Gay Marriage Updates By State

[metta]

^
Sorry about that...I meant that I hope that the Supreme Court sees all this stuff that is happening all over the place...not just this one event and sees that they need to step in and do the right thing.

 

[scream4ever]

Support for gay marriage increases in Maryland

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/25/29990

I believe the legislation now has 18 sponsors/cosponsors in the state senate.

 

[scream4ever]

Actually nearly every poll within 6 weeks of the 2008 election showed opposition to Prop 8 in just the 40% range.

 

[metta]

Olson Wants Yes on 8 to Back Down

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/26/Olson_Wants_Yes_on_8_to_Back_Down/

-----------------------------------------------------


Seventeen US States Now Have Majority Support for Gay Marriage


http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7405&MediaType=1&Category=26


--------------------------------------------------


Iowa Senate GOP Tries to Block Rule Change That Would Help Stymie Gay Marriage Ban
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110126/NEWS/110126016/1001/?odyssey=nav|head


------------------------------------------------------------


Republican New Mexico Lawmaker Introduces Gay Marriage Ban

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-mexico-tea-party-backed-gop.html

 

[Ninja108]

What a surprise... more people with R's next to their names trying to ban gay marriage

 

[Kulindahr]

I must be remembering an interview Olson gave wrong; I was sure he expected the California Supreme Court to say the proponent had standing. I certainly didn't expect them to go argue the matter.

 

[metta]

Symbolic vote on gay marriage fails in the Iowa Senate this morning

A Republican senator called up a proposal that would take the first small step toward banning gay marriage in Iowa, and Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on the procedural issue of suspending Senate rules.

Just after 7:30 a.m, the vote failed on party lines, 26-24. All Democrats voted no and all Republicans voted yes to override the Senate President’s decision against breaking the rules.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...olic-vote-on-gay-marriage-issue-this-morning/

 

[Kulindahr]

No, they don't.

This is the same lie that's been repeated again and again because people are too intellectually lazy to interpret that NY Times article for what it was.

It was not a POLL, it was a projection system.

Have a link to explain that?

BTW, I would have told a CNN pollster the question was wrong: gays DO have a constitutional right to get married, but the law is against it anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Just in case I missed something, I just read it again, and followed the link in the article.

I found no mention of the NYT.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ Just in case I missed something, I just read it again, and followed the link in the article.

I found no mention of the NYT.

One of the bases for this claim was a statistical analysis conducted by Nate Sliver in 2008 (the other was study by Columbia university). Sliver now writes a column for the NY Times.

Unfortunately, it is obvious that Sliver's analysis had several serious flaws. For example it predicted that Maine would have majority support for gay marriage in the 2009 election. It did not.

 

[scream4ever]

Maine likely did have support for gay marriage in 2009. The problem was that it was an off election year and thus fewer supporters showed up at the polls.

 

[scream4ever]

56% of New York supports gay marriage

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/27/30049

Especially surprising that support is nearly the same in New York city and the upstate region, and that the NYC suburbs (I assume Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley) support it by a significantly higher margin.

Hopefully this will help push some Senators in the right direction.

 

[DonQuixote]

Alessi's recently been an ass on a personal front - filed suit against a homeowner and builder from when Alessi tresspassed while the house was under construction, tried to climb a ladder, and broke his leg - 3 years ago. The owners opted not to have him arrested for tresspass at the time. He has continuing pain from the incident. The county manager, Repub chairperson, local conservative talk radio host, and a multitude of others finally shouted him down enough to withdraw the suit.

He's burned a LOT of political capital. So, I don't know if he'll be a deer in the headlights, an Ostrich, or somehow become a semi-intelligent person, again.

 

[scream4ever]

I personally spoke to Joseph Addabbo's assistant, and she told me that his entire staff was genuinly shocked he voted against the marriage equality bill. He likely does support it, but he knew that since it wasn't going to pass that it wouldn't be worth the risk, especially considering his district was previously held by a Republican.

 

[metta]

Hawaii Senate passes civil unions bill

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/114803379.html

 

[metta]

Obama Walks Marriage Tightrope

As DOMA opponents argue the law unfairly targets a specific class, the question of whether gay people are indeed a stigmatized class and can choose to change their minority status (i.e. their orientation) may be a sticking point in the cases. The Obama administration certainly doesn't want to find itself arguing those points in its defense.

According to unnamed sources, the Justice Department is currently wrestling with how to handle the cases; they're required to respond to them by March 11. DOMA has already been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts, and an appeal is pending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/advocate/20110129/ts_advocate/obama_walks_marriage_tightrope


Full Story Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/us/politics/29marriage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

 

[Kulindahr]

The article says things may hinge on whether gays can choose to change their orientation. That should be irrelevant: religious groups are protected, and they're entirely voluntary; 'race' is protected, and it isn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

?
Which "they"?

 

[Kulindahr]

It comes down that way, yes, but the point is that whether one is a member of something by choice or not is already irrelevant for rights being protected. Those two sorts of classes are already treated as one.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not irrelevant.

Equal protection gives more consideration to immutable characteristics, whereas the establishment clause is targeted at religion specifically.

And that's irrelevant -- current law treats them the same: "race, religion, color, or creed" has been enshrined as the "can't discriminate" phrase for a long time now. In terms of protection, they're equal.