« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The State of Marriage: What’s What in 2012

By: Freiheit (Diary)  |  February 7th, 2012 at 09:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Already a month into 2012 and numerous pro- and anti- gay marriage legislation and ballot referendums have cropped up in more than a few states. Excluding North Carolina, these fights have so far been limited to the traditionally blue states  in New England and surrounding states. That’d probably explain how much of this issue has flown under the radar despite this being an obsessive topic for our  “unbiased”  Republican debate moderators.

I’ll state my biases up front: I may be right leaning, but I am also gay. I disagree with the average RedStater on the issue of  gay marriage so this post will remain entirely ‘my bias’ free, except to bash liberals. It solely is going to be a wrap up of the state of the States with respect to marriage. Use this information as you will to support or oppose same sex marriage.

Maine: Voters reversed an effort by the legislature to legalize gay marriage several years ago.  Gay marriage groups have however gathered enough signatures to place another referendum on the November ballot. Equality Maine claims their polling shows 54% support.

Maryland: Democratic Gov. O’Malley announced his support for gay marriage during the state of the State. He has gone onto introduce a bill into the legislature which is soon scheduled for a committee vote. I believe a similar measure passed the Senate last year, but failed in the House. The recent WaPo poll shows Maryland voters are 50/50 split on the issue.

Minnesota: A referendum has been placed on the November ballot to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. PPP has pinned support for the amendment at 48%, opposition at 44% and 8% of the electorate as clueless.

New Jersey: Both chambers of New Jersey’s legislature are expected to be able to easily pass a bill legalizing gay marriage despite Gov. Chris Christie’s pledge to veto any gay marriage bill that crosses his desk. However, Gov. Christie has also voiced his support of placing a referendum on this November’s ballot; a move that Christie has predicted NJ voters would easily pass. Marriage conscious voters should know that the only major obstacle to a voter’s referendum is the Democratic leadership (i.e. further evidence of liberals believing they  ‘own’ groups) and that there is a chance the Democrats may scrap up a veto-proof vote. Voting in the legislature should happen within the next few weeks.

North Carolina: Voters will vote on a constitutional referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman in May, which is the same day as the Republican primary. There will be a Democratic primary on the ballot as well, because Gov. Purdue has recently announced that she is declining to run for reelection. However, this only brings support down to a 22% or 56/34 margin for traditional marriage.

Washington: Do-nothing Democratic Gov. Gregoire announced her intent to legalize gay marriage this year, probably to detract from her terrible governing record. While Washington already has civil unions, the bill is expected to pass after the state Senate voted in favor of the bill 28-25 with 4 Republicans crossing party lines. The House vote is rumored to occur tomorrow at around 1pm PST at which time Washington will be set to become the 7th state to legalize same sex marriage. A voter’s referendum challenge is expected by same sex marriage opponents.

Republican Cadidates: Romney was the latest to be glittered bombed by gay activists a few day ago for his support of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Demonstrating how absolutely childish and stupid my fellow progressive gay friends are.

Proposition 8: The 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled today that California’s attempt to amend the state Constitution was unconstitutional. However, the ruling was quite narrow in the sense that the justices did not rule on gay marriage, but instead on the unique circumstance of California  striking down same sex marriage after it had allowed gay men and women the right to marry for 5 months.  (i.e. the court struck down Judge Walker’s incredible claim that gay marriage is unconstitutional, and instead limited it to California’s actions of first allowing and then disallowing gay marriage “without cause”).

That’s a wrap.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dogfan

    I’m a straight guy who thinks it’s an absurd travesty that America does not have marriage equality. Fortunately, based on strong support for marriage equality among young adults (18-34 years old), it’s probably only a matter of time, and within a few decades people will look back on those who fought against it much as today we look back on those who fought to preserve anti-miscegenation laws (including some who did so on supposedly religious grounds, claiming that God wanted the races to stay separate).

    I’ve found it a waste of time to try to engage those against marriage equality in rational discussion, mainly because they put up one front objection after another as each is shown to be weak (e.g., that it would “destroy the institution of [heterosexual] marriage” somehow), because their real objection is religious in nature (they regard homosexuality as a sin and want the state to continue implicitly communicating that gay relationships are at least vastly inferior to heterosexual relationships), but they don’t want to just come out and say so. It’s pretty much impossible to get anywhere in a discussion on an issue when the other person is committed to just serving up anything he can think of as cover for the real basis for his position.

    As a note — and I mean this in a positive way, although it may not seem it — I am like many (I’d guess even most) straight guys in that I am very uncomfortable with the thought or sight of two guys even kissing. But I recognize that it’s my problem, not theirs or yours. I’m also very uncomfortable with the thought or sight of people eating insects (as is done in some cultures/nations), but that, too, is my problem. Neither is a reason to have the government discriminate and deny equal rights.

    • acat

      The institution of marriage is going through quite a change – many of the old (1940s and before) benefits to being married have eroded away in the last half century, while the restrictions have remained.

      Young folk are marrying at lower rates than at previous points in history, and marriage failure rates are indicating a strong societal shift toward serial monogamy.

      All that to say the institution itself, in another half century, is unlikely to look like it does today…

      My hope is that the government will back out of the marriage business entirely, providing some form of “simplified civil partnership” framework that contains all the legal rights and benefits (filing taxes jointly, simplified inheritance and property laws, etc.) and continue to enforce some of the sensible restrictions (no close kin marriages, children to be provided for in the event the partnership breaks up) but otherwise leave the institution to the church.

      Mew

  • texasref

    but the last comment about “Judge Walker’s incredible claim”…you lost me.

    Nothing that the 9th circuit said contradicted the lower court. They simply chose to rule on much narrower grounds.

    This case is going to an en banc hearing in the 9th circuit, and on to the Supreme Court in October 2012 for a decision by June 2013. Expect the Supremes to follow the exception to their usual rule and make a broad stroke ruling ala Lawrence v Texas (2003) that will at least result in conservative states getting out of the business of marriage entirely, and possibly going so far as to require states and the federal government to observe marriage equality ala Loving (1967).

    One of the reasons that Perry did so poorly was his unfamiliarity with Lawrence v Texas, which overturned the crime of same-sex relations between consenting adults in their bedroom. When confronted by the reporter, he made an argument of moral equivalence with the gay marriage issue. This was both ignorant and sneaky at the same time, if that is even possible. Since everyone who believes being gay should be a crime also thinks gays should not be allowed to marry, but not everyone who thinks gays should not be allowed to marry also thinks being gay should be a crime, it is no small nitpick to cry “foul” at that conflation.

    But I digress. Again, good job, Zach. The states can referendum it to death, but the majority cannot infringe so fundamentally on minority rights as long as we have a Constitution.

    Let the candidates for President bloviate on whether they support this amendment or that amendment–it is all pandering, anyway. The president has absolutely no role in that process. If you want a federal amendment passed, you should ironically be focusing on your state representative, among others!