Four States Ban Homosexual Marriage - Back To The Drawing Boards??

[Croynan]

The New York Times

November 7, 2006

Four States Ban Gay Marriage

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:55 p.m. ET

Amendments to ban gay marriage won approval Tuesday in four states -- including Wisconsin, where gay-rights activists had nursed hopes of engineering the first defeat of such a ban. Arizona passed four measures targeting illegal immigrants, including one making English the state's official language.

Nationwide, a total of 205 measures were on the ballots in 37 states -- ranging from routine bond issues to a riveting contest in South Dakota, where voters chose whether to uphold or reject a toughest-in-the-nation law that would ban virtually all abortions.

Activists on both sides of the abortion debate were on edge over the campaign, and early returns showed an edge for those seeking to quash the law. If the ban was upheld, abortion-rights supporters were likely to launch a legal challenge that could lead all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Eight states had ban-gay-marriage amendments on their ballots; South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia joined Wisconsin in approving them, while results were pending in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and South Dakota. Similar amendments have passed previously in all 20 states to consider them.

Colorado voters had an extra option -- a measure that would grant domestic-partnership rights to same-sex couples.

Conservatives hoped the same-sex marriage bans might increase turnout for Republicans. Democrats looked for a boost from low-income voters turning out on behalf of measures to raise the state minimum wage in six states. The wage hike passed in Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Nevada; results were pending in Arizona and Colorado.

In Missouri, a proposed amendment allowing stem cell research was a factor in the crucial Senate race there; incumbent Republican Jim Talent opposed the measure, while Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill supported it.

Missouri -- along with Arizona, South Dakota and California -- had a sharp increase in tobacco taxes on its ballot. In California alone, big tobacco companies spent more than $56 million fighting a tax increase that would boost the average price of a pack of cigarettes to $6.55.

In Ohio, anti-smoking activists won a showdown with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Voters approved a tough ban on smoking in public places and rejected a rival, Reynolds-backed measure that would have exempted bars, bowling alleys and racetracks.

The costliest ballot campaign -- a state record of $133 million -- was raised in the fight over California's Proposition 87, which would tax companies drilling for oil in the state. The proposal sought to raise $4 billion to promote alternative fuels and energy-efficient vehicles.

Nevada and Colorado both offered measures -- trailing badly in pre-election polls -- that would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by anyone 21 and older. A measure in Rhode Island would restore voting rights to felons on probation and parole.

Michigan voters decided whether to bar the state government from using race and gender to determine who gets into college, who gets hired and who receives contracts.

Elsewhere, land use was a hot issue, part of a backlash against a 2005 Supreme Court ruling allowing the city of New London, Conn., to buy up homes to make way for a private commercial development.

Eleven states considered eminent-domain measures barring the government from taking private property for a private use; Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire and South Carolina approved them overwhelmingly. In four states -- Arizona, California, Idaho and Washington -- voters could require state and local authorities to compensate property owners if land-use regulations lowered the value of their property.

South Dakota voters could make their state the first to strip immunity from judges, exposing them to the possibility of lawsuits, fines and even jail for their actions on the bench. Opponents, including leaders of both major parties, said it would create chaos in the judicial system.

In Maine, Nebraska and Oregon, voters considered measures that would cap increases in state spending -- similar to a controversial measure approved in Colorado in 1992.

Arizona voters were deciding on the most ballot measures -- 19 -- including four that were approved that stemmed from frustration over the influx of illegal immigrants. One measure will make English the state's official language; another expands the list of government benefits denied to illegal immigrants.

Voters weren't keen about another, more quirky Arizona measure: They defeated a proposal that would have awarded $1 million to a randomly selected voter in each general election


eM

 

[RationalLunacy]

All I know is we Pennsylvanians dumped that homophobic jackass Santorum, and that's good enough for me.

 

[lunarus]

Yes but you forgot to add how VA went even further and took away the right my partner and I had to appoint each other as the person to go to in case anything were to happen.

See this thread.

So now I have zero rights to the house, car, his pension, his death benefits or access to him in the hospital. Which by the way has me listed. The converse is the same for him.

So basically I have been told that our life of 14 years together mean nothing and if anything were to happen to him or me, the life we have built together will be torn away from us just because people here are to stupid to think for them selves...

 

[eddielee]

I expected SC, VA, and TN to ban gay marriage. If, and when, the vote comes to NC, you can expect the same.

 

[TierraSimms]

I expected SC, VA, and TN to ban gay marriage. If, and when, the vote comes to NC, you can expect the same.

North Carolina's General Assembly didn't pass such measure because they thought that it would be perceived as a "bad image" on 1 of the most progressive states in the South. It is doubtful if that measure ever will make it to a ballot

 

[luminum]

Can't we vote to ban straight marriage and send up a proposal to only legalize civil unions/domestic partnerships?

 

[dunno260]

Its a matter of time really. Unless the courts start to dramatically decide that gay marriage is in the Bill of Rights (and I am not entirely sure it is) then its going to be a 15-20 year wait. In time its going to undoubtedly get approved because of demographic support of same-sex marriage, but in the interim, trying to get same-sex marriage through a bill of rights argument probably isn't going to happen. Civil unions probably would though (I don't see a difference, but the vast majority of idiots out there do). I don't think this election is going to change anything, except make it impossible for a gay marriage ammendment to make it to the US constitution.

But the fight is only going to be won in the near term in civil unions, and thats fine by and large. Its a long way from where we are in most of the states.

 

[RyzeAbove]

I think I hear the riders of the apocalypse people suck. Wanda Sykes put it perfectly. There is nothing to "protect" marriage from. Except divorce. Not the gays!!!

 

[davy]

....These laws over time will be overturned on the bases of inequality and for a homophobic bias. JMHO!

of course they will be. in another sixty years we will all be able to enjoy the same rights to marriage and such..

..... oh.... what was that? ...... you won't be alive in sixty years?

okay... nevermind

 

[Croynan]

That's just it! I look at the glass as half full, if you will. Consider for a moment that the US Senate will most likely be controlled by the Democrats, who approve most of the Federal Judge appoints anyway. Then you must also consider that conservative judicial appoints become less likely and the more moderate to liberal appointment increase. Even though marriage is often viewed as a state right, it doesn't necessarily make it so when calculating in equal rights and equal access to government benefits. The battle for gay marriage will be won in the courts in this country and not through the act of legislation or direct vote. These laws over time will be overturned on the bases of inequality and for a homophobic bias. JMHO!

Brilliant comment. What the homosexual movement and its leadership should be seeking right now is the "legal case" to focus on, that will lead this entire matter into the entire legal system of the federal government and to the Supreme Court.

If they (the homosexual movement and leadership) continue to pursue the way of the ballot box as the means to their end and or goal the issue will merely be prolonged that much longer.

imho - the local village idiot speaks. democracy and the ballot box are not going to do it - but possibly "the dictatorship" of the courts will, and in this case I think we should be aiming for a degree of "dictatorship."

the line for chastising the idiot form to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no whips or chains please, pain does not set well with moi.

 

[Croynan]

DAMN didn't mean to piss everyone off, I was expressing an opinion of how I think it will eventually come down in our favor! I'm not calling for some judicial dictatorship, it's all a matter of how you interpret the the Bill of Rights as I see it!

Besides, I'm not into whips and chains either, Croynan! I would think you would know me enough by now to know that's not true!

In fact, I think Croynan is in need of a few hugs as well........

I certainly did not think you "pissed anyone off at all." I just think that all this time being wasted at the ballot box could be better served finding the right court cases to drive this issue into the Federal Courts - where it will have to be tested against the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. I firmly believe, that if that were done, the Supreme Court would act accordingly - assuming of course we have judges within the court who know how to think and read the Constitution. The fact that a few of them may have to be Conservatives in the long run, may actually surprise many more people then we realize. As long as the court members are ones who understand the Constitution, it will make little if any difference who appoints them.

I realize that is a great risk to take, but I for one, would rather bet on the courts (dictatorsip and all) then on the large number of voters in this country who stupidly have still not figured out what the issues are or don't give a fucking damn to do so. (please pardon my language)

as the local village idiot, i realize i am probably speaking from a most minority position, but i think the homosexual movement has had it wrong all along by counting on the ballot box to get them what they want. i think they have been spinning their wheels backwards all these recent years.

now i am sure chastisemnt shall await me - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."


Robert, unless i am mistaken, the map you have posted basically supports my contention if you see what has been accomplished with the ballot box and the legislatures - feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but that is how i perceive your superb map. your timing was perfect, in my opinion.

I realize i am speaking with a large degree of obscurity and absurdity but I honestly think that is the direction we should be thinking, you would be surprised at how much more can be accomplished in that manner of thinking.

I have had my say for today/tonight. I know i have spoken out of place and annoyed the hell out of everyone, but it seems to me the obvious roads have been taken - now shoot for the obscure and absurd.

Special Good Night Wishes to Robert and Eric in case I have upset either and or both of you.

 

[justjoshoh]

Maybe it is because it is way too late to be thinking, but where is gay marriage protected in the Bill of Rights? As a matter of opinion, I would say that Amendment X actually sets the stage for the opposite. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Aren't these ballot initiatives just that, the States using the implied powers of Amendment X?

 

[justjoshoh]

Those legal challenges don't center around the Federalist versus States Right debate but center around other amendments in the Bill of Rights with regard to the amendments dealing with privacy and equal access.

Perhaps Article IV Section 2, the Privileges and Immunities Clause along with Amendment XIV, which prohibits States from denying a person equal protection under the law.

Another good point would be to take a legally married gay couple that moved to a different State and argue Article I Section 10, which prohibits States from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Neither of which deals with the Bill of Rights. Is there a specific Bill of Rights argument that I am missing? I'm not being nit-picky, I would like to see what angles of the argument we could approach this issue.

 

[slobone]

I'm hoping the tide will turn once we get a Democratic majority in this country...

We HAVE a Democratic majority, Elvin -- more people identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans.

Why the HELL do people keep thinking that Democratic = pro-gay rights? Wake up, people! That party has done NOTHING for us and will continue to do so.

I sure don't hope you're rooting for Hillary to win in 08 as she's firmly opposed to gay marriage. Well -- she did open a tiny wedge by saying that if it was passed by the legislature she would support it -- but she was talking about New York State, not nationwide. And of course she was talking to a roomful of gay political "leaders" when she said it.