Skip to main content

We had some great victories for marriage equality this November, with three states voting to legalize it and a fourth voting down a constitutional ban. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is likely to hear a case on marriage equality in the next couple of years. However, we shouldn't give up the fight for equality on the state level. To this end, I did an analysis of the path to legalization in every state Obama won this year, and divided them into three categories below the fold.

Top Targets represent our best chances for legalization and are places where we should push for legalization in the next couple of years. Reach Targets are places where legalization is very possible within the decade, but there are nevertheless substantial barriers to passage. Long Term Targets are places where there are institutional barriers to passage that are unfortunately probably insurmountable before 2020 without a Supreme Court ruling, although the way public opinion has been going on this issue, who knows.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Top Targets:

Illinois: Illinois just passed civil unions last year, and Democrats just picked up supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature. Furthermore, Gov. Pat Quinn is supportive. This should easily be a top target for equality proponents this year. The biggest potential obstacle is probably house speaker Mike Madigan.

Oregon: Oregon has a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, but also has a provision for signature-referred constitutional amendments and a pretty liberal electorate, not to mention a Democratic legislature and governor. Their neighbors to the north just passed marriage equality.

Michigan: Similar situation to Oregon, blue-leaning state and there's a constitutional ban, but we can put up constitutional amendments with signatures. Michigan is probably slightly less socially liberal than Oregon, though, and they have a Republican secretary of state, which could be a problem if she wanted to mess with the ballot language.

Colorado: Same as Michigan and Oregon, there's a constitutional ban, but a provision for signature-referred constitutional amendments. Colorado has a Republican secretary of state that is particularly hackish, but is probably more socially libertarian than Michigan. We'll at the very least get civil unions, since Democrats tried to pass it last year but were thwarted when the Republican house speaker refused to bring it to the floor. The incoming Democratic House speaker is openly gay, and Democrats now have both chambers and the governorship.

Nevada: Similar situation to Colorado. Constitutional ban, but signature referred amendments. They already have civil unions. They do have a Democratic secretary of state.

Delaware: Democratic state with strong Democratic legislative majorities and a supportive Democratic governor who has supported taking up marriage equality next year. The arithmetic's relatively simple.

California: I realize the Prop 8 trial is still pending, but we don't need to wait for a Supreme Court that may or may not come down on their side to give California's same-sex couples the security and respect they deserve.

Hawaii: Hawaii just passed civil unions and has a supportive governor. There's been some opposition from old school conservadems in the legislature (in Hawaii, pretty much everyone runs as a Democrat because the Republican party is a joke), but there's been enough turnover in recent years that it should be doable with a push. Hawaii has no provision for signature referred initiatives, so this would have to go through the legislature. (h/t to former Hawaii resident Skaje for his take on the Hawaii legislature).

Reach Targets:

Minnesota: The fundamentals would seem to be good here: We just turned back an attempted constitutional ban, have a supportive governor, and just took over the legislature. However, a lot of the Democrats are from areas that voted for the ban and all referendums are legislatively referred, so passage will be hard. There's a good chance we can get civil unions, though.

Rohde Island: This one should be a cakewalk on paper, with a supportive governor, Democratic legislative supermajoirites and a widely supportive public. However, there are a lot of powerful bigots in the state senate blocking equality. We tried to primary a bunch of them this year, but despite a lot of close calls, we were only successful against one or two, unfortunately.

New Mexico: New Mexico has Republican governor, but it has a Democratic legislature, and legislatively referred referrenda, so there is definitely a path to passage here. I'm not familiar enough with the internal dynamics of the the New Mexico legislature to know just how likely it is to pass the legislature, and the statewide vote would be a battle (although a very winnable), but there's definitely a path to the ballot box. If we can't get marriage equality, we can probably get civil unions.

New Jersey: The biggest obstacle here is Chris Christie. There's a good chance that he's running for president in 2016, so he wouldn't want to sign marriage equality. If we beat him in 2013, we can probably get it, if we don't, we probably can't until he's gone.

Ohio: Ohio has signature referred constitutional amendments, but I'm not at all convinced the Ohio electorate would pass such a referendum yet. Also, they have a Republican Secretary of State who's shown he's very willing to use ballot language to kill measures he doesn't like, like the independent redistricting commission. Still, it's worth a shot.

Long Term Targets:

Virginia: Virginia is bluing, but they have a constitutional ban and no provision for signature-referred amendments. Furthermore, they have a pretty nasty Republican gerrymander in the state assembly and state elections in odd numbered years, which makes our hopes of taking back the Virginia legislature this decade somewhat dim.

Pennsylvania: Strong Republican legislative gerrymanders, no provision for signature-referred initiatives.

Wisconsin: This one pains me as a Wisconsinite, but we have a constitutional ban, a strong Republican state assembly gerrymander, and any constitutional amendment requires us to hold both chambers of the legislature for two consecutive sessions.

Florida: Florida a constitutional ban, and while they do have signature referred constitutional amendments, they require a 60 percent supermajority of voters to pass, which is probably too high a hurdle for this decade.

Well, there you have it. Hope you guys enjoyed, and let's go win some of these!

Originally posted to BeloitDem on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:17 PM PST.

Also republished by Land of Lincoln Kos, Kossacks for Marriage Equality, Anglican Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

Poll

Which state is most like to legalize marriage equality by 2014?

15%996 votes
18%1196 votes
1%80 votes
7%468 votes
1%109 votes
9%609 votes
42%2724 votes
2%145 votes

| 6335 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The situation in Maine has me wondering (7+ / 0-)

    Is it possible that the electorate has significantly changed in 3 years since Maine rescinded its legislative granting of same-sex marriage, or is there something else in play?  

    Perhaps what we've seen is that citizens are more open to approving same-sex marriage if the manner is brought to them (via initiative) rather than delivered at the hands of the courts or legislative bodies.

    Certainly in California and Oregon there was a backlash against the manner in which the issue was handled. Given that the votes were so close, its fairly reasonable to assume that each state has a pretty good chance of passing same-sex marriage by initiative.

  •  New Jersey (15+ / 0-)

    In New Jersey, the battle is currently to find enough signatures to overturn Governor Christie's veto of a same-sex marriage bill earlier this year. The legislature has the rest of the session -- until January 2014 -- to find those votes.

    •  Christie likely reelected - approval now 67% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      After storm Sandy, Christie's approval has skyrocketed making his reelection this year much more likely.  Recent poll has his approval at 67%.  A governor with a 67% approval rating is not likely to lose reelection against a relative nobody from the other party.

  •  California (12+ / 0-)

    The USSC is going to rule on the Prop 8 case long before any ballot measure overturning Prop 8 could be arranged and voted upon.

    •  They are free to stall. What's more, if we're (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      pre-positioned to cram it down Alito's throat after the USSC comes down on the wrong side of history, so much the better.

      "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

      by JesseCW on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:36:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  even if they overturn prop 8 (6+ / 0-)

      we should wipe the state constitution clean by a public vote, IMO. same as confederate states finally removing the old jim crow and miscegenation laws from the books. we need to restore our good name.

      •  That can be put on the ballot by the CA leg, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, MichaelNY, madhaus

        though, right? Which may be entirely possible given the dem majority there (if it still exists then). It would sure be a lot cheaper and time efficient.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have heard that SCOTUS may announce whether (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      it takes the case on the 30th?

      And I agree, if declared unconstitutional, that should be it. (Or if the court lets stand lower court ruling.)

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 10:24:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I bet they punt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cany, MichaelNY

        The ruling is so narrow there's no need to take the case.  Instead, I bet they tackle all the DOMA cases.

        They can stall on marriage until they get conflicting rulings, but the Prop 8 case doesn't conflict with anything else.  The ruling says it was unconstitutional to take away a right the state had already granted.  Doesn't say anything about other states taking away rights that weren't acknowledged in the first place.

        That said, it would be great if they just ruled it's legal across the whole country, but I suspect they aren't there yet.  I don't see Roberts as a swing vote, either.  It's Kennedy.  Look at his opinion on Romer v Evans, which was pretty similar (state law taking away rights found unconstituional) and Lawrence v Texas (overturning sodomy laws).  Kennedy authored both rulings.

        If Roberts is worried about being on the wrong side of these rulings in the future then he'll also vote for equality, leaving the 3 cranks to find nonsensical reasons to oppose (Scalia, Alito, and Thomas).

    •  SupCT members will meet by Nov 30 to discuss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      what Sup Ct will do with Calif Prop 8 appeal and appeals of 1st and 2nd Circuit rulings overturning parts of DOMA.  We could know soon. I'm hoping the Court will decline to review the appeal of Prop 8 since its effect is limited to California.  If that happens wedding ceremonies could take place within days, in 2012.  That could be important for tax purposes, both Calif state income tax and eventually US federal income taxes.

  •  Minnesota (10+ / 0-)

    The chances in Minnesota remain debatable, but they're certainly better than in Michigan. Minnesota has a Democratic Governor who supports marriage equality, after all.

    •  What the MI Governor or Legislature think (3+ / 0-)

      is irreverent, because in Michigan, we can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot with just signatures. In Minnesota, you need a majority in both houses of the legislature, which is the main obstacle. In fact, if we had the votes in the legislature, we could do it without a referendum, because there's no constitutional ban. It's potentially possible, but would be difficult.

      I'm more optimistic that we can get civil unions in Minnesota in the near future.

      •  I don't think snyder would oppose it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        He's shown a distaste for social issues, to the discomfiture of the legislature. They're just not that important to him. However, I still don't expect movement on it.  Our history of progressive initiatives and amendments has been abysmal.  

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:05:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dougymi

          that last sentence is very true.

          I don't understand why people seem to think there's a good chance of the public in this state voting to overrule the constitutional ban when they were the ones who instated it in the first place.

          Yes, electorates change, but I would argue that, at least from what I've seen, Michigan is becoming more conservative.

      •  Why speak of referendum? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cailloux

        The only thi g tha goes to referendum in Minnesota (apart from local tax and charter questions) is for a constitutional amendment. As we just turned back a constitutional ban there is no need for a constitutional amendment to get marriage equality. A majority in the state legislature is needed either to pass a law or propose and amendment. There is simply no need to proceed with another amendment. It would serve no purpose and create political headaches. Why would you even speak of referendums here?

        I understand the potential political difficulty that DFLers from rural districts might have in voting for marriage equality, even if they support it personally. But I think it not as unlikely as you intimate. At least some major players are definitely talking about the topic as one that will be considered and strategized about, even if doesn't move this session. I haven't heard any of them speak of civil unions to date, but I may have missed it. Never the less, I think Minnesota more likely to happen before some of the states listed as top targets, and should be considered a top target rather than a "reach" because I don't think it is that much of a reach in actuality.

        •  I wasn't talking about a referendum for MN (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I was talking about a referendum for MI and specifically noting we didn't need one for MN.

          •  Minnesota should still be among top targets (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, you're quick switch to Minnesota after only a single sentence about constitutional amendment in Michigan seemed as though the subject was still constitutional amendments with only the state changing.

            Nevertheless, Minnesota should still be in the top targets category. It really is no more if a reach, and probably less so, than a number of your top pick states. This year, even with some open questions concerning its prospects, is probably Minnesotas best chance for many years to come.  The time is right to at least work on it, not to back away and wait or regard it as a second tier possibility.

      •  Civil Unions are a maybe (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Minnesota Mike, MichaelNY

        I am not holding my breath, but it is a distinct possibility if the suburban Republicans in Hennepin and Washington Counties get on board.

    •  There's a SignOn Petition for MN Equality (4+ / 0-)
    •  And a Democratic majority in the legislature (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, cailloux, mchristi314

      There is pressure for marriage equality in Minnesota, but there's some reluctance to take it on, even after the amendment banning same-sex marriage was voted down.

      The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

      by A Citizen on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:52:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  MN born and raised. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I am not sure it is time to take this on in MN.  I would love to say it is, but I know a lot of republicans that voted no, because they didn't think it should be part of the constitution, and because some of them were just so damn mad at the republicans this year, after what the republican party did in that state once they had control of the state senate and house.  Right now many of them have split from family, social groups and churches.  I am just not sure.  

        I did find it somewhat odd that the youngest and oldest (in my small group) were most likely to vote no, no matter what their party affiliation was. The youngest didn't surprise me but with the plus sixty crowd I was surprised.  When I asked them about it was to them a civil rights issue.  I also think the older crowd is more DFL than the 30-60 year old crowd is.  I guess that could make a difference.

        •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, WineRev

          I'm also from MN and I know a lot of people who usually vote republican who voted "no" on the amendment on the basis that they don't like the constitution to be messed with. I also don't think, however, that these same people would vote for gay marriage if given the chance.

          I'd love for it to pass, but I think there'd be a backlash against the state DFL if the first thing they do is pass gay marriage.  Honestly, I'd rather they wait a bit and see how the DOMA and Prop 8 challenges shape up, or at least just enough to get people more used to the idea.  Defeating the marriage amendment was a huge victory so I don't want to push our luck by misinterpetting that victory and overplaying our hand.

          I do think civil unions is doable, though, as that has pretty large support across party lines.  And I actually do think that gay marriage will be legal within MN within this decade in one way or another, just not right now.

          •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

            Thank you for explaining it better then I could.  

          •  You really think process arguments (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mchristi314

            carry the day? I am having trouble believing there are people who believe in marriage equality but balk at putting it in their state constitution. That seems like a flimsy excuse for a homophobe who is actually opposed to same-sex marriage.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This ammendment went against MN nice. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neon Mama, evilstorm, MichaelNY

              That is as plain as I can say it. I find it difficult to explain to people from other states just what that means. People laugh when I say MN nice, but there is a strong core of that in MN.  MN went democratic the election after the southern strategy was launched by the republicans. This is a state that competed with Mass. for decades on the best education, medical and social services fields. I don't know if you can understand just how angry many MN people were about this amendment, many of them were forced to think about for the first time. They came down on the right side but, many are still processing the idea, especially in the mid and northern part of the state. In two to four years this will pass, but if the DFL puts it through as a legislative action, the Democrats will probably lose the state houses, and Al Franken will have a tougher re-election in 2014.

              •  I get what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mchristi314

                You're explaining why Minnesotans were against an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That's not my question. My question is whether process arguments are ever the reason people vote against marriage equality.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:28:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Minnesota would be one of the few states (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              where process arguments definitely can work.  The last ad from the Vote No on Photo ID was former Governor Carlson and current Gov Dayton saying that the GOP in the legislature f'd it up and gave them a piss poor bill so we should send it back to the legislature so they can do it correctly.  Shit you not, that was the entire message of the ad.  Not once did they say why Photo ID is discriminatory, it'll keep people from voting, just send it back so the state legislature can do it correctly.

          •  I don't agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, mchristi314

            PPP's final poll of MN got really close to nailing the final amendment results.

            They asked a follow up question as well, "Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?"

            49% said they think it should be legal.

            I think this legislative session is the best time to do it. It doesn't have to be the first thing they do, but it should definitely happen this session.

            http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...

            •  2013 is the best time in MN for Marriage Equality (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TonyAngelo, MichaelNY, mchristi314

              Why wait?  The infrastructure of MNUnited.org, the primary group that campaigned for the "No" vote, can be mobilized for a "Yes" campaign with the legislature.
              More importantly, if marriage equality is adopted in 2013, with a specified effective date of, say, June 1 (or by default August 1), it will be apparent by fall 2014 that the sky has not fallen. Give people a year and more to get used to it, and state legislators won't pay a price at the 2014 ballot box.  Any who do pay a price will have done so to advance "liberty and justice for all."

        •  For us old geezers, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, ancblu, mchristi314

          marriage equality is the latest in the civil right struggle. In the 60's there was strong support in MN for civil rights. The marriage equality struggle brings back those memories. The basic beliefs are still there.

    •  Minnesota (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minnesota Mike, MichaelNY

      It won't happen, as it flat out does not have the votes in the legislature. A good portion of the DFL caucus are in districts that heavily voted for the amendment. Also, it would never come up in the senate in the next 4 years, because Majority Leader Tom Bakk opposes it.

  •  In Illinois (11+ / 0-)

    there is also a court case underway.

    A court case that, if marriage eqquality comes to the Land of Lincoln, it will not be overturned by voter initiative.

  •  minor correction (7+ / 0-)
    New Mexico has Republican Legislature, but it has a Democratic Legislature, and legislatively referred referrenda, so there is definitely a path to passage here.
    I take it you meant New Mexico has an R Governor.

    "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

    by lordpet8 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:05:09 PM PST

  •  Michigan (3+ / 0-)

    Michigan currently has a constitutional ban on ssm, which means that that would have to be overturned in order to enact marriage equality. However, if the constitutional ban were overturned, there seems to be little hope of getting the state legislature to affirmatively pass ssm. The only option seems to be passing a constitutional amendment enacting it. This would be unprecedented, I believe - the other states have either had it enacted by the courts and/or passed by state legislatures. I don't think any state has ssm in their constitution.

    •  Iowa does, indirectly (4+ / 0-)

      and California did before prop 8. How hard is it to pass an amendment that says "the right of two consenting adults to marry shall not be denied on account of their respective sexes?" or something to the effect?

      •  Seems to me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, BeloitDem

        You'd want to add a sentence or two to emphasize that no church or member of the clergy would be forced to perform a marriage against their will (cuts off one obvious line of attack), but yeah I'd say that's pretty much it.

        BTW, there was a poll released yesterday indicating pretty strong support for SSM here in the Great Lakes state (and this situation should improve over the next 2-4 years as more old farts die off and more younger voters come of age). Now if only someone with access to seed money can step up to get it on the ballot...

        •  There's really no reason to repeat the First (4+ / 0-)

          Ammendment.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:38:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's certainly not legally necessary (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BeloitDem, decafdyke, cocinero, MichaelNY

            to reiterate that no church can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, but it may be politically helpful against the inevitable BS ad campaign from the National Organization "for" Marriage.

            I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

            by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:45:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The way to deal with NoM is to call them out and (0+ / 0-)

              name&shame them.

              Not to play defence.

              Next thing you know, cruise ship chaplains are suing because someone tried to make them marry two women.

              "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

              by JesseCW on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:50:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Redundant (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                I agree with you that an explicit religious exemption is redundant with the First Amendment, but in this case it doesn't change anything about the proposal or its impact, so it's a cost-free addition to calm the fears of some undecided voters. My understanding is (and any Downeasters here can correct me if I'm wrong) that the Maine proposal included such an exemption for exactly that reason.

                My guess is that in a state like MI there probably are 40% of voters who are on our side, 40% who are against us no matter what, and 20% who are somewhere in the middle. The job of NOM et al is to raise doubts in the minds of the 20%, and fears that something bad will happen if SSM comes to pass. In general, people in MI who have doubts will vote against the proposal, figuring that if we keep the status quo nothing's changed, so nothing bad will happen. That's how NOM has been able to win in the past with appeals to "OMG! Priests will be forced to marry same-sex couples! First graders will be taught about SSM! Second graders will be taught about gay sex!"

                The job of the good guys is to reassure the persuadables that yes, we've thought about that, and no, that nice Father Kowalski won't be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. It would be satisfying to get all in-your-face with NOM, but that's not gonna win an election.

                That's where I think states looking at an election campaign can work off of the lessons learned in this year's four states.

                •  It DOES change the proposal and its impact. (0+ / 0-)

                  It creates a "conscience exemption" even in public accomidations.

                  That's not ok.

                  NoM has succeeded because they appealed to FUCKING BIGOTRY.

                  It is deeply niave to think it was simply about "confusion".

                  It's precisely "getting all in your face" and calling bigots what they are that forced our President to "evolve".  

                  It is, in fact, all that has ever worked in this country.

                  "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                  by JesseCW on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:48:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  hugely helpful politically / public opinion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY
            •  Hugely problematic going forward, when (0+ / 0-)

              "Non-Demoninational" chaplains employed at public accomodations start insisting on their right not to marry LGBT couples.

              Or, did we include such caveats when it came to overturning Anti-Miscegenation laws, and I just never read about it?

              "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

              by JesseCW on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:01:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I get your opinion (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BeloitDem, MichaelNY

                but your opinion is mute because well over a majority of the country thinks otherwise.  Your opinion is not feasible and it would cause us to lose.  Is that what you'd rather have?  The gays can't get married because a bunch of liberals didn't want a religious protection clause because they think they are stupid?  I'm gay and I'd much rather have my rights than worry about asinine details like that.

          •  Most legislatures have had to add in (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            religious protection clauses in their marriage equality bills.  Wouldn't pass otherwise.

      •  Actually No.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        No state has a made SSM legal in their constitution directly. Many state have made it illegal, including California. Massachusetts, Iowa, California, and Connecticut had their Supreme Courts rule that banning same-sex marriage was against their respective state Constitutions equality and liberty rules. Hence why there was a big push to put constitutional bans in state constitutions. I think it's problematic to define marriage in a constitution either way.

    •  Michigan allows voter initiated statutes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeloitDem, MichaelNY

      I am not a lawyer, but I assumed that voters would have to amend the constitution to allow marriage equality. Then voters would need to pass a statute enacting marriage equality. We could go for a constitutional amendment, but that seems less likely to pass. Statutes enacted by voters require a 3/4's vote of the legislator to be amended.

      I think people will look more at voter initiated statutes in   Michigan after we rejected all constitutional amendments.

      I am not sure if those could occur at the same time.

      M, 23, School: MI-12, Home: NY-18

      by slacks on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:10:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Illinois, Delaware and Minnesota will be next (11+ / 0-)

    California will be first, though, because I think the Court is going to let the exceedingly narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

    Incidentally, California had a ban against ssm in the state's civil code, which was eliminated by the cases  initiated when Gavin Newsom started marrying people in 2004 and was stopped from doing so.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:38:48 PM PST

  •  There's a court case in New Jersey you... (4+ / 0-)

    ...seem to be ignoring.  It's not all up to Christie.

  •  Hawaii? (6+ / 0-)

    Anybody know the state of marriage equality in Hawaii? They have civil unions, but I don't know the politics of getting to marriage equality.

  •  Give it a few more years in MN. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, davidincleveland, askew

    A lot of the new (and returning) Democratic legislators came from districts that voted YES (to ban SSM). I don't think it would be smart to do it for a while in MN.

    Farm boy, 20, who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -6.75, -3.18, "Everyone's better when everyone's better"- Paul Wellstone

    by WisJohn on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:05:54 PM PST

    •  And there are some Republicans (5+ / 0-)

      who represent districts that voted against it.

      I think it would be a good thing to do. The Senate isn't up for another four years, another Presidential year. So the worst thing that happens is we lose the house.

      But I don't think that would happen.

      •  I also think it would be a good thing to do (3+ / 0-)

        But a question whether the votes are there.

        Still, I very much encourage you to push your representatives to make it happen.

      •  The votes just are not there in MN (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, OGGoldy

        Democrats took control of the legislature but that does not mean liberals took control of the legislature. A lot of outstate (non Twin Cities) Dems are pretty socially conservative. We will get there but marriage equality is still a few years off in Minnesota.

        "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." - Rick Santorum

        by Minnesota Mike on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:03:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          There are not enough DFLers in Minneapolis, St. Paul and immediate surrounding areas to get a majority. John Kriesel (R) retiring really eliminated the main Republican proponent of SSM on the other side of the isle.

          •  it's kind of annoying (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, BeloitDem

            how, proportionally speaking, there are more Dems in anti-gay districts opposing it then there are Reps in pro-gay districts supporting.

            Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

            by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:32:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Self packing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              It's just the nature of states across the country. Liberals amass in large concentrations within city limits and inner-ring suburbs. Minnesota is hardly alone in that.

              •  it's not even that though (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                it's the fact that even Republicans who represent pro-gay constituencies are mostly anti-gay.

                Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 09:24:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I haven't broken it down by legislative district (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  But I sincerely doubt there are more than a handful of Republicans that were elected in districts that voted against Amendment 1.

                  Just eyeballing it, it appears as though there are a couple of exurban Republican seats that only had 47-49% "yes" voters. There are no glaringly obviously disconnect with Republican seats in areas that strongly voted "no". Whereas the Democrats have seats like 17, which was something like 63% yes, and 1, which is something like 66% yes.
                  http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/...

                  I stand by my assertion that it is an issue of self-packing. House District 64A was only 17% yes, as a prime example.

                  •  well, if you make a distinction (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    based on how strongly the area voted, I guess that makes the difference. still kinda BS though.

                    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                    by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:03:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  50/50 districts can and will go either way (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      You can't seriously think a district that voted 49% vs. a district that voted 17% are equal in your mind?

                      •  The idea of supporting or opposing civil rights (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        wwmiv, MichaelNY, BeloitDem

                        based on popular opinion is one I don't care for to begin with, but all I'm doing is noting that popular opposition to gay rights is more likely to push Dem legislators to oppose equal rights than popular support is to push Republican legislators to support. That's all. It's not just Minnesota - it's a general observation, and it's really not that farfetched if you look at how few Republicans cross over for wildly popular things like DADT repeal and civil unions.

                        Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                        by sapelcovits on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:29:41 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am not advocating such things (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          WisJohn, MichaelNY

                          But I do agree that there are more Democrats in districts that vastly oppose such things than Republicans in districts that vastly support it. I understand that this is little comfort to those who invest their heart and soul into these causes, but it is the reality that these politicians couldn't survive reelection if they went out on this limb right now.

                  •  Started a project b/c of this comment (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BeloitDem, MichaelNY, sapelcovits

                    And there are 21 Republicans representatives sitting in "No" seats in the metro area and a handful more in greater Minnesota.  So there is a disconnect and it's that plenty of suburban Republicans voted "No".  In fact, it's because of them that we won.  I checked my hometown of Albertville and "Yes" only won by 20 votes with over 6k being cast.  Bachmann won by 7.4%, Romney 19%.  "Yes" had to scrape by all the way out here and there are like 3 million people who live closer to the core of the "No" vote than we do.  I always knew we were favored to win and this is exactly why; our suburbs are much more LGBT friendly than their Republicanism would lead one to think and it's because they have one of the highest concentrations of people with a college degree in the country.  Smart people like gay people, easy as that.

  •  in Oregon (6+ / 0-)

    there would need to be a ballot measure to repeal the ban.  I'm pretty sure the legislature could refer it to the ballot, but would be a long shot and Basic Rights Oregon is counting on a petition campaign anyway.  There would have to be a separate vote by the legislature or voters to actually pass marriage equality, if the repeal passed.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:51:09 PM PST

    •  Isn't your incoming house speaker a lesbian? (5+ / 0-)

      A signature drive is probably easier and better for building a campaign anyways, but why would legislative referral be such a long shot?

      •  Big state pension issues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        this session.  The legislature is going to be very busy with this for pretty much the whole session.  Basic Rights Oregon can get it on the ballot without much trouble; the Guv  & the Lege will be supportive.

      •  I don't think it would be difficult (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeloitDem, MichaelNY, rsmpdx

        as I think all of the moderate to conservative Dems had supported civil unions, and I'm pretty sure the newcomers are pro-marriage equality.

        However, I don't think it would be in the tradition of the legislative referral to do it that way, and frankly I don't think it would occur to many to do it that way.  Repealing a constitutional amendment that was approved by initiative would probably almost always come from another initiative.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:48:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Michigan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dougymi, gigantomachyusa

    Michigan is an extremely bad choice.

    Democratic strength there is predominantly because of African American Detroit and working class white areas, both of which are mostly against gay marriage. The African American population is changing after the Obama endorsement, but is nowhere near levels of support that would require for passage in the state.

    The (usually religious) working class white vote is almost uniformly against gay marriage, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

    Any vote at the ballot box in Michigan will result very easily in a 65-35 defeat for us.

    22 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); Intern w/ Gallego for Congress; Office Personnel at CCA.

    by wwmiv on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:25:58 PM PST

    •  No way would it be 65-35 against (11+ / 0-)

      There's been some good polling data recently. While I'm not sure I by that poll and think it would be an absolutely dogfight, there's no way it loses 2-1. The ban passed by 18 points in 2004, which means that using Nate Silver's 2 points per year flat regression, the state should be ready to pass SSM in 2014.

      A lot of the groups you are assuming are against SSM are changing, and while it's safe to assume pretty much uniform opposition from Republican legislators, it's no longer safe to assume that from Republican voters. A lot of people assumed the Minnesota ban would pass, too, but it didn't, partially due to opposition from Republican leaning suburbanites.

      •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeloitDem, MichaelNY, wwmiv

        I was going to make the same points, but you beat me to it. The ban (Prop 2) only got 58.6% of the vote in 2004, and I've no doubt things would be better in 2-4 years.

        Also, you're absolutely right that Republican-voting areas aren't necessarily lost causes. I know Prop 2 lost in my home area of Bloomfield-Birmingham, and was held pretty close in other Rep-leaning areas. There also are Dem-leaning suburbs such as West Bloomfield and Farmington-Farmington Hills where the proposal lost. By 2014-16, we'd carry the entire upper-middle income crescent from Rochester through Northville, Plymouth, and Canton. And don't forget there should be good-size margins in Washtenaw (Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti) and Ingham (Lansing-East Lansing) counties as well.

        I agree it will be a dogfight, but none of the states this year were easy either. At least now we have templates for what works as far as advertising and personal contact.

      •  OR measure 36 passed by 14 pts in 2004 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        But we weren't polling at above 50% in 2011, so I think the 2% per year trend is (a) an overstatement (you can't round up and then multiple) (b) not necessarily applicable to every state.

        •  It's mostly very clearly not going to hold up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          forever. Like, who here believes that 90-95% of the country will support gay marriage in 2035?

          If you offered me a 5% swing through 2020 right now, I'd take it. That'd mean that we can probably pass it by then in a majority of states and in states that have a majority of the population. I wouldn't take my chances betting on it continuing to improve as much as it has from 2000 to now.

    •  What? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeloitDem, MichaelNY, askew, Chitown Kev

      There's absolutely no way that result would happen.  The country as a whole has moved in favor of gay marriage.  MI voted to ban gay marriage by 59% in 2004 and it makes no sense for the number of people against gay marriage to increase.  In 2004, the vote in Detroit was fairly close (about 52% voted yes) so it's definitely possible that voters in the city would now favor gay marriage.  

      Why would the opinion of working class white voters not change?  There has been a big shift in the opinion of most Americans on gay marriage.  It's odd to assume that this one demographic won't change at all while the rest of the country does.    

      I don't mean to be rude this comment makes no sense and clearly shows you're not very familiar with the state.  

      •  There are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, wwmiv, Chitown Kev

        some people who oppose writing discrimination into the constitution but also would not vote for an initiative actually legalizing marriage equality.

        www.beyondmarriage.org

        by decafdyke on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:17:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          There was a poll done in 2004 shortly before the ban passed about whether people supported gay marriage.  It showed about 61% opposed gay marriage, which seems about right given the result on the gay marriage ban.  MI voting to oppose gay marriage by 65% in 2014 would assume that the opposition of MI voters to gay marriage stayed about the same or increased.  It doesn't make sense given the trends on gay marriage.  

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Maybe the best course of action would be to try to get rid of the ban in '14, and then go for an initiated statute in '16.

          One of the arguments against this year's proposals that seemed to be effective was "why are they trying to put these things into the constitution?".

          Interestingly, my read of the provisions in the constitution says that initiated statutes are safe from legislative monkeying. Then it's just a matter of writing the proposed law tightly enough to withstand "interpretation" by the AG and the courts. "No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature." (MI Constitution, Article II, Section 9).

      •  The population isn't the same, though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Detroit (proper) is a lot smaller than it was in 2004 -- the city lost 25% of its population between 2000 and 2010.  Michigan declined overall by ~7% during that period, while metro Grand Rapids increased by ~5%.

        I'm not convinced those demographics are enough to derail progress on this specific issue, but statewide I would expect a somewhat more conservative electorate in general today than in 2004.

        •  Population (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BeloitDem, MichaelNY

          Michigan's population dropped by 0.6%, not 7%.  Detroit's population may be dropping but those people aren't necessarily leaving the state.  Most are moving to the suburbs.  For example, Macomb county saw its black population increase by 240%.  

        •  But who do you think is leaving Detroit? (0+ / 0-)

          Richer white people who can afford to get out and who support same sex marriage or are the people moving out African-Americans who are against same sex marriage?  That's the question, and it's why even discussing Michigan to me is fruitless when there are so many other states where we aren't having to fight demographics to win.  Michigan's liberal voting base is far too concentrated on people who do not support same-sex marriage.  And I don't know what the Republican suburbanites are like outside of Detroit but I'd guess they wouldn't be able to make up for the Democrat's voting base collapsing when it comes to the question of same sex marriage.

    •  blacks are shifting pretty decisively for marriage (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, askew, kleinburger, ebohlman

      equality, over the past couple of years. i can't speak to MI as a whole, but the old CW on the black vote and marriage equality is outdated. obama and the NAACP backing it appear to have moved a significant % of the community.

      •  Yep. Timothy Kincaid from Box Turtle Bulletin (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chitown Kev, MichaelNY, wu ming

        thinks the trend started two years ago when DC adopted marriage equality, being the first predominantly black jurisdiction (for that matter, the first one that wasn't lily-white) to do so. He thinks that ended up making the issue personal (in an "I'd rather have in-laws than outlaws" sense) to a lot of people who would have previously thought of it as a "white" issue.

        In a dog-eat-dog world, rabies is an advantage in the short term.

        by ebohlman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:27:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  even in 2008 with prop 8 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          there was a pretty pronounced divide within the CA black community, along generational (and to a degree, regional) lines, that got lost in the shoddy exit poll flamewar following the vote. as young blacks become a proportionally larger part of the black electorate, the share of votes for marriage equality were going to go up regardless. but there have been greater shifts beyond just generational replacement.

  •  Colorado (8+ / 0-)

    Colorado came pretty close to civil unions last year, yes. A dramatic moment was when Don Coram (R-Montrose) cast the deciding "No" vote for the kill committee. He has a gay son, and his wife cried in the gallery. He said that he had to represent his voters.

    I still would like to see marriage equality. Civil unions are all fine and dandy, but don't carry the legal protections and benefits of marriage. I think civil unions will come up, but I'd really rather see marriage equality back on the ballot, or brought up in the legislature. I like weddings :)

  •  Wow … to think Measure 9 almost passed (5+ / 0-)

    in Oregon, which would've banned teachers from “condoning” homosexuality … that was, what, 2000? Twelve years later, we're a good candidate for marriage equality. Me likey the change :-)

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:59:26 PM PST

    •  The speed of change (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Code Monkey, BeloitDem, MichaelNY

      has been gratifying.  As recently as 2003, there were 13 states with "sodomy" laws.  Now the only issue is how soon we'll get full legal equality.

      I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

      by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:49:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yipes. I'd forgotten that. (3+ / 0-)

        So weird that teh gaysecks was actually technically illegal in so many places in America less than a decade ago.

        Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
        Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
        Code Monkey like you!

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        by Code Monkey on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:00:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Plus (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        compare this movement to other movements in American history. It took over 100 years from the abolition of slavery to the end of laws making interracial marriage illegal (1967 Loving Vs Virginia)!

        I think a lot of it has to do with the groundwork laid by the civil rights struggle.

        Another thing that helps is technology, especially with the internet and the information revolution.

        Anybody with a computer and access to the internet can find out for themselves how the lack of marriage rights hurts gays and lesbians. Plus, MA has the lowest rate of divorce while the Bible Belt has the highest.

        Knowledge is indeed power.

  •  Everywhere (0+ / 0-)

    Naturally

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:03:24 PM PST

  •  I wish I could feel confident about Illinois... (4+ / 0-)

    ...but Madigan is a real bluenose, and marriage equality would be a hard sell Downstate. My uncle and his partner have been together longer than Calamity Jean and myself, and I;m afraid they'll never be able to marry.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:06:31 PM PST

  •  Republished to Anglican Kossacks (7+ / 0-)

    Let's move the movement forward.

    I'm taking a bit of a break because I'm getting married in June. Woohoo!

  •  Your question is ambiguous. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, decafdyke

    By January 1, 2014, or by December 31st, 2014?

    Huge difference because California will with 99% certainly have marriage equality one way or another by the end of 2014, but not necessarily by the beginning.

  •  Thank you for the breakdown (3+ / 0-)

    I had pretty much thought that we had hit up the states we could and was ready to wait on the Supreme Court. Did not realize that there were other avenues out there.

    Which means the even if the USSC rules against marriage equality (As important as overturning DOMA is for federal rights), we still have a path forward. And for me, that is good news.

  •  Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and then Utah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    You heard it here first.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:24:10 PM PST

    •  In other words, Utah would be dead last (0+ / 0-)

      of the 50 states to approve same-sex marriage?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:38:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I didn't say NEXT next (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dan Schroeder

        But it's going to happen and everyone knows it. There are gay cowboys. They even made a movie about it I think. Even, shudder, gay Mormons (although they only get one gay spouse each--no Big Gay Love!).

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:09:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It'll happen either because of a Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dan Schroeder, kovie

          decision, Federal legislation, or Utah becoming majority non-LDS, in that order. And for it to happen within 15 years or so, it would have to be due to a court order.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:38:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All but the last of which are possible (0+ / 0-)

            And even if Utah doesn't go majority non-Mormon, Mormonism could become less binding on its members as its members drift from strict observance.

            Happens to every religion sooner or later.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 10:38:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's nothing inevitable about this (0+ / 0-)

              Did Islam become less strict in Afghanistan? I don't mean to analogize Utah with Afghanistan, just demonstrate that your "happens to every religion sooner or later" is, with all due respect, bunk.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:31:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                Muslim countries have been secularizing the world over. Fundamentalist Islam is in many ways a reaction to this, a desperate but ultimately doomed attempt to "purify" such societies from the "evils" of secularism. Not much different from the US, really, just without the violence (for the most part).

                Using Aghanistan, one of the most primitive countries in the world, where fundamentalist religion is obviously going to take hold, as a counterexample, is sort of like using Utah to prove that the US love Mitt Romney.

                And Utah actually has progressive elements. As its members become better educated and involved with the outer world, the church will inevitably decline.

                You watch way too much Fox, and sound like the sort of Dem who not that long ago scoffed at the idea that Dems could even win big in elections again.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:16:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uncalled for (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  You bring up some legitimate counterpoints to Michael's points, but I know he doesn't watch a lot of fox and is self-described Democratic Socialist. He's also a realist and a pragmatist.

                  •  Religion is on the decline (0+ / 0-)

                    I see no reason for what that doesn't affect Mormonism eventually. What's so special about it compared to the Catholic church? People are people and sooner or later the allures of the world or just plain common sense drive them away from superstitious ideologies--especially intolerant ones.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:01:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not disputing that point (0+ / 0-)

                      I actually more or less agree with the substance of what you said. I was objecting to your unsolicited personal attack on Michael.

                      •  Well I tend to react that way (0+ / 0-)

                        when people call my ideas "bunk", a loaded and unnecessary word.

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:24:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  He was attacking the idea, not the person. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY
                        •  Nothing personal (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BeloitDem

                          I just consider belief that anything but death (and maybe a few other things) is inevitable to be a type of lazy thinking that is damaging. Defense of liberty requires vigilance in every generation, or it will be taken away.

                          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                          by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:46:43 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said that it will go away on its own (0+ / 0-)

                            Actively trying to win over members of any group that tends to lean heavily right is certainly necessary, and one by-product of such efforts is, I believe, likely to be secularism (which is, for good reason I believe, correlated to liberalism, both being based on reason not faith). But I believe that it will diminish even if we do nothing. I base this on my own Jewish co-religionists increasing secularism in the face of modernity. And most Jews are liberal. I see no reason to view Mormons as exempt from such tendencies and trends. What magical qualities protect it from secularism and liberalism, over time?

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 02:46:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are Jews increasingly liberal and secularist (0+ / 0-)

                            in Israel? Apparently, the reverse is true. Don't conflate your experience of a religion in the US with all religions everywhere. Mormons may become more secular over time, or they could become less secular, like the Pentecostalists.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:26:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                            I was born and have family there. It's one of the most secular countries in the world, even if it has large religious minorities.

                            As for here, Mormons tend to be well-educated and middle class, both qualities tending towards secularism. Pentacostals tend to come from less educated and more working class backgrounds, which tend towards being religious.

                            If we get the economy back on track, rebuild the middle class, and fix our schools, there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that we'll become more secular, as has every other country in the world that's done these things.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:20:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Everything I've read (0+ / 0-)

                            tells me the Ultra-Orthodox communities have increased in both absolute numbers and percentage of the Israeli population, and that's been reflected in influence over things like sex segregation on buses, though there's been pushback.

                            I think these things are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. For example, Malaysia has become both more orthodox Muslim and more outward-looking (both Westernized and Arabized in different ways) in the last 30 some-odd years. The position of Malay women is much higher than it used to be, but traditional culture, with its pre-Islamic elements, has been largely stamped out. So is Malaysia more or less secular? That might not be the right question.

                            You may turn out right about Mormons in the US. I just wouldn't count on the inevitability of it.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:13:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And they tend to self-ghettoize (0+ / 0-)

                            So while many ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews of necessity work with secular and less religious Jews, socially they rarely mix. It's like two societies living side by side (or three or four, really, if you include Muslim and Christian Israeli Arabs, both of whom also don't mix much socially with Israeli Jews). The majority of Israelis continue to be either secular or traditional, and mainstream Israeli society is probably as secular as ever (by design btw). In fact Israelis tend to be more secular than American Jews. I remember being surprised during visits there while growing up at how indifferent many Israelis were to holidays and traditions that growing up as a secular Jew in the US we regularly celebrated.

                            European countries have become extremely secular over the years, with religion effectively something for history books and old people (well, at least Christianity). Obviously this is due to modernity. The same will happen here. Few people are true believers. For most people religion is a crutch to keep them going or a way to connect to others and belong. It's also a way of keeping them compliant and subservient (which is functionally religion's main purpose historically). As other modes of satisfying these needs become more popular, religion will fade.

                            Thank god.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:30:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't agree that "religion is on the decline" (0+ / 0-)

                      Some religions are on the decline. And many of those are largely mainline, non-extremist ones.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:44:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Each year, fewer Americans self-identify (0+ / 0-)

                        as members of an organized religion, or actively participate in religious events on a regular basis (having a Christmas tree is not a religious event--you have to go to mass or services for it to be religious, and you have to go to chuch regularly to be religious). I believe that Pew and others have data on this.

                        I agree that certain religious organizations are growing, such as Pentacostals. But overall, religious self-identification and activity is declining in the US.

                        Thank god. :-)

                        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                        by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 02:51:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I don't watch Fox (0+ / 0-)

                  And while there are secularist trends in some Muslim countries, there are reactionary trends in other Muslim countries. None of this is inevitable. The illogical idea of inevitable progress was part of a way of thinking that included or at least coexisted with 19th-century Western imperialism and cultural evolutionism. Progress is not inevitable, as the world discovered when the World Wars occurred, and neither is secularism.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:43:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Before NY had ssm (2+ / 0-)

    It recognized marriages performed in other states. Does that avenue exist for any of the other states, as a kind of stop-gap until necessary laws/amendments are passed?

  •  I voted Oregon (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, MichaelNY, cany

    because I think the Supreme Court will let the decision re. Prop 8 alone, meaning that Prop 8 is no longer in effect.  I do think that if we'd put Prop 8 repeal on the ballot this year, it would have been repealed by a solid majority.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:00:55 PM PST

  •  New Jersey (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    also has a state court case that, if decided by the supreme court, could circumvent Christie.

  •  Colorado (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Activists in the state have no appetite to go after the issue for now.  We'll get Civil Unions in 2013, no way they'd jump for marriage on the ballot in 2014.  I'd be surprised if it didn't make it to the ballot in 2016 though since that's the "last frontier" after we get through Civil Unions.  

    Since it would probably be a simple repeal of the Amendment and not passage of SSM, would still take the legislature to pass it after that.  I think they would easily assuming we keep the trifecta (likely).  So put me down for 2017 passage and come into effect 2018.

  •  New Mexico (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, BeloitDem

    Yes, there is a Democratic legislature, but by no means a liberal one.  Richardson pushed hard for "Domestic Partnerships" in 2009 and it failed pretty bad in the overwhelmingly Democratic State Senate.  The composition has changed some since (conservatives losing this year) and I think a few have changed their minds, but even the Civil Unions step is asking a lot once we have a Democratic governor.

    So New Mexico is a ways off yet.

  •  Not as in-depth as I would have liked. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Quinn's basically irrelevant right now as governor. Why is Madigan opposed if he is? What state organizations exist we can volunteer with and support to get this going? And so forth.

  •  As a native Beloiter, I feel your pain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Although I haven't been a Wisconsin resident for decades, I lived just south of the border until about 15 years ago. I'm all too familiar with the venomous bigotry that seems to appear out of nowhere whenever there's a chance to move forward.

    Wisconsin isn't going to happen in the near term. It will take a miracle to get the baggers out of the way. The legislature will have to lead the way, and short of the Wanker doing deep and obvious  harm to a boatload of his supporters, nothing is likely to change for a few cycles. Too many voters in WI have been conned and believe the propaganda and fear-mongerers.

    That's not to say that there shouldn't be a strong effort to push for marriage equality in WI. I think it would be a good idea to push hard and be persistent about it. If nothing else, it will force the baggers to focus on this rather than laws that will do more harm to WI citizens. If we can force a few legislator's heads to explode, all the better. Make them display their hatred in public. Often. Pave the way for more and better Democrats. 2014 is closer than it seems.

    I think that Illinois has a good chance this session, but they should move as quicly as possible. Although Madigan will be a problem, the Chicago machine might be able to exert a little more pressure this time. I hope so. The downstate legislators will put up a stink, for sure. But I think it's doable.

    I expect California to happen. It's pretty much inevitable, IMO.

    Delaware, too. The conditions are definitely favorable.

    I am relieved here in NH. All bu the state senate swung hard left this term. Buhbye, wingnut majority. But for our Democratic Governor's veto last term, we were close to losing marriage equality. Otoh, we were close to passing Medical Pot, but for his veto. But we can carry a gun in the statehouse. And we have to show ID to vote.

    I don't know enough about most of the other states to venture an opinion. I'm not very optimistic about those with constitutional bans, though. That's a tough nut to crack. It's especially difficult during the midterms, but with good organizing, and Obama is saying he'll be organizing for the midterms, it's possible.

    Good summary, BeloitDem. Thanks.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 11:25:13 PM PST

  •  One key set of data... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Nate Silver did a graph of when he estimated states would reach the tipping point over the next decade or two.

    (That sound you are hearing is a paradigm being shifted at Warp Factor Infinity using no clutch.)

    by homogenius on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:51:47 AM PST

  •  Think about Nevada's economics.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, MichaelNY

    How much money does the state make because of its current marriage laws (i.e., no-wait weddings).
    How much would its economy increase if more people could get married there...

  •  If the supreme court rules (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    next year, basically affirming gay marriage as a right (I'm not sure of the complete legal details of the case)...

    wouldn't that set precedent, legalizing gay marriage in every state?

    VA-03 (current residence) NC-07 (home)

    by psychicpanda on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 02:46:02 PM PST

    •  Not a legal expert (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      but from what I've heard, the most likely result of the prop 8 trial is a narrow ruling that basically says it's invalid since the state can't take away a right it's already granted, which would basically mean status quo everywhere else. But as I said, I'm no legal expert, so I didn't even try to analyze all the pending court cases.

  •  I think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, BeloitDem

    I think it might have been helpful to put up the latest polling on each of the states when available.  I mean, I'm sure you put Michigan up there because of the MSU State of the State poll released earlier this week showing marriage equality comfortably ahead of its opposition, but we need to know that.

    •  This diary is mostly based (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      On institutional factors, Although I guess I used a judgement call to say that Ohio is less ready than other states in similar institutional positions, like Colorado and Michigan.

      The MSU poll probably affected my thinking some, although I'm not sure I entirely believe it - it seems excessively rosy and it wouldn't be the first wonky poll of Michigan.

      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I'm not sure I buy the precise numbers in the MSU poll, but it's at least evidence of movement in the right direction, which makes sense given that in the 8 years since Prop 2 we've had lots of old farts dying off and lots of kids becoming eligible to vote. In addition, I think there's greater visibility of same-sex couples (at least in the Detroit Metro), and that helps people to see we don't have horns and tails (or at least the people who aren't unalterably opposed to us).

        One thing that occurs to me is that NOM and their allies might have been taken by surprise by the level of sophistication of the good guys this year. The pro-marriage forces really stepped up their game in terms of having money available, organization, and research of the arguments that actually work to convince people. It seems NOM stuck with the game plan that worked in the past and came up short four times.

        I would fully expect NOM to step up their game the next time this comes up, and our side will have to have access to even larger gobs of money and be prepared for a new set of lies in NOM's ads.

  •  Montana and Wyoming *gasp* (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    It's easy (relatively speaking) to get initiatives on the ballot in these two states.  They are strongly Republican, yes (at least the latter), but they are also fairly secular and libertarian leaning.  Do they have a chance at passing in either of the states?

    VA-03 (current residence) NC-07 (home)

    by psychicpanda on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 11:09:55 AM PST

  •  Move RI to top targets (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, MichaelNY, BeloitDem

    although we only primaried out one bigoted state senator, one of our pro-gay Dems defeated an anti-gay Republican. to be honest I think it has a decent chance of passing the senate if it comes up for a vote, and there are some indications that it might (there is precedent for anti-gay leadership allowing a vote on same-sex marriage - see MD Sen. Pres. Miller and NY Sen. Majority Leader Skelos). Gordon Fox, the openly gay House Speaker, has already indicated he plans to call a vote on it in January, and I think the House is supposed to be better for us than the Senate.

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 06:34:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site