What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[T-Rexx]

I'm going to disagree in a "re-vote" some of those states would be willing to repeal their own mini-DOMAs.

What states would you include as probably willing to repeal their anti-equality laws?

Polling in my state, Ohio, shows gay marriage would still go solidly down to defeat if it were put up for a vote today.

In Michigan, it is 47% in favor of equality, 46% opposed. But that margin is within error, and it is well to remember that the people who support gay marriage are also the people who don't vote. Also, support for marriage equality may curiously be dropping in Michigan.

It is hard to tell whether Indiana supports marriage equality or not. What polling has been done there has asked whether people support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which Indianans do not. But that's not exactly the same as supporting gay marriage. Indiana is overwhelmingly Republican, and every year both houses of the legislature vote to ban gay marriage. So I am doubtful that any progress can be made there.

A solid majority of Wisconsonites appear to support marriage equality. Yet, the state constitutionally bans gay marriage and there is no attempt underway there to overturn that ban. When Democrat Mary Burke tried to make it an issue during the gubernatorial race in November, nobody supported that idea, and she went down to defeat against Scott Walker, who opposes marriage equality.

It's probably safe to say that virtually all of the south and the non-coastal west still oppose marriage equality.

Etc., etc., etc.

My gut impression is that support for marriage equality has pateaued. While I would like to think that straights would increasingly rally to our support, I suspect that whatever relief we see in the next several years is likely to come from the courts.

 

[Ninja108]

At least a dozen states with both a DOMA amendment still on the books and initiated amendments have a clear majority in favor of repeal, so it would be relatively straightforward to do that in 2016 if it were really needed.

I don't trust polls a lot of times, especially when it comes to our rights.

 

[Alnitak]

I don't trust polls a lot of times, especially when it comes to our rights.

Isn't it amazing how well they performed in 2012?

 

[Teddybear71]

If SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage, is there anything stopping the individual states from enacting other laws to prohibit marriage rights? I'm hoping there is, but knowing those redneck conservatives, they will never give up the fight...

 

[TX-Beau]

If SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage, is there anything stopping the individual states from enacting other laws to prohibit marriage rights? I'm hoping there is, but knowing those redneck conservatives, they will never give up the fight...

States can pass any law they can get through their statehouse, but such laws must still be Constitutional to be valid. Supremacy clause.

What you are describing we've covered in here before, there's a term for it that escapes me just now, but an example of this was when the Alabama Governor decided not to desegregate in violation of the S.C.

That didn't work out too well for Alabama. NULLIFICATION - the idea that the Sate supersedes the Fed on internal matters. State's Rights extremism basically. That's the term I was looking for, despite a long and vociferous history of people asserting it, it's never been successfully employed.

 

[Kulindahr]

If SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage, is there anything stopping the individual states from enacting other laws to prohibit marriage rights? I'm hoping there is, but knowing those redneck conservatives, they will never give up the fight...

They won't be able to do anything that will touch on any of the benefits and privileges of marriage under federal law, and they won't be able to make any differences between kinds of marriage in their state laws. There's not a lot of wiggling room in anything else these days except small businesses owned by people with religious beliefs against gays.

Were I a billionaire, I think this would be a fun time to start a series of "Goldwater Shoppes", which would set up in competition to any of those businesses that can get away with discrimination against gays on religious grounds, as physically close to them as possible, and priced to drive the bigots out of business unless they're family-owned and honestly post their objections right out front, not hide them -- use the market to eliminate any companies that discriminate that aren't family-owned (and run).

 

[Kulindahr]

States can pass any law they can get through their statehouse, but such laws must still be Constitutional to be valid. Supremacy clause.

What you are describing we've covered in here before, there's a term for it that escapes me just now, but an example of this was when the Alabama Governor decided not to desegregate in violation of the S.C.

That didn't work out too well for Alabama. NULLIFICATION - the idea that the Sate supersedes the Fed on internal matters. State's Rights extremism basically. That's the term I was looking for, despite a long and vociferous history of people asserting it, it's never been successfully employed.

Nullification should work on any subject that doesn't pertain to individual rights.

I'd make an argument that the federal government can step in and trump any state laws on rights under the clause in the constitution requiring that the federal government ensure that each state has a republican form of government, because a basic principle of a republican form of government is equal rights before the law for everyone.

Of course I don't think it's legitimate for the federal government to have any other kinds of laws in the first place; the rest should belong to the states.

 

[smokeshadow]

But then you have idiots like this one from Oklahoma that is trying to make all marriages a "religious" ceremony presided by a "religious personage"

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ll_eliminating_marriage_licenses_passes_house

 

[White Eagle]

Hey guy! I've misses y'all. Sorry I need to go back and read the thread!

 

[White Eagle]

But all I need to do is drive up a couple of hundred of miles, start a church and tell all the gays I'll marry them. How stupid are any GOPpers?

 

[smokeshadow]

Democratic Oklahoma State Representative Emily Virgin has sorta thrown a wrench in the conservatives "religious discrimination" bill

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...m_bill_would_make_anyone_using_it_post_a_sign

 

[Kulindahr]

Democratic Oklahoma State Representative Emily Virgin has sorta thrown a wrench in the conservatives "religious discrimination" bill

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...m_bill_would_make_anyone_using_it_post_a_sign

A lawmaker with common sense!

 

[T-Rexx]

I will put this here, since this thread is where the discussion of Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore has taken place.

It is just an aside.

Caleb Moore, son of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, has been busted for possession of marijuana and Xanax.

Caleb says his arrest was just the "media," "crooked cops," and "critics of my dad" trying to attack his father for "what he stands for." The latter being hatred of gays, of course. Caleb has supported his father's homophobia with posts on Facebook.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-justice-roy-moores-son-blames-drug-bust-on-media/

 

[DonQuixote]

Meanwhile, on the Scottish American front:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/u....html?emc=edit_na_20150317&nlid=69570904&_r=0

The Presbyterian Church USA has changed their church charter to embrace all loving marriages.

 

[Kulindahr]

I discovered yesterday that the leadership of a church here is seriously preparing for lawsuits they're certain will come for them not doing gay weddings once the Supreme Court rules in June.

Where do people get these ideas? My bet is that if someone did sue a church and it got to SCOTUS, the vote would be 9 - 0 saying churches can do as they please.

 

[TX-Beau]

I discovered yesterday that the leadership of a church here is seriously preparing for lawsuits they're certain will come for them not doing gay weddings once the Supreme Court rules in June.

Where do people get these ideas? My bet is that if someone did sue a church and it got to SCOTUS, the vote would be 9 - 0 saying churches can do as they please.

The Baptists hereabouts are all a twitter about the same thing. I wonder if there has been a memo on planet Conservabot.

 

[DonQuixote]

That's been the gist of legislation since day one.

 

[smokeshadow]

are these idiots certifiable? http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/03/idaho-house-votes-to-impeach-any-judge.html#disqus_thread Or did they just not pass a simple, Jr. High School civics class?

 

[bankside]

I discovered yesterday that the leadership of a church here is seriously preparing for lawsuits they're certain will come for them not doing gay weddings once the Supreme Court rules in June.

Where do people get these ideas? My bet is that if someone did sue a church and it got to SCOTUS, the vote would be 9 - 0 saying churches can do as they please.

Lots of people have no understanding of the law.

Next they will panic about the government making them do a bris for any jews who might happen to ask. Or the government forcing them to travel overseas to conduct cremations at the side of the ganges.

The things the government makes those poor christians do!

 

[Ninja108]

I discovered yesterday that the leadership of a church here is seriously preparing for lawsuits they're certain will come for them not doing gay weddings once the Supreme Court rules in June.

Where do people get these ideas? My bet is that if someone did sue a church and it got to SCOTUS, the vote would be 9 - 0 saying churches can do as they please.

That was the fear of bigots in NY and surprise suprise, it hasn't happened here nor will it happen anywhere else, as chuchres DO have a right to marry whomever they want and refuse whoever they want.