LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

[Combustible Lemur]

...the harm their beliefs cause to others....
...flaws in their genes....
...spoonfed beliefs by their elders....
...inherent intellectual weaknesses....

Heh. Truth will out, even when it comes to cryptofascist models of thoughtcrime.

That's a little bit of selective definition isn't it? Vitriol analogy aside.


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[Daehawk]

I used to enjoy checking this thread....now it just gives me a headache.

[Smoove_B]

Breaking news in NJ -- as of 10/21 "same-sex couples can marry just as straight couples"....

[stessier]

Too lazy this afternoon - why do they have to wait a month?

[El Guapo]

Nice! About time. Good place for it to happen too as the state supports it - would already be law but for a Christie veto.

[Smoove_B]

Too lazy this afternoon - why do they have to wait a month?

I'm not sure. But the article is up now:

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson granted an emergency request by six gay couples, ordering state officials to begin officiating same-sex marriages on Oct. 21.

Gov. Chris Christie's administration had argued that the matter was out of New Jersey's hands since the only pressing questions were over federal, not state, benefits.

Jacobson's ruling represents a victory for gay-rights advocates, although the decision is expected to be appealed: first to an intermediate court, and then to the state Supreme Court.

Perhaps the 3 week wait is related to the expected appeal?

[hepcat]

Breaking news in NJ -- as of 10/21 "same-sex couples can marry just as straight couples"....

so...badly?

[LawBeefaroni]

Breaking news in NJ -- as of 10/21 "same-sex couples can marry just as straight couples"....

so...badly?

And hopefully it also includes chucking $20K into the local service and hospitality economy each time.

[ImLawBoy]

Too lazy this afternoon - why do they have to wait a month?

Do you want to plan a wedding in less than a month?

[LawBeefaroni]

Too lazy this afternoon - why do they have to wait a month?

Do you want to plan a wedding in less than a month?

Well, it was "an emergency request by six gay couples." That's the last twelve people I'd want to say, "Yeah, why don't you all just hold your horses for a month or so..." to.

[Holman]

President George H.W. Bush is Witness at Same-Sex Wedding

Think yourself back to 1988 and ask if you thought you would ever see this headline.

[Kraken]

Breaking news in NJ -- as of 10/21 "same-sex couples can marry just as straight couples"....

so...badly?

It's a misquote. They actually said "...can marry straight couples." That's going to shake things up.

[Pyperkub]

And the first Same-Sex Couple in Oklahoma has wed (in a rather clever fashion):

It is the first of its kind in Oklahoma, a legal same-sex marriage in a state that doesn’t even recognize it....

...Twenty dollars for what no amount of money could buy in Oklahoma -- a marriage license made legal by the tribal code. Its requirements, both people be of Native American descent and live within the tribe's jurisdiction. Nowhere does it specify gender.

“I do know at the end of the day the state offices won't recognize it, but they kind of have to,” said Pickel.

That's because on sovereign Indian land, state laws don't apply, making Jason and Darren the first publicly married same-sex couple in Oklahoma, a milestone, he hopes is followed.

Congratulations!

[theohall]

Do referendums by the people matter?

According to the left they do when it comes to legalizing marijuana, but not when it comes to same sex marriage. Which is it? Do referendums matter or don't they?

CO and WA... the left defends legalizing MJ as the people's referendum.

In CA, the people had a referendum denying the legalization of same sex marriage. Why isn't the left supporting that referendum??

If it's the people's will, it's the people's will. You don't get to pick and choose what is the people's will according to your particular political bias.

[geezer]

Do referendums by the people matter?

According to the left they do when it comes to legalizing marijuana, but not when it comes to same sex marriage. Which is it? Do referendums matter or don't they?

CO and WA... the left defends legalizing MJ as the people's referendum.

In CA, the people had a referendum denying the legalization of same sex marriage. Why isn't the left supporting that referendum??

If it's the people's will, it's the people's will. You don't get to pick and choose what is the people's will according to your particular political bias.

Regardless of political belief, the difference is one of inclusion vs exclusion, or perhaps expansion of freedom vs restriction of it. Allowing a majority to decide that everyone should have an affirmative right to do something if they so choose is an entirely different matter from a majority imposing arbitrary restrictions on a minority.

[Zarathud]

If it's the people's will, it's the people's will. You don't get to pick and choose what is the people's will according to your particular political bias.

Unless you build restrictions on the people's will denying will to others, like the Founding Fathers.

Marriage is a fundamental building block of society, but smoking dope isn't.

[Fireball]

Do referendums by the people matter?

Not when it comes to fundamental issues of equality under the law. If you'd had a referendum on civil rights in Mississippi in 1965, how would that have gone? Does the fact that a supermajority of Mississippians would have voted to deny blacks the right to vote, to attend the same schools as whites, to use the same water fountains, to not be allowed to marry white people, mean that those prohibitions shouldn't have been struck down?

According to the left they do when it comes to legalizing marijuana, but not when it comes to same sex marriage. Which is it? Do referendums matter or don't they?

Referendums are stupid. I'd like to not have them, ever. Direct democracy is impossible in polities as large as we have in the United States.

Why do you keep presuming that you can declare what "the left" thinks?

If it's the people's will, it's the people's will. You don't get to pick and choose what is the people's will according to your particular political bias.

A majority of the people, no matter how large, do not have the right to deny equality under the law to a minority group, unless they're able to write that nonsense into the United State Constitution itself. Good luck with that.

[RunningMn9]

I love how people keep trying to rationally engage.

[geezer]

Hope and change springs eternal....

[silverjon]

I love how people keep trying to rationally engage.

At least Theo doesn't tend to make it personally vicious.


...
reserved

[Isgrimnur]

Hawaii to become #16 shortly.

[LawBeefaroni]

Hawaii to become #16 shortly.

Oddly enough, #15. Abercrombie is signing it today, Quinn isn't signing until next week (the 20th I think). So while it passed in Illinois first, Hawaii will sign it into law first. Dumb, annoying Hawaii.

[Vorret]

Hawaii to become #16 shortly.

Oddly enough, #15. Abercrombie is signing it today, Quinn isn't signing until next week (the 20th I think). So while it passed in Illinois first, Hawaii will sign it into law first. Dumb, annoying Hawaii.

Law, next post will put you at 33333

[El Guapo]

Hawaii to become #16 shortly.

Oddly enough, #15. Abercrombie is signing it today, Quinn isn't signing until next week (the 20th I think). So while it passed in Illinois first, Hawaii will sign it into law first. Dumb, annoying Hawaii.

Law, next post will put you at 33333

So think VERY CAREFULLY about what that post will be. We are all watching!

[Blackhawk]

Awesome!

I predict that Indiana will come in at #53.

[El Guapo]

Awesome!

I predict that Indiana will come in at #53.

Neck and neck with Alabama, no doubt.

[Isgrimnur]

I put Texas at #51. Right below Puerto Rico.

[El Guapo]

Actually in reality Indiana / Alabama etc. will probably all be tied at # 35 - #50 when the Supreme Court eventually holds that gay people have a constitutional right to marriage.

[noxiousdog]

I put Texas at #51. Right below Puerto Rico.

Unlikely

[Smoove_B]

My own guess would be in a state where people kill trees over college football.

[Fireball]

Actually in reality Indiana / Alabama etc. will probably all be tied at # 35 - #50 when the Supreme Court eventually holds that gay people have a constitutional right to marriage.

We won't get to 35 before a SCOTUS ruling. At most, there are legislative paths to marriage equality in *maybe* two or three more states. And that's a huge maybe. After state 17 or 18, it's all up to SCOTUS.

[El Guapo]

Actually in reality Indiana / Alabama etc. will probably all be tied at # 35 - #50 when the Supreme Court eventually holds that gay people have a constitutional right to marriage.

We won't get to 35 before a SCOTUS ruling. At most, there are legislative paths to marriage equality in *maybe* two or three more states. And that's a huge maybe. After state 17 or 18, it's all up to SCOTUS.

I was mostly picking a number out of a hat. But I would think that the SCOTUS would want to wait until a majority of states have legalized gay marriage.

Also, I suppose you would know better than me, but you really think the cap is at 17 or 18? I don't doubt it now, but I would think a few years from now a few more states at least will have shifted to where legalized gay marriage becomes possible (via the legislature, initiative, or state supreme court ruling).

[Isgrimnur]

I put Texas at #51. Right below Puerto Rico.

Unlikely

The idea was that it would have to be drug kicking and screaming into a change. The minority populations that seem to gravitate toward Democratic candidates to support their interests still tend to be socially conservative. I have no doubt that it's going to require a federal decision to get Texas to shift. And even then, it's going to be disruptive and possibly violent.

[Fireball]

Also, I suppose you would know better than me, but you really think the cap is at 17 or 18?

The following states have gay marriage today: California, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

These states will have it within days: Hawaii and Illinois.

That's 16 states.

One state is up in the air: New Mexico.

That's, potentially, 17 states.

One other state is in the process of repealing a we-hate-gays amendment to legalize marriage: Oregon.

Let's call that 18.

Which leaves 32 states. Of those thirty two, the following four have anti-equality laws, but not state-level constitutional bans: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Wyoming. These states also have gerrymandered Republican state legislative majorities, so no equality is coming to these states anytime in the near future.

Eight more states ban gay marriage in their constitutions, which would be very difficult to change: Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee and Mississippi. The two states most likely to work their way to being pro-equality in that bunch are Colorado and Nevada, but they both have civil union laws that decrease the pressure for progress.

The rest of the states have constitutional amendments banning both marriage *and* civil unions: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida. The processes for amending these constitutions are daunting, and unlikely to be met in a low-turnout constitutional amendment election, even if these states' legislatures weren't dominated by gay hating Republicans, which most are.

Even after the states' population turns pro-majority, the state of play on marriage equality will doom gay citizens in between 28 and 32 states to, likely, decades of second-class citizenship, absent a SCOTUS ruling declaring that, yes, gay people are actually people and deserve equality under the law.

[Fireball]

The minority populations that seem to gravitate toward Democratic candidates to support their interests still tend to be socially conservative.

That's not entirely true. While generally more religious, and more likely to be conservative compared to their white co-partisans, minorities who are Democrats are considerably more liberal on questions like gay marriage than white Republicans, who are more liberal, generally, than non-white Republicans.

[Freezer-TPF-]

It's not a state, of course, but don't forget DC.

[Isgrimnur]

It's not a state, of course, but don't forget DC.

Available since March 2010.

[El Guapo]

Also, I suppose you would know better than me, but you really think the cap is at 17 or 18?

The following states have gay marriage today: California, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

These states will have it within days: Hawaii and Illinois.

That's 16 states.

One state is up in the air: New Mexico.

That's, potentially, 17 states.

One other state is in the process of repealing a we-hate-gays amendment to legalize marriage: Oregon.

Let's call that 18.

Which leaves 32 states. Of those thirty two, the following four have anti-equality laws, but not state-level constitutional bans: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Wyoming. These states also have gerrymandered Republican state legislative majorities, so no equality is coming to these states anytime in the near future.

Eight more states ban gay marriage in their constitutions, which would be very difficult to change: Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee and Mississippi. The two states most likely to work their way to being pro-equality in that bunch are Colorado and Nevada, but they both have civil union laws that decrease the pressure for progress.

The rest of the states have constitutional amendments banning both marriage *and* civil unions: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida. The processes for amending these constitutions are daunting, and unlikely to be met in a low-turnout constitutional amendment election, even if these states' legislatures weren't dominated by gay hating Republicans, which most are.

Even after the states' population turns pro-majority, the state of play on marriage equality will doom gay citizens in between 28 and 32 states to, likely, decades of second-class citizenship, absent a SCOTUS ruling declaring that, yes, gay people are actually people and deserve equality under the law.

Even absent a SCOTUS ruling, I would be shocked if we're only at 18 states decades from now. In terms of the four states you mention with laws but no constitutional amendment, I would wager that at least one will see a pro gay marriage state supreme court ruling. Most likely to have that happen would be Pennsylvania, I think, especially since their AG is not defending the anti-gay marriage law. The other three in that group are more daunting as their populations are (I imagine) more hostile to gay marriage, but given the judicial trend I wouldn't be shocked to see at least one more favorable ruling out of those states.

As for the other states, it's admittedly hard for me to assess their chances as I don't know exactly how difficult it is to amend their respective constitutions. My sense from when the anti-gay marriage amendments were being enacted is that generally it's via a popular initiative which would likely be increasingly doable in at least a few states (VA just voted in a pro gay marriage governor). But I don't really know the details - for any states where the amendments have to go through the legislature, that's probably problematic.

The other key piece of information that I do not know is the extent to which courts in those states could overturn anti-gay marriage amendments as unconstitutional. That's what happened in California, although that was a somewhat unusual circumstance given that the CA amendment took away already legalized gay marriage. Still, it's a potential avenue for challenge.

And broadly, you take states like Virginia where a majority of voters favor gay marriage, and where the governor favors gay marriage. Even if the Virginia legislature is a bunch of trogolodytes, as long as legal challengers can provide at least a plausible legal challenge a court's not going to be crazy about ruling against gay marriage.

Not to say that it's all easy, but as support for gay marriage continues to rise it seems doable, via whatever patchwork methods, to get up to 26 states. My estimate is that absent a SCOTUS or congressional intervention in the meantime we would get there within 10 years or so.

Of course, it's a open question as to how long the Supreme Court can plausibly delay ruling on gay marriage.

[Fireball]

So here are the 27 states that ban gay marriage constitutionally: Alabama Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia. How hard would it be to repeal those bans in each state?

Here are the states that allow voters to by petition put a Constitutional amendment up for a vote: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and South Dakota. That's 13 of our 27. However, does anyone really think such an amendment would have a prayer in Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, or South Dakota? Most of the others are pretty iffy, as well.

In Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota, the state legislature can put an amendment on the ballot with a majority vote in one session.

In Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina and Ohio, the state legislature can put an amendment on the ballot with a 60% supermajority vote.

In Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina (but it must be passed by this margin twice -- once before the ballot vote, and once after), Texas and Utah, the state legislature can put an amendment on the ballot with a 67% supermajority vote.

In Nevada, Tennessee and Virginia the amendment would have to pass in two successive sessions -- by supermajority the second time in Tennessee, and by majorities both times in the other states.

Those are some pretty steep hills to climb, particularly in Nevada, Tennessee and my commonwealth, Virginia.

[Fireball]

Regarding state courts, in all but a couple of states, courts are completely bound by the state constitution. By its very nature, a part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. If two parts disagree, then the newer part takes precedence. California, Michigan, and Colorado have limited circumstances where new parts of the constitution can be struck down for violating "core" components of the original document.

Federal courts, of course, are in no way bound to state constitutions.