Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[TheresNoMoney]

NH=gay marriage will become law either this year or within a few more years

A gay marriage bill just passed the NH House of Representatives last week. It goes to the Senate shortly.  If it passes the Senate as well, I think Governor Lynch will probably allow it to become law.

[RosettaStoned]

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.

I think that gay marriage will be legal in less than ten years.

[Torie]

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.

I think that gay marriage will be legal in less than ten years.

Satan completes his conquest of New England I guess. 

[Ebowed]

If it passes the Senate as well, I think Governor Lynch will probably allow it to become law.

Apparently this Lynch fellow supports executions.

Is NH non-progressive, or is Lynch just a fake Democrat?

[Holmes]

Well, if you look up "centrist" in the dictionary, you will definitely see Lynch's picture. But like I said, if he planned to veto it, he would've said so like he did with legislation that the House passed at the same time.

The Vermont House votes today! But I might miss it, since I'm leaving this afternoon, but whatever. I'm glad to hear that, if Douglas vetoes it, the Democratic caucus agreed to vote together to override it no matter what.

[Holmes]

BREAKING!! We'll find out in 30 minutes. And if it is decided tomorrow, it'll be at 8:15am.

I won't have access to the internet so I won't find out until days later!

[TheresNoMoney]

Apparently this Lynch fellow supports executions.

Is NH non-progressive, or is Lynch just a fake Democrat?

Lynch is kind of a milqueotoast Democrat, he doesn't like to rock the boat.  I WILL give him credit for signing the civil union legislation two years ago, that took some amount of courage.

The death penalty is not really much of an issue in NH, as we haven't actually executed somebody in over 60 years.  I see that legislation as pretty inconsequential.

[RI]

Ftr, the bill passed the House 95-52, short of a veto-proof margin.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090402/NEWS03/90402022

[The Ex-Factor]

Yeah, but:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure why they would vote against the bill itself but vote for an override, but I'll take it all the same.

Oh, and from an article about the New Hampshire bill earlier:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why is the Vermont House so much more conservative than the Senate?

BTW I bet Douglas chickens out and signs it (or more likely perhaps, lets it pass without his signature.) Vetoing it is the only way he could possibly lose in 2010.

[Brittain33]

Iowa's supreme court ruled for marriage equality.

[RI]

Iowa's supreme court ruled for marriage equality.

This makes me happy.

I just wish that more states would pass pro-gay bills instead of having the "activist judges" do it. (O NOEZ!!)

[Verily]

Yeah, but:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure why they would vote against the bill itself but vote for an override, but I'll take it all the same.

They are apparently annoyed at Douglas for announcing his veto intent before the vote and want to punish him politically. At least, that was what the two nay-override Democrats said who were quoted in the Burlington Free Press.

[ilikeverin]

According to Nate Silver, here's when gay marriage bans would start failing in each state:



Obviously some flaws in the methodology (e.g. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming)... thoughts?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What be it based on?

[Alcon]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No one was crazy enough to predict that there'd be gay marriage in Iowa.

[Scam of God]

The obvious answer in any such legislation is simply to include wording guaranteeing the freedom of individual religious organizations to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage; that way low-brow backwater rednecks like Made in the USA can choose to live the rest of their lives in their narrow dogmatic bubbles by absconding from an organized religion that embraces diversity.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The obvious answer in any such legislation is simply to include wording guaranteeing the freedom of individual religious organizations to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage; that way low-brow backwater rednecks like Made in the USA can choose to live the rest of their lives in their narrow dogmatic bubbles by absconding from an organized religion that embraces diversity.

Hey, to be honest, even though I am a strong Christian, I do have a tendency to favor civil unions and am slowly, very slowly, warming to gay marriage.  I don't want to cause any more rucus around here, lest there be a mutiny.  I'll probably never be 100% supportive of gay marriage, but thats what makes this country great, I don't have to be 100% supportive of every progressive position, like I don't have to be 100% supportive of every populist or conservative position.

[jamestroll]

The obvious answer in any such legislation is simply to include wording guaranteeing the freedom of individual religious organizations to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage; that way low-brow backwater rednecks like Made in the USA can choose to live the rest of their lives in their narrow dogmatic bubbles by absconding from an organized religion that embraces diversity.

Hey, to be honest, even though I am a strong Christian, I do have a tendency to favor civil unions and am slowly, very slowly, warming to gay marriage.  I don't want to cause any more rucus around here, lest there be a mutiny.  I'll probably never be 100% supportive of gay marriage, but thats what makes this country great, I don't have to be 100% supportive of every progressive position, like I don't have to be 100% supportive of every populist or conservative position.

I know many Euro Christians who favor gay marriage, on the basis of this:

If two people of the same gender love eachother, only marriage would give them the benefits, but it would never be recognized by god anyway, so it is no big deal...

Not that I 100% agree, but it is a good point..

[afleitch]

The obvious answer in any such legislation is simply to include wording guaranteeing the freedom of individual religious organizations to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage; that way low-brow backwater rednecks like Made in the USA can choose to live the rest of their lives in their narrow dogmatic bubbles by absconding from an organized religion that embraces diversity.

Hey, to be honest, even though I am a strong Christian, I do have a tendency to favor civil unions and am slowly, very slowly, warming to gay marriage.  I don't want to cause any more rucus around here, lest there be a mutiny.  I'll probably never be 100% supportive of gay marriage, but thats what makes this country great, I don't have to be 100% supportive of every progressive position, like I don't have to be 100% supportive of every populist or conservative position.

I know many Euro Christians who favor gay marriage, on the basis of this:

If two people of the same gender love eachother, only marriage would give them the benefits, but it would never be recognized by god anyway, so it is no big deal...

Not that I 100% agree, but it is a good point..

I support it because I'm just not someone who can hop from one bed to another. I love one man and have done for four years now. I want to settle knowing that should anything happen to either one of us the other will be recognised as the partner and provide for out of the others estate. It's not an exceptional wish, it provides for a more stable society all round.

[Holmes]

Blah. Vermont's gonna have to go through a veto override, maybe.

No one was crazy enough to predict that there'd be gay marriage in Iowa.

...

[Holmes]

Ok... I read Nate's marriage article. It was alright but I kinda have my doubts about it. Not because I don't agree with the fact that the country is becoming more accepting and tolerant, but if I understand correctly, he assumes that every state will move 2% closer to equality every year?

That's definitely not the case. States(and countries, too) that allow gay marriage move towards accepting it much faster than the rest of the country, and neighbouring states move towards it faster too, but not as fast. But some states are too stuborn. I mean, Utah in 2013? Maybe if everyone in the 40+ age group all die and young voters(even mormons) become more politically involved, then maaaaaaaaybe there's a chance of overturning the ban getting 40%.

To be quite honest, and I know people willl laugh, but I think his Wyoming prediction is kinda true. Maybe not in 2011, more like 2014, but yeah. Gut feeling. I'll see what happens.

And I hope his Colorado prediction is correct too. The issue is supposed to be on the ballot in 2010. But you know the next door mormons will freak out and break the law and besmirch gay people again when it happens.

His article's only saving grace was at the end when he said "there are other variables that might speed up the process". Yeah, he nailed that one...

ANYWAY I've been posting in marriage threads a lot recently. But congressional races have been so boring lately, so. Ho hum.