Gay marriage in US could take decades to achieve

[EastMed]

Harry J Enten has the statistics and polling and it makes for a sobering read.
Unless of course the federal government or supreme court intervenes.

With the exception of Virginia, it's pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it's difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It's hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage.

Thus, unless the federal government jumps in, most, if not all southern states won't legalize same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Most of their citizens don't want it, and by the time they do, most Republicans still won't. Considering you'll need a majority or supermajority of state legislators to get the bans reversed, and that Republicans have a strong hold over these chambers, same-sex marriage in the south doesn't have much of a chance anytime soon.

This is quite depressing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/same-sex-marriage-could-take-decades

 

[Ninja108]

Which is why it's so stupid to kick the can down the road,as the court most likely will. These states won't allow gay marriage unless they are forced to,just like with interracial marriage.

 

[Rolyo85]

I'm not worried. The courts/fed WILL intervene, and soon, because it will become an economic issue as well as social when a good half of the country has nationally recognized marriage equality. Half of the south wouldn't be having interracial marriage yet if people were waiting on states to figure it out.

 

[Ninja108]

I'm not worried. The courts/fed WILL intervene, and soon, because it will become an economic issue as well as social when a good half of the country has nationally recognized marriage equality. Half of the south wouldn't be having interracial marriage yet if people were waiting on states to figure it out.

Indeed..it won't take 40 years but if a sweeping ruling isn' tdone now,it will get kicked down to another 15-20 years at most.

 

[CowboyBob]

Too bad it will take that long to achieve equality. It's the bigots and there's plenty of them in the midwest too, not just the south. The federal government and supreme court may have to drag some of these backwards people forward.

Christ, states like North Dakota still force most businesses to remain closed Sunday mornings. Before 1991 most stores had to be closed all day Sunday because of the politicians "religious beliefs". How can you drag those Neanderthals into modern times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States

 

[Rolyo85]

Already there are other cases moving up in the courts. Considering the leaps we make each year, even 2-3 years from now it could be enough to tip the scales in the Supreme Court. Plus, by then Scalia might have been eaten by rabid elephants or something...

 

[Ninja108]

Already there are other cases moving up in the courts. Considering the leaps we make each year, even 2-3 years from now it could be enough to tip the scales in the Supreme Court. Plus, by then Scalia might have been eaten by rabid elephants or something...

If the Prop 8 case is denied even on standing,the rulings made striking it down will stand. Those will go a long way in lawsuits in Neveda Hawaii and Michigian about their gay marriage bans.
Yes Nevada looks like it will legalize gay marriage in 2016 but civil rights shouldn't be put up to a vote anyway.

 

[scream4ever]

Michigan is also contemplating putting it up to a vote in 2016. The Hawaii legislature will likely approve same-sex marriage next year. Of course, given the schedule, I expect the Supreme Court to take up the Hawaii/Nevada case in 2015 and the Michigan case in 2016.

 

[Ninja108]

Michigan is also contemplating putting it up to a vote in 2016. The Hawaii legislature will likely approve same-sex marriage next year. Of course, given the schedule, I expect the Supreme Court to take up the Hawaii/Nevada case in 2015 and the Michigan case in 2016.

Depending on the courts rulings,gay marriage in Nevada and Hawaii could come sooner versus later. If Prop 8 is dismissed on standing,then the court ruling strikng it down will stand,which play a large part in the lawsuits in Nevada and Hawaii.
Don't forget Colorado,which I expect will have gay marriage sooner versus later.
One more important thing..when the number of states that has marriage equality gets to 15,the federal marriage amendment will be dead and buried.

 

[hotatlboi]

when the number of states that has marriage equality gets to 15,the federal marriage amendment will be dead and buried.

That's already happened lol. There are not 37 states who would vote for that today.

 

[T-Rexx]

Harry J Enten has the statistics and polling and it makes for a sobering read.
Unless of course the federal government or supreme court intervenes.

With the exception of Virginia, it's pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it's difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It's hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage.

This is quite depressing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/same-sex-marriage-could-take-decades

This is what I have been saying here for some time.

The Supreme Court is about to rule that gay marriage is not an American right - that it is a privilege to be granted at the discretion of individual states. That means that much of the USA will be denied gay rights for decades. Had SCOTUS not forced interracial marriage on the southern states in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, the south would have anti-miscegnation laws still. And that was 50 years ago.

If it was right for SCOTUS to define marriage for the nation in 1967, then it is right for it to do so today. The current court is one of the worst in history. It has given us Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and Bush v. Gore. It is about to give us another disaster.

The current situation with regard to gay marriage is not acceptable. A gay married couple can have their marriage effectively dissolved by moving to a non-gay marriage state. A gay married couple with adopted children would not be able to live together in many American cities, which typically ban more than two "unrelated" persons living together in a single household. A gay married couple living in a non-gay marriage state cannot get a divorce. If the couple separated and one of the individuals moved to a gay marriage state, that person would still be married even though his ex, still living in the non-gay marriage state, would not be. I could go on and on, but the point is that a patchwork of states offering up multiple permutations on gay rights doesn't work. Alas, our current SCOTUS is too stupid to appreciate any of this.

I'm not worried. The courts/fed WILL intervene, and soon, because it will become an economic issue as well as social when a good half of the country has nationally recognized marriage equality. Half of the south wouldn't be having interracial marriage yet if people were waiting on states to figure it out.

No, they won't. SCOTUS is about to set the precedent for the nation that gay marriage is NOT a right that should be recognized in America. The lower courts will follow that precedent. And SCOTUS does not revisit an issue it has already ruled upon for many decades. It took 70 years to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson. And that's typical.

Economic factors will not drive the wider adoption of gay marriage, because the prejudice is too ingrained into the culture in many parts of America. And that prejudice is constantly being reinforced by religious and political leaders. When slavery destroyed the economic development of the south in the nineteenth century, the south did not abandon the institution, even for its own enormous benefit. Nor did the south ever accept that its lack of development relative to the north was a consequence of its hatred and of its genocide. Bigotry is a very, very, very, very intractable force.

Indeed..it won't take 40 years but if a sweeping ruling isn' tdone now,it will get kicked down to another 15-20 years at most.

I think it is going to take far longer than 40 years.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Supreme Court is about to rule that gay marriage is not an American right ....

I really doubt that. It's more likely they'll just say so little they won't have spoken about whether there's a right involved or not.

 

[kayman23]

Well, T-Rexx has summed up some strong sentiments that I concur upon.

 

[Ninja108]

SAd to say T-Rexx,but I think your logic is why the four justices who mostly likely voted to hear this case were the conservative justices. They know they can't stop marriage equality in all states but they can do their best to delay it as long as possible.
I will say this though,by the time Loving Vs. Virginia was decided 37 states had allowed interracial marriage. The South will have to be dragged along kicking and screaming but I do believe the rest of the country will have marriage equality before that.
On Prop 8,if they dismiss it on standing,as many people think they will the 9th circuit ruling will stand. That 9th circuit court ruling will carry a lot of weight in many states when it comes to this issue.
We're not going to get the sweeping ruling we want but I don't think it's going to take 70 years for full marriage equality either.

 

[Kulindahr]

SAd to say T-Rexx,but I think your logic is why the four justices who mostly likely voted to hear this case were the conservative justices. They know they can't stop marriage equality in all states but they can do their best to delay it as long as possible.
I will say this though,by the time Loving Vs. Virginia was decided 37 states had allowed interracial marriage. The South will have to be dragged along kicking and screaming but I do believe the rest of the country will have marriage equality before that.
On Prop 8,if they dismiss it on standing,as many people think they will the 9th circuit ruling will stand. That 9th circuit court ruling will carry a lot of weight in many states when it comes to this issue.
We're not going to get the sweeping ruling we want but I don't think it's going to take 70 years for full marriage equality either.

Dismissing it on standing will be a declaration that state laws and courts are irrelevant.

 

[lambdaboy]

True marriage for gays may never happen. I mean marriage with the same benefits that str8's have. It has to be the federal law changed. The main problem with the states is just that The U.S. is a conglomeration of provinces, with there own laws. Federal laws are set for all states but unless the Feds step in each state can do there own thing it is sad.

 

[Kulindahr]

True marriage for gays may never happen. I mean marriage with the same benefits that str8's have. It has to be the federal law changed. The main problem with the states is just that The U.S. is a conglomeration of provinces, with there own laws. Federal laws are set for all states but unless the Feds step in each state can do there own thing it is sad.

You just described one of the great strengths of the U.S. and called it "sad".

Wow.

 

[evanrick]

Marriage equality issues could fracture our country, i say let us split with the needy backwards south. fuck the courts, fuck the congress.

 

[evanrick]

You just described one of the great strengths of the U.S. and called it "sad".

Wow.

i think he has it a little backwards, federal law takes precedent, but i hope people in London dont think that states actually get to do what they want. its states that dont follow federal law in respecting liberty that make a mockery out of our country. states like mine are an example of the federal government being into things they shouldnt be into, like marriage and marijuana.

usually its the smallest states that resist the federal government because they benefit the most from using tax dollars 'establishment' from larger states. if larger states had equal representation in the US senate the smaller states would be ignored by the political class of donors, big corporations.

this lately has been a bad thing because its easier for corporations to use unsuspecting voters from small republican states to elect pro-corporate candidates under the guise that the republicans are just more 'traditional' when it comes to marriage. when in fact corporations would oppose marriage equality since it would undermine their entire strategy of using these red-state voters for their 'votes'. if big monied interests didnt have social and fear issues to hide behind, their pro-corporate candidates wouldn't get elected to national office.

like the whole background check vote, it had nothing to do with gun safety and everything to do with using guns as an 'issue' so that people are not talking about corporate welfare, corporate crime etc.

the only states with true power are large ones like California whose state laws can apply to 10% of the population of the country, so this forces other states to comply with California's wishes; and very very small ones like utah who elect as many republican senators as california gets democrat ones.

the states actually have very little power these days with the expansion of government under george bush, terrorism and financial crises not to mention DHS and militarization of the police.

dont worry, federalism has failed. not because it was a 'bad' system, but our founders may have not foreseen the destructive anti-education force that corporatism would have on America.

the problem with federalism is that its the ultimate imperialist state, our president has more power than anyone in the galaxy, and i think the founders knew that would happen, they wanted that to happen, to prove something, because they wanted out of europe, they wanted freedom but were not mature enough to realize how idealistic they had become, how greedy people are, and how lazy citizens are.

republican politicians, and some democrats are using the uninformed voter to maintain the current status-quo, and if that means no marriage equality, it bodes very badly for our entire country since it will just entrench republican voters even more. why? they will see marriage equality as another 'issue' coming from the federal government.

 

[Ninja108]

Dismissing it on standing will be a declaration that state laws and courts are irrelevant.

In Prop 8's case,it would most likely let the lower federal court or state ruling declaring Prop 8 null and void if they dismiss it on standing.