Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Devilman88]

Two states in one day!

[Verily]

Two states in one day!

Lynch hasn't signed yet and probably will not sign it. If he does not veto, he'll wait out the seven days to allow it to pass into law without his signature.

[Brittain33]

Two states in one day!

Lynch hasn't signed yet and probably will not sign it. If he does not veto, he'll wait out the seven days to allow it to pass into law without his signature.

We've got him totally surrounded. Even Quebec is in on it.

[Holmes]

Two states in one day!

Lynch hasn't signed yet and probably will not sign it. If he does not veto, he'll wait out the seven days to allow it to pass into law without his signature.

Lynch said that because the Senate was still making important changes to the proposed law in a separate bill yesterday, he cannot say what stance he'll take on the Legislature's finished product.

"These are much more than technical changes," he said of Senate action. They affect the bill's impact on religious organizations and distinctions between civil and religious marriages, he said.

[Wiz in Wis]

So, assuming that NH has gay marriage within the week... where to next?

DC?
RI?
NY?
NJ?
DE?
IL?

[Holmes]

Maybe the first four of those states in the short term. I don't see this issue moving in Delaware's legislature soon until its Senate President reitres or dies. The Senate President in Delaware has the power to "veto"(for the lack of a better word) any bill he or she wants by not bringing it to a vote, then the bill dies after the session dies. The current president is an 80 year old rural Democrat, so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, I assume you also disapproved of the court decision to recognize the legalization of interracial marriage. (If not, you're inconsistent, but I can imagine you might.) Because the same extrapolation to polygamy can be drawn there.

Wrong.  I support Loving v. Virgina.   There are significant differences between Loving and Baker.  The first is that there is considerable difference between criminalization and non-recognition.  The second is that even under the miscegenation laws, they did not consider a marriage between a White and a non-White to not be marriage.  The miscegenation laws prohibited certain forms of marriage, but did not consider those forms to not be a marriage.  (Indeed that's why those laws were passed in the first place to keep those marriages from happening.)  In contrast, the advocates of same-sex marriage are calling for a fundamental change in the definition of what constitutes a civil marriage.

Secondly, equal protection means equal legal treatment. Equal legal treatment is not about being able to enter a contract, it's about being able to enter a legal contract with whom you wish. Polygamy, unlike same-sex marriage, creates additional legal tensions that strain or break the validity of that contract.

Take, for example, a loan. You can enter into a loan with whom you wish; it would be a violation of equal protection to say you can only enter into a loan with some banks. (Well, maybe not, since marriage is a governmental institution while loans are not, but run with it. Say the banks are all nationalized or something.) But it would not be a violation of equal protection to say that you cannot enter into the same loan with two banks at once--because what would that even mean? It's not clear at all. In order to allow polygamy, you would need a new sort of contract that can legitimately be between three or more partners, just as to have a three-way loan you would need a new sort of contract.

To use your loan argument, would you consider laws that place limits on interest rates (such as those being passed in a number of states these days to combat payday lenders), or other loan terms to be unconstitutional?  We live in a republic, not an anarchy, there is no unfettered right of contract.  Government places limits on the types of contracts that it will recognize and bring the power of state to bear in their enforcement all the time based upon the decision as to whether doing so is beneficial to society.  Just because you have a subjective opinion as to whether a same-sex marriage is a type of contract that it is desirable for the government to support is not objective fact.

As I stated above, there is an objective definition--that mandated under equal protection.  You don't have any argument against it except that it leads, by slippery slope, to polygamy. Except that it doesn't; the sheer nature of polygamy makes it a different sort of contract entirely. Same-sex marriage is barely different at all.

Same-sex is a fundamental change in what has been the traditional definition of marriage.  As far as the law is concerned, I see no degree in difference between changing the legal definition of marriage to allow for a spouse to be of the same sex, and changing the legal definition to allow a person to have multiple spouses.  There may well be a considerable societal difference, but legally the only difference is which clause of the traditional marriage contract is altered.

Just because you subjectively consider the same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be equivalent, does not make it objectively so.  The most obvious and insurmountable objective difference between the two is that unlike an opposite-sex marriage, a same-sex marriage can never have as one of its objectives the provision of support for the joint biological progeny of the couple.  Whether that objective should be central to the decision of what forms of marriage, if any, the government chooses to recognize is a subjective decision.

Subjectively, I don't consider the arguments against state recognition of same-sex marriage to be as compelling as those in favor of such recognition, but I don't see the arguments made by either side as being objective.

[Devilman88]

With in two years all of these state will have gay marriages or civil unions:

Red: Gay marriages
Blue: Civil Unions

[Marokai Backbeat]

North Carolina?

[Rowan]

With in two years all of these state will have gay marriages or civil unions:

Red: Gay marriages
Blue: Civil Unions

Christie has vowed to veto it in NJ if he becomes Governor.

[Devilman88]

North Carolina?

It is the only state in the south that doesn't have an amendment banning gay marrage. The amendment never passes the house and senate. The state is becoming very progressive.

[Brittain33]

It is the only state in the south that doesn't have an amendment banning gay marrage. The amendment never passes the house and senate. The state is becoming very progressive.

I don't see it becoming more progressive, only more strongly Democratic with a larger but still small liberal core.

I don't even see how states like Michigan and Ohio will go from constitutionally banning civil unions to allowing them within two years. I don't see the path there.

[Verily]

First off, I assume you also disapproved of the court decision to recognize the legalization of interracial marriage. (If not, you're inconsistent, but I can imagine you might.) Because the same extrapolation to polygamy can be drawn there.

Wrong.  I support Loving v. Virgina.   There are significant differences between Loving and Baker.  The first is that there is considerable difference between criminalization and non-recognition.  The second is that even under the miscegenation laws, they did not consider a marriage between a White and a non-White to not be marriage.  The miscegenation laws prohibited certain forms of marriage, but did not consider those forms to not be a marriage.  (Indeed that's why those laws were passed in the first place to keep those marriages from happening.)  In contrast, the advocates of same-sex marriage are calling for a fundamental change in the definition of what constitutes a civil marriage.

But was it not a fundamental change in the definition of marriage then? There have been no arrest over same-sex marriage, but there have been threats. Remember that part of why Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, NY who started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples a few years ago, was threatened with arrest unless he stopped. (It would have been interesting had he not done so as the New Paltz police had said that they would not arrest him.)

It's the same issue. A same-sex couple that is issued a marriage license by a "rogue" clerk in, say, Wisconsin, where same-sex marriage is illegal, has indeed performed a criminal act, a form of felony. Now, the clerk is more likely to get into legal trouble than the couple, who would more likely just have their marriage forcibly annulled, but the criminalization is there. And that criminalization is the same as the criminalization of interracial marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To use your loan argument, would you consider laws that place limits on interest rates (such as those being passed in a number of states these days to combat payday lenders), or other loan terms to be unconstitutional?  We live in a republic, not an anarchy, there is no unfettered right of contract.  Government places limits on the types of contracts that it will recognize and bring the power of state to bear in their enforcement all the time based upon the decision as to whether doing so is beneficial to society.  Just because you have a subjective opinion as to whether a same-sex marriage is a type of contract that it is desirable for the government to support is not objective fact.[/quote]

Insofar as loans are not government-issued, such laws would not be unconstitutional. However, and this is interesting, they would be unconstitutional if loans were government-issued, which was part of the premise of my analogy. The government is not allowed to discriminate in its issuance of contracts, explicitly so. (It's interesting because it's a rather obscure argument against nationalizing banks, haha. Although an exception could be made as long as the banks were kept in limbo, sort of like Amtrak.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same-sex is a fundamental change in what has been the traditional definition of marriage.  As far as the law is concerned, I see no degree in difference between changing the legal definition of marriage to allow for a spouse to be of the same sex, and changing the legal definition to allow a person to have multiple spouses.  There may well be a considerable societal difference, but legally the only difference is which clause of the traditional marriage contract is altered.[/quote]

There are huge additional legal consequences to multiple spouses. Entire sections of marriage law would have to scrapped, other enormous sections would have to be rewritten, and new sections would have to be added. That's not a form of the same contract, that's a different contract. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, doesn't actually have to change anything about marriage law at all, or at most has to change the words "husband" and "wife to "spouse" (although since the gender definitions of "husband" and "wife" are not legal definitions, even that technically would not have to go).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, there is some biology that has allowed for the creation of genetically identical sperm from eggs, which would allow lesbian couples to be just as capable of produce progeny as straight couples. Secondly, there are same-sex couples in which one partner is transgender and the couple has children who are biologically theirs. Third, it is perfectly legal for post-menopausal women or other people who are also incapable of producing joint biological progeny to marry. That is no objective argument at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But was it not a fundamental change in the definition of marriage then? There have been no arrest over same-sex marriage, but there have been threats. Remember that part of why Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, NY who started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples a few years ago, was threatened with arrest unless he stopped. (It would have been interesting had he not done so as the New Paltz police had said that they would not arrest him.)

That's no different than if he had been issuing any other license in contravention of state law.  The offense is related entirely to misconduct in office and the particular circumstance has nothing to do with the couples issued the licenses, assuming that they didn't offer Mr. West a bribe or other illegal persuasion to break the law.

It's the same issue. A same-sex couple that is issued a marriage license by a "rogue" clerk in, say, Wisconsin, where same-sex marriage is illegal, has indeed performed a criminal act, a form of felony. Now, the clerk is more likely to get into legal trouble than the couple, who would more likely just have their marriage forcibly annulled, but the criminalization is there. And that criminalization is the same as the criminalization of interracial marriage.

Not at all.  The crime you present here has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, since the exact same crime can be done with other types of licenses.

There are huge additional legal consequences to multiple spouses. Entire sections of marriage law would have to scrapped, other enormous sections would have to be rewritten, and new sections would have to be added. That's not a form of the same contract, that's a different contract. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, doesn't actually have to change anything about marriage law at all, or at most has to change the words "husband" and "wife to "spouse" (although since the gender definitions of "husband" and "wife" are not legal definitions, even that technically would not have to go).

I'll grant that there is an impact of multiple spouses on marriage law if polygamy were to gain legal recognition, but not anywhere near as insurmountably as you allege.  In no other type of legal partnership is the law for a two person partnership substantially different from that for a partnership involving three or more persons.

First off, there is some biology that has allowed for the creation of genetically identical sperm from eggs, which would allow lesbian couples to be just as capable of produce progeny as straight couples.

Speaking as a male of the species, a process that would only allow female children is not something I would consider equivalent to the natural process, and I believe that process is still experimental at best.

Secondly, there are same-sex couples in which one partner is transgender and the couple has children who are biologically theirs.

In which case they are biologically man and woman and thus should have no problem getting a marriage license.

Third, it is perfectly legal for post-menopausal women or other people who are also incapable of producing joint biological progeny to marry. That is no objective argument at all.

No, all your argument shows is that the government has generally chosen to limit the scope of its inquiry into parenthood capability to that the spouses be of different sexes, which is a necessary requirement for them have a child that is biologically both theirs.  Additional tests or requirements would both raise the cost of getting married and be an intrusion into personal privacy.  Indeed while they are no longer common, at one time most states required blood tests to check for diseases that might be passed on to kids as a condition of marriage. (Those laws largely predated the availability of penicillin to treat syphilis.)  That a State has failed to implement or require every conceivable test into biological aptitude for parenthood does not render the position that marriage should be defined in a way to secure the well-being of biological progeny unconstitutional. It is a purely subjective position however.

[Verily]

There are huge additional legal consequences to multiple spouses. Entire sections of marriage law would have to scrapped, other enormous sections would have to be rewritten, and new sections would have to be added. That's not a form of the same contract, that's a different contract. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, doesn't actually have to change anything about marriage law at all, or at most has to change the words "husband" and "wife to "spouse" (although since the gender definitions of "husband" and "wife" are not legal definitions, even that technically would not have to go).

I'll grant that there is an impact of multiple spouses on marriage law if polygamy were to gain legal recognition, but not anywhere near as insurmountably as you allege.  In no other type of legal partnership is the law for a two person partnership substantially different from that for a partnership involving three or more persons.

Sure there are. You have to change the laws which deal with divorce, for one, because you need to be able for one member of the union to leave without the marriage falling apart entirely. You also need to change the laws relating to rights of decision so as to avoid competing equal claims, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Speaking as a male of the species, a process that would only allow female children is not something I would consider equivalent to the natural process, and I believe that process is still experimental at best.[/quote]

I don't see why. Biologically, they'd be the same as if a male version of one of the women happened to pass on his X chromosome instead of his Y chromosome. There's no data stored with regards to the parent except the genes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In which case they are biologically man and woman and thus should have no problem getting a marriage license.[/quote]

I am speaking of a female-to-male transsexual and a male, or a male-to-female transsexual and a female, in either case with the pregnancy occurring before the sex change but the marriage afterwards. (Post-op transsexuals are, to my knowledge, always sterile, although future science may change that.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, all your argument shows is that the government has generally chosen to limit the scope of its inquiry into parenthood capability to that the spouses be of different sexes, which is a necessary requirement for them have a child that is biologically both theirs.  Additional tests or requirements would both raise the cost of getting married and be an intrusion into personal privacy.  Indeed while they are no longer common, at one time most states required blood tests to check for diseases that might be passed on to kids as a condition of marriage. (Those laws largely predated the availability of penicillin to treat syphilis.)  That a State has failed to implement or require every conceivable test into biological aptitude for parenthood does not render the position that marriage should be defined in a way to secure the well-being of biological progeny unconstitutional. It is a purely subjective position however.
[/quote]

Why is an inquiry into the gender not an intrusion into personal privacy? You don't have to disclose gender on census forms or other legal documents, only marriage licenses. Your line is completely arbitrary.

[Holmes]

North Carolina?

It is the only state in the south that doesn't have an amendment banning gay marrage. The amendment never passes the house and senate. The state is becoming very progressive.

They only passed an anti-bullying law in the Senate by 3 votes the other day. Which is Democratic controlled. I mean, even if a majority of the state approves it, they gotta fix their legislators. And for a majority to support it, they'd need every person who voted for Obama, and then more. So I think they'll stay at status quo for a while.

Here's my 10 year map revised, I guess

red: marriage, blue: civil union, green: domestic partnership

The only way to get marriage in Oregon, California, Nevada and Colorado is for voters to approve it(the last two are possible in 10 years if things keep progress but I dunno yet). Michigan bans any form of union unless voters reverse it so I dunno about that, same with Ohio. I'm putting Wisconsin green because I'm being presumptuous in assuming that their Supreme Court will strike down the ban.

I'll watch to see if the Louisiana case gets any traction...

[??????????]

With in two years all of these state will have gay marriages or civil unions:

Red: Gay marriages
Blue: Civil Unions

Florida voted on that in November.

[Wiz in Wis]

North Carolina?

It is the only state in the south that doesn't have an amendment banning gay marrage. The amendment never passes the house and senate. The state is becoming very progressive.

They only passed an anti-bullying law in the Senate by 3 votes the other day. Which is Democratic controlled. I mean, even if a majority of the state approves it, they gotta fix their legislators. And for a majority to support it, they'd need every person who voted for Obama, and then more. So I think they'll stay at status quo for a while.

Here's my 10 year map revised, I guess

red: marriage, blue: civil union, green: domestic partnership

The only way to get marriage in Oregon, California, Nevada and Colorado is for voters to approve it(the last two are possible in 10 years if things keep progress but I dunno yet). Michigan bans any form of union unless voters reverse it so I dunno about that, same with Ohio. I'm putting Wisconsin green because I'm being presumptuous in assuming that their Supreme Court will strike down the ban.

I'll watch to see if the Louisiana case gets any traction...

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is 4-3 Conservative... Plus, it was a Constitutional Amendment, even if it were 7-0 liberal, it would still be pretty clear. My guess is that a civil unions referendum comes up within 4-8 years and passes, but thats the only way I see. For now.

[Holmes]

I said I was being presumptuous. But it's before the court because you're only allowed to have one question on an amendment and there was two(marriage and civil marriage), so.

Anyway wtf. I think I'm changing my Rhode Island prediction to soon. I heard from the Rep that introuced their bill that there's a judiciary hearing next week(and I'm looking for the date), and I recently heard that in Rhode Island, for a veto override, you need 3/5 of the vote, instead of 2/3. The Senate has like 33 Democrats, they need 19 votes to pass the bill... and only 23 to override a veto.

And if you look at Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, 54/57 Democrats in their Senates voted for marriage equality, and 3/57 voted against. I have a hard time believing over 10 Democratic senators would vote against the bill, especially in Rhode Island.

So I guess it depends on the Speaker of the House, cause it would go to a floor vote there first. I hope he brings it to a vote.

OH And Hawaii's Senate PASSED the civil union bill! 19 - 5. But they amended it so it would have to go back to the House where it passed by a wide margin for a re-vote but they can't do that this session anymore, so it'll have to wait for next year.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are huge additional legal consequences to multiple spouses. Entire sections of marriage law would have to scrapped, other enormous sections would have to be rewritten, and new sections would have to be added. That's not a form of the same contract, that's a different contract. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, doesn't actually have to change anything about marriage law at all, or at most has to change the words "husband" and "wife to "spouse" (although since the gender definitions of "husband" and "wife" are not legal definitions, even that technically would not have to go).

I'll grant that there is an impact of multiple spouses on marriage law if polygamy were to gain legal recognition, but not anywhere near as insurmountably as you allege.  In no other type of legal partnership is the law for a two person partnership substantially different from that for a partnership involving three or more persons.

Sure there are. You have to change the laws which deal with divorce, for one, because you need to be able for one member of the union to leave without the marriage falling apart entirely. You also need to change the laws relating to rights of decision so as to avoid competing equal claims, etc.

And how is that any different form dealing with what happens when a business partnership has a partner leave it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Speaking as a male of the species, a process that would only allow female children is not something I would consider equivalent to the natural process, and I believe that process is still experimental at best.[/quote]

I don't see why. Biologically, they'd be the same as if a male version of one of the women happened to pass on his X chromosome instead of his Y chromosome. There's no data stored with regards to the parent except the genes.
[/quote]

Maybe you see no difference between a process that has a roughly 50-50 chance of male or female children and one in which there is a 100 percent chance of female children. but I most emphatically do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, all your argument shows is that the government has generally chosen to limit the scope of its inquiry into parenthood capability to that the spouses be of different sexes, which is a necessary requirement for them have a child that is biologically both theirs.  Additional tests or requirements would both raise the cost of getting married and be an intrusion into personal privacy.  Indeed while they are no longer common, at one time most states required blood tests to check for diseases that might be passed on to kids as a condition of marriage. (Those laws largely predated the availability of penicillin to treat syphilis.)  That a State has failed to implement or require every conceivable test into biological aptitude for parenthood does not render the position that marriage should be defined in a way to secure the well-being of biological progeny unconstitutional. It is a purely subjective position however.

Why is an inquiry into the gender not an intrusion into personal privacy? You don't have to disclose gender on census forms or other legal documents, only marriage licenses. Your line is completely arbitrary.
[/quote]

Where do you live?  Gender most certainly is a question on the census, and is information I gave for my driver's license, and my voter registration card.  If you want to get technical, a name is personal information too.  You also won;t be likely to get too far with a job or loan application if you fail to fll out the gender box either.  Any line on how far to inquire into person information will be arbitrary and subjective, even if the line is set to make no inquiry at all, and subjective questions are for legislatures to set.  All a constitution is in this respect is a more firmly established set of answers to subjective questions, and the established answer is that same-sex marriage is not a federal question.

It may become a "full faith and credit" question since that issue for obvious reasons could not be addressed in 1972 when the Supremes ruled on the issue since no state then recognized gay marriage.  However, I don't think the gay-marriage movement would care to have the current court decide that issue.  For one thing, in reaching the decision they would want the court would have to overturn decades of repeated precedent on the scope of the full faith and credit clause, such as in Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission (1939).  They'd need a solidly liberal court that was looking for a fig leaf to cover their attempt to legislate from the bench for that to even have a chance to happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

For a New England state, Rhode Island surprises me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gay marriage effort stalls in heavily Catholic RI

By RAY HENRY
The Associated Press
Friday, May 8, 2009; 3:05 PM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Gay marriage could soon become the law of the land across New England _ except in the heavily Roman Catholic state of Rhode Island.

A string of sudden successes for gay marriage advocates has left Rhode Island a political outlier. Maine became the fourth state in New England to legalize same-sex unions on Wednesday, while New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is now deciding whether to sign similar legislation.

Vermont lawmakers established gay marriage last month, following a path already set by courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Yet the movement has stalled in Rhode Island, perhaps even lost ground, after a stalemate at the Statehouse, a loss in the state's top court and continued opposition from religious leaders.

"I do not hear voices raised, voices stating absolutely that this just cannot do," said Cassandra Ormiston, 62, a lesbian who could not get divorced in Rhode Island after she and her partner married in Massachusetts. "It is not enough to be patient."

Religion remains among the biggest hurdles. A recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut showed 46 percent of Rhode Islanders identify themselves as Roman Catholic, a larger percentage than any other state.

Given its size, the church carries political clout. On the last Inauguration Day, every statewide elected official began the morning with a special Mass at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, celebrated by Bishop Thomas Tobin.

Tobin does not hesitate to tussle with politicians, especially on gay marriage. He calls gay unions a perversion of natural law and a violation of an institution that Catholics believe was created by God.

[Ebowed]

Or why Rhode Island hasn't gotten with the program yet?

The fact that it's the most Catholic state in the Union might have something to do with it.

Still, it was the most Democratic state in 2004, wasn't it?

Massachusetts was.

[Alcon]

Rhode Island is full of working-class ethnic Catholics -- still a Democratic group, but one that's definitely not on-board with gay marriage.  Mass has a lot of 'em but also a lot of "secularized Catholics."  That's the dumbed-down explanation, I'd probably screw up the smart one.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Or why Rhode Island hasn't gotten with the program yet?

The fact that it's the most Catholic state in the Union might have something to do with it.

Still, it was the most Democratic state in 2004, wasn't it?

Massachusetts was.

I'm not sure how I got that mixed up, I could have sworn it was the most Democratic, but you're right.

[Smash255]

Or why Rhode Island hasn't gotten with the program yet?

The fact that it's the most Catholic state in the Union might have something to do with it.

Still, it was the most Democratic state in 2004, wasn't it?

Massachusetts was.

I'm not sure how I got that mixed up, I could have sworn it was the most Democratic, but you're right.

It was in 2000