotta start focusing on the state senate now!

[RI]

I don't mean to be a pessimist or anything, but even if it passed the Senate, Lynch will not sign it, and there is no way they can override his veto.

[Husker]

I could see several state legislatures giving some form of domestic partnerships and I believe many will have protections for GLBT workers. The latter nearly passed here in NE a few years ago and only didn't because of rural conservatives in the western part of our state.

I also think Civil Unions could be expanded greatly over the next several years. Hell, even many republicans I know don't have a problem with CU's. As long as it is doesn't contain the word marriage I think it could pass in many states that you wouldn't think it would pass in.

Unfortunately, gay marriage is another beast, which is silly imo, but I digress. The vast majority of the public is not willing to accept this yet and I don't think too many legislatures would be willing to take a gamble on this. If it were up to a majority vote of the people, there are about 3-4 states in this country where I think gay marriage could pass. I'll put it this way: There is not a single state outside the northeast where a majority of the voting public is ready to accept this yet in my opinion.  In 10 years that could be up to 6-8 states, but my point is that there are still enough and likely will still be enough people in 10 years to vigorously fight this and we'll end up with a mess like Proposition 8 somewhere else. That might be a very different story in 20-30 years however.

Eventually, I believe gay people will get the rights that they deserve. The younger generation, even in states like mine, are far more open minded to things like civil unions and gay rights than our parents generation, so as time goes on I believe we will see barriers fall.

One other point.. Keep in mind that in rural areas and smaller towns, a large majority of citizens have never been exposed to gay people. So most of the opposition to gay rights in rural and small town America is simply a matter of fear of what they don't know and don't understand. Fear unfortunately drives too many of our decisions in society, even if many of them are quite irrational. In places like SF and NYC, there are many gay people present and the citizens of those places just get used to it and it doesn't bother them after a while. So, my point is that you shouldn't totally condemn the non-mega urban areas for opposition to gay rights. Many of them simply have no comprehension of this topic because they've never been exposed to it.

[Holmes]

I don't mean to be a pessimist or anything, but even if it passed the Senate, Lynch will not sign it, and there is no way they can override his veto.

Governor Lynch is a centrist, but he's not a slimeball like Douglas. If it was his intent from the start to veto it, he would've said so at the start, like he has with other legislation that passed the House recently. It's more important to work on the state senate now than worry about what he does.

Also, whoever brought up Deleware, told you so.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I hope Civil Unions and DP start to take hold, but I do not want the institution of marriage to ever be redefined by the government (or added to, in this case).  Next thing we'll do is start allowing polygamous marriage.  Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Even if the State sees gay couples as legally married.  God, who is the ultimate Authority, will never view them as legitimately married couples.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but I really don't care.  I'm just saying what the Bible says, whether it is offensive or not.  NOTE:  These are not Jeff's words, these are God's Words.

If they are God's words then God, quite frankly, is an idiot.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I don't mean to be a pessimist or anything, but even if it passed the Senate, Lynch will not sign it, and there is no way they can override his veto.

Governor Lynch is a centrist, but he's not a slimeball like Douglas. If it was his intent from the start to veto it, he would've said so at the start, like he has with other legislation that passed the House recently. It's more important to work on the state senate now than worry about what he does.

Also, whoever brought up Deleware, told you so.

Yeah, they voted it down, but that's still a long way from voting for civil unions/marriage.

[Verily]

The bill just passed the VT House committee: 7 Democrats and one Republican for, two Republicans against. (A fourth Republican was not present but has said she was in favor.)

The pressure is really building on this; Douglas is likely to face a veto-proof majority at this point, I think, and there has been a strong backlash from Vermont's traditional liberal Republicans, not all of whom had left the party yet. He may lose his nerve and not veto after all, especially if the legislature looks likely to just override the veto. Douglas is not known for his bold decisions.

(By the committee vote, that's at least two Republicans for, probably more than that, and, by the Senate vote, there will be a lot more pro-gay marriage Republicans than anti-gay marriage Democrats, supported by the committee vote.)

[RosettaStoned]

It will happen is less than that.

[Holmes]

Hmm? What'll happen in less than that?

Also can anyone confirm that the Vermont House votes on it on Friday? I think I remember reading about that, but to be honest I forgot the source, or I don't know whether it even happened. If it is Friday though, I'll miss the vote and won't find out till Monday.