Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Holmes]

Ah. If you ask me, both bills go nowhere and Pennsylvania just stays in the status quo. I think he just introduced the bill to get a debate going and to get in local media.

[Brittain33]

Rendell gets to play Moderate Hero! Yay!

[Lunar]

Nevada's law creates a domestic partnership union that's available to both same-sex and different-sex couples.  Usually not what we see in America but this option is often in Europe.

Why did they do this?

[Brittain33]

Nevada's law creates a domestic partnership union that's available to both same-sex and different-sex couples.  Usually not what we see in America but this option is often in Europe.

Why did they do this?

Large population of retirees who don't want to jeopardize their SSA benefits by marrying, I guess. The lack of provision for them is what sunk Arizona's DOMA on its first try.

[Holmes]

West Virginia Supreme Court spanks a big argument against same-sex marriage. (And the case actually doesn't even have anything to do with marriage at all.)

Just saying...

[Landslide Lyndon]

West Virginia Supreme Court spanks a big argument against same-sex marriage. (And the case actually doesn't even have anything to do with marriage at all.)

Just saying...

Hey Holmes, just curious.

After Iowa, are there any other same sex marriage cases pending in front of state supreme courts?

[Holmes]

State Supreme Courts would be a no to my knowledge... there are some random federal cases in appeal courts, but I don't see those going anywhere to be honest.

But some states have constitutional amendments, so those can't win in court without federal intervention. The only high courts to rule for marriage were Massachussets, California, Connecticut and Iowa (as well as Vermont and New Jersey, but the courts there gave the options of marriage or civil unions, and they went for the latter at the time).

According to wiki, high courts that also weighed against marriage were Maryland, New York, Washington, Indiana, Illinois, Arizona, Florida and Georgia. All before In re Marriage Cases though, and I know Iowa's court used that ruling as a big precedent.

I do know that Lambda Legal(the legal group that got the unanimous ruling in Iowa) said they wanna have a go at another midwestern state. I bet it'll be West Virginia. They won't go after Pennsylvania because the legislature there isn't favorable to them. West Virginia's is though, considering Democrats there hold supermajorities and they've always nearly unanimously rejected constitutional amendments against it. Or Minnesota, but I don't think they'd go to the courts since the state can just pass a bill themselves, depending on the 2010 elections.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A gay marriage bill in Minnesota if passed, would do so only very narrowly. The main issue is I don't think the legislative leadership want to waste political capital on that. They'll probably just go for civil unions instead for that reason.

[Holmes]

But you don't disagree that they can pass a bill, right? That's why I said the 2010 race will be important, because the DFL would have to win the governor's mansion, and keep the big majorities in the legislature. But I didn't say they will, I just think that the legal people won't waste time and bring it to the Minnesota courts if it can possilby be done legislatively.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But you don't disagree that they can pass a bill, right?

Eh, maybe. It'd be close. When I'm off work I might do a deeper analysis on this. Right now though my inclination is that the Senate probably would, but the slightly more conservative House wouldn't.

[Holmes]

Sure, I'd like that. The issue hasn't been as big in the Minnesota blogosphere compared to other states'.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK here goes. Unfortunately I don't have the time to look up quotes from everyone on what they've said on the issue.

I'm assuming no Republicans vote for it. The Minnesota GOP has done a better job of purging its moderates than just about any other Republican party that ever had moderates to begin with. 4 years ago there was a vote in the House on an amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions. It passed but was blocked by the Senate. 3 Republicans in the House voted against it. All 3 are now gone, one was primaried actually (though it was more over his vote to override Pawlenty's veto on the gas tax increase.)

Anyway, Minnesota districts are numbered starting in the rural northwest corner, and the last couple are in the inner metro. So I'll go backwards.

54-67: Those are all basically guarantees. Every district from 53 on is held by a Democrat (52 is Michele Bachmann's old seat actually.) 54-67 are either Twin Cities or very inner-suburbs. These are all not only super-safe DFL seats but it's safe to say a majority of the population in them supports gay marriage as well (except for the black and Hispanic communities.) 53 is a bit iffier, it was held by a Republican prior to 2006, and was won by Obama by only about 1000 votes out of around 48,000 cast. However the district is hardly socially conservative and is just full of rich people, gay marriage isn't a threatening issue here. I'll put Sen. Sandy Rummell as a "leaner"

51: Swing district in the middle suburbs. Voted for Obama, Coleman and Pawlenty all by narrow margin. Despite being partially located in Michele Bachmann's district though it's not a particularly hostile to gay marriage district. I'll say lean.

50: Liberal enough to call basically safe.

47: This district is branching out into conservative territory, and the Senator is quite old. However he is liberal on most issues. I'll call it a tossup.

44-46: Liberal enough inner Minneapolis suburbs. I'll count it as pro.

43: This is the district of the lady who lost to Madia. so she has more of a paper trail. Her record seems to imply that she supports gay marriage though she keeps using vague wording. Still I can't see her voting against a leadership supported gay marriage bill.

38-40: All of these are probably yeses, if James Metzen in district 39 is opposed it's not being voted on. I'll count the other two as leaners though even though it's not a particularly toxic issue in this area.

30-31: Let's see, districts based off of a liberal college town and Rochester. I'll say yes for both.

28: Dan Sparks will vote for it if it comes up. He's a great guy. He also won by a 2:1 margin against an opponent who campaigned basically only on this issue in 2006 and said something along the line of that he'd rather lose the election than have to support to deny rights to his fellow citizens.

27: This is a more conservative district, but Murphy is entrenched enough, I say he'll vote for it if the leadership wants him too.

25: This district just got taken over by a guy who replaced a very conservative Republican who resigned to take a judgeship in early 2008. He's a pretty strong liberal, I'll have him for it.

23: My old district. I've met Kathy Sheran before, I've even been in her car. She will support it.

22: Ack, this is a very conservative rural district. Vickerman is entrenched but probably too much of a risk. I'll bet no.

20: A more Democratic but still socially conservative rural district represented by a pastor, I'm going to have to say no.

16-17: Too conservative probably...

15: I'll say lean.

1-10: These are all rural Democratic seats except for 7 which is Duluth. 10 is very socially conservative and more of a Republican district so probably not...9, eh tossup, 8 yes, 7 yes, 6 has the incumbent running for Governor, good chance a liberal takes the seat due to the DFL base, lean, 5 is very Democratic but also very working class and ethnic...tossup. 1-4 I'm going to assume will all be noes but Snowguy will no more here.

That leaves:

27 in favor
6 lean
3 tossup
9 probably not
21 Republican who are also counted against.

You need 34 votes to pass, so that looks likely if there's a massive push for it. Remember though that the composition could change in 2010.

House coming up.

[ilikeverin]

Bonoff would almost certainly support civil unions and possibly a gay marriage bill (though she wouldn't be one cosponsoring it or anything).  Plymouth has more tax-cut conservatives than guns-gays-n-God conservatives, so she wouldn't be alienating anyone who wouldn't be voting Republican anyway.

Spoiler alert: 43A (Rep. Susan Anderson) would never under any circumstances vote for any bill favoring gays, I suspect   She's not a Bachmann, but still is a lockstep Republican vote.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

     That a defense of marriage proposition lost 9% of the population that supported it in 2000.

[Franzl]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

That a majority of California voters like restricting the rights of a significant minority.

[Holmes]

BRTD, you break my heart when you assume that the majority of hispanics are automatically against it. Anyway, it's good to read about a state legislature that's not in New England for once...

---

[Stranger in a strange land]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

     That a defense of marriage proposition lost 9% of the population that supported it in 2000.

And Obama still won the state in a landslide anyway, despite facing a Republican who was a far better fit for the state than Bush or any other Southern Conservative would have been.. If something like prop 8 is put to a vote again in four years, gay marriage will probably pass.

[Holmes]

Depends if churches say they'll end up in jail for not performing the weddings, or if they say that children will learn that marriage is only between a gay couple again.

[Earth]

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

That direct democracy is terrible?

[ilikeverin]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown.

There's kind of an indirect good point being made here.  Though it's true that in the short-term gay marriage by judicial fiat creates a backlash, in the long term it will almost certainly increase the support for gay marriage in the place where it is decided.  That's because it shifts the frame of the issue from "keeping marriage as it is vs. giving a minority group new rights" to "keeping marriage as it is vs. restoring marriage to its 'traditional foundation'".  Suddenly gay marriage is the status quo.  And the status quo is a very, very powerful tool.  There also might be miscellaneous effects from the mere exposure effect, where because people are exposed to the phenomenon of gay marriage without any perceived ill effects (without any real ill effects, IMO, but...) they have an improved opinion of it.

So supporters of gay marriage in Iowa should feel fortunate.  The constitutional amendment system is such there that gay marriage will become comfortably the status quo by the time gay marriage opponents would even be able to ban it once and for all, and so it will be quite difficult to repeal it there.

[Lunar]

Depends if churches say they'll end up in jail for not performing the weddings, or if they say that children will learn that marriage is only between a gay couple again.

Well, you can't help the children argument except now you can blunt it better by perhaps using testimonials from Iowa and the East.

I think the Equality movement should be using Lynch's New Hampshire solution everywhere.  All it does is reaffirm the First Amendment and state that church's will have their own religious autonomy when it comes to this issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't know if I'd call that a "solution" since Lynch demanded on it being put in despite knowing beforehand there was no chance of that sort of thing occuring, but I guess future gay marriage bills could.

[Lief 🗽]

BRTD, you break my heart when you assume that the majority of hispanics are automatically against it. Anyway, it's good to read about a state legislature that's not in New England for once...

---

I really don't get how 40% of people can think that being gay is a choice. Like, that doesn't make sense at all to me. Heterosexual people don't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I didn't make the conscious choice of liking girls one day. I just realized I did at one point. Why should it be any different with homosexuals?

And re: Hispanics, Nate Silver (pbuh) says that they back gay marriage at the same rate as whites: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/hispanics-back-gay-marriage-at-same.html