Predictions on marriage ballot measures

[Kulindahr]

Well the wind is knocked out of them...

Now it will be impossible to stop marriage equality in Oregon, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.

Wouldn't it be awesome to see it passed in half those in two years?

[JockBoy87]

^^^

There is absolutely no way of knowing how many will even try. I call for at least another four or five by the next election. Sometime in the 2020s, all states that went for Obama yesterday, excepting perhaps Virginia, will have marriage equality.

I get a strong intuitive feeling that Minnesota's rejection will be taken as a public mandate for marriage equality in the newly minted Democratic legislature.

[RazorzEdge88]

First of all, I have to say that this + the presidential election results made for one hell of a night last night. I was at a gay bar in central Maryland, getting buzzed and cheering and randomly hugging people. So much elation.

But since I'm an overly analytic type of person, I can't help but look ahead a little bit to what Minnesota's measure means, specifically, for the fate of marriage equality in that state.

Even though Minnesota represents a sort of half-victory for our side, it's still critical that they didn't constitutionally ban same-sex marriage because now the issue can be freely decided by the state courts in MN.

I'll start off by saying that it could easily become a total non-issue if the Supreme Court picks up the Prop. 8 case and rules on the merits of marriage equality. The U.S. Supreme Court would beat the Minnesota Supreme Court to the punch because of the timelines of the two cases.

But if SCOTUS decides to leave the Prop 8 case in its current, "California-only" status, the current marriage equality case going through MN court could be final word there for quite some time.

Looking ahead at the prospects in Minnesota, they're kind of bleak right now. The state Supreme Court is made up of 6 Republican-appointed judges, and 1 judge appointed by current Democratic governor (who's pro-gay rights) Mark Dayton. Of the 6 Republican appointees, 4 of them were appointed by outspoken "traditionalist" Tim Pawlenty who's adamantly against same-sex marriage. That's a solid majority on that 7-member court. I have a hard time seeing the state Supreme Court rule in our favor unless some of those Republican appointees retire and Dayton gets to choose their successors.

I think the best thing that could happen for marriage equality is SCOTUS just putting to rest the issue once and for all and affirming marriage equality. That's why last night is huge. While in theory the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutional merits of laws, legal scholars acknowledge that public opinion has a varying degree of importance in the opinions of individual judges.

Some judges will certainly take this momentum shift as a sign that, "hey, this country is evolving on this issue. We might need to meet it head-on."

[bankside]

Also, all those times that Scalia might want to overturn an appelate court decision in favour of equality, he can no longer claim to be "correcting the excesses of judge-made law" or some such nonsense. He is at least partially defanged.

[palbert]

.... But if SCOTUS decides to leave the Prop 8 case in its current, "California-only" status, the current marriage equality case going through MN court could be final word there for quite some time. ....

I think this is what they will do, without opinion. That would be the path of least resistance, inflame the fewest, and leave it as a state's rights issue. In their mind that would postpone such a contentious decision: this court has shown little inclination to expand social liberty.

[RazorzEdge88]

Also, all those times that Scalia might want to overturn an appelate court decision in favour of equality, he can no longer claim to be "correcting the excesses of judge-made law" or some such nonsense. He is at least partially defanged.

Hypocrisy and bullshittery never stopped him. He's very selective about invoking that imperative to overturn "judicial activism." When he's presented with a conservative decision he wants to uphold, he's very quick to invoke the stare decisis doctrine (stating that a level of deference should be given to pre-existing court decisions), and furiously blasts anyone who dares overturn said decision.

[JockBoy87]

Maggie Gallagher did the smart move by ditching NOM a long time ago.

One wonders what she is up to all this time.

Having realized that marriage equality is inevitable, she has started an organization that coddles people who can't deal with being bigots.

She's probably grateful that she doesn't have to deal with damage control as Brian does. I would have done the same instead of go down with a sinking ship.

[palbert]

I think this is what they will do, without opinion. That would be the path of least resistance, inflame the fewest, and leave it as a state's rights issue. In their mind that would postpone such a contentious decision: this court has shown little inclination to expand social liberty.

Also, they will allow the lower courts' decisions to stand based solely on the California constitution. If they uphold based on the US Constitution they will de facto invalidate 30 states "anti" laws.

[JockBoy87]

Wouldn't it be awesome to see it passed in half those in two years?

Here's an article you might like...

Looking Ahead: The Seven States That Could Soon Expand Rights For Same-Sex Couples

[Rolyo85]

Yay Illinois!

[Kulindahr]

Also, they will allow the lower courts' decisions to stand based solely on the California constitution. If they uphold based on the US Constitution they will de facto invalidate 30 states "anti" laws.

That would surprise me. It's coming to them as a question of U.S. constitutional law, so to dodge that question they'd have to hear the case and specifically state there's no (US) constitutional issue. If they just don't hear it, then the (US) constitutional argument which prevailed before the lower court will stand... for and in the terms the lower court established. In effect, as I understand the situation, that will limit the effect to California, but it will apply that constitutional rule to California, not just the state constitution.

[JockBoy87]

We hauled in 200,000 more votes in Maine yesterday than we did in 2009.


http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/0...-sex-marriage/

[JockBoy87]

After pro-equality pickups in the Rhode Island Gen. Assembly, we are waiting word from the anti-gay state senate president on moving a marriage equality bill.

http://www.necn.com/11/07/12/RI-gay-...59c794188fb9ae

[bankside]

If I look back 3 years, Americans were talking about "gay marriage" and "the definition of something sacred."

Today, you're talking about "equal marriage" and "the definition of something civil."

I'm not surprised at the success; that's how it rolled out here too. I am delighted at how far you've come.

[JockBoy87]

^^^ The conversation and tactics have changed more than you know.

This article has all of our latest campaign secrets:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...gy.single.html

[bankside]

^^^ The conversation and tactics have changed more than you know.

This article has all of our latest campaign secrets:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...gy.single.html

excellent article.

[Ninja108]

We won this time because we were better prepared. Not only were commercials of normal gay families shown but a great deal of effort was also made in showing the lies behind the NOM scare tactics that worked in California and so many other states.
Unless they've been brainwashed by fundamentalists, more and more young people don't care about gay marriage anymore. And as the older bigots die off,gay marriage will be a reality at some point.

[GiancarloC]

Well, I also think that the President coming out and supporting gay marriage have shifted enough opinions towards our direction and gave us more power when it came down to it. I think the President's support of gay marriage had a real lasting impact in Maryland. Nonetheless, the organization of our movement has improved substantially since 2008.

[Kulindahr]

^^^ The conversation and tactics have changed more than you know.

This article has all of our latest campaign secrets:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...gy.single.html

Superb article.

I think Oregon was impacted this time because half the population or more has been hearing the ads for the Washington battle. That's a good foundation to build on.

[scream4ever]

After pro-equality pickups in the Rhode Island Gen. Assembly, we are waiting word from the anti-gay state senate president on moving a marriage equality bill.

http://www.necn.com/11/07/12/RI-gay-...59c794188fb9ae

I fully expect she'll bring it to a vote. After Maine voters legalized it, they are the only New England state to not have marriage equality. This election has made is crystal clear what happens to politicians who don't pass marriage equality in states where it's popular. Should she block it, she will meet a similar fate.

[RazorzEdge88]

I forgot to include in my assessment of Minnesota that their legislature tilted Democratic last night (my state has our state elections every four years, so I tend to forget how some states have theirs every two). That's pretty big - they might pass gay marriage before it ever reaches their high court.

Maggie Gallagher did the smart move by ditching NOM a long time ago.

One wonders what she is up to all this time.

Having realized that marriage equality is inevitable, she has started an organization that coddles people who can't deal with being bigots.

She's probably grateful that she doesn't have to deal with damage control as Brian does. I would have done the same instead of go down with a sinking ship.

Oh, I said this to myself this morning when I was reading some Brian Brown damage control. Actually, I said it to myself when I saw she was stepping down. "Getting out before the ship starts really sinking - brilliant." She knows what she's doing. She's way smarter than Brian Brown, anyhow.

Well, I also think that the President coming out and supporting gay marriage have shifted enough opinions towards our direction and gave us more power when it came down to it. I think the President's support of gay marriage had a real lasting impact in Maryland. Nonetheless, the organization of our movement has improved substantially since 2008.

I think you're absolutely right. The President changed the whole dynamic of the debate on this. He swayed the black community, he took away a pillar of the argument against us, and he used the bully pulpit to argue in our favor.

[scream4ever]

Our state supreme court is much more moderate then it may seem, trust me. Regardless, state supreme courts are always much less partisan based then the US Supreme Court. Also, remember that in most states where same sex marriage has been legalized judicially, Republican justices have written the majority opinions.

[RazorzEdge88]

Yep, that's a good point. I think a lot of the Iowa judges who ruled for marriage equality were Chet Culver appointees or something.

[JockBoy87]

What's important for the Supreme Court is that now SSM is established in four regions of the U.S.: New England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and West Coast.

[rareboy]

^ Yes. We were talking about this last evening up here in Canuckistan. In Canada, the tide turned as judges made decisions in various regions of the country, leading to the nation wide enshrinement of the rights of homos.

With four actual wins in this election cycle, I have to hope that it now becomes politically impossible for the SC to decide against homo marriage. I can't even think that Scalia, Thomas or Alito want to touch this at this stage.

[Kulindahr]

What's important for the Supreme Court is that now SSM is established in four regions of the U.S.: New England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and West Coast.

Florida would be a nice addition, no?

[JockBoy87]

Florida would be a nice addition, no?

Ah, alas.

Even if we get a majority in Florida, it takes 60% to amend the constitution there

I also believe the Florida legislature must propose constitutional amendments, i.e. no initiatives. When pigs fly...

For the first southern state, we have a better chance in Virginia, should the VA legislature ever turn Democratic. It's rare for Virginia to do so, but it happens. The House of Delegates was last blue from 1998-2000. Gerrymandering would make it impossible in all but the most star-aligned elections. Even the 2007 election didn't give Democrats a majority in Virginia's House, not even close. So it would take a very sympathetic Republican. I can't foretell when that might happen. Virginia is not New York obviously.

[TX-Beau]

There are some places where it will be judicial fiat required, just like in the sixties.

[Kulindahr]

Ah, alas.

Even if we get a majority in Florida, it takes 60% to amend the constitution there

I also believe the Florida legislature must propose constitutional amendments, i.e. no initiatives. When pigs fly...

For the first southern state, we have a better chance in Virginia, should the VA legislature ever turn Democratic. It's rare for Virginia to do so, but it happens. The House of Delegates was last blue from 1998-2000. Gerrymandering would make it impossible in all but the most star-aligned elections. Even the 2007 election didn't give Democrats a majority in Virginia's House, not even close. So it would take a very sympathetic Republican. I can't foretell when that might happen. Virginia is not New York obviously.

Ah, the g-word. I should include that in my voting thread.

[JockBoy87]

There are some places where it will be judicial fiat required, just like in the sixties.

Martin Luther King stormed the South, the place of greatest opposition, and shocked the nation into countrywide change. We have yet to lift a finger there. Yes, the civil rights era was in the courts first, but legislation was required to finish the job.

[JockBoy87]

I have been previously advised not to provide links, but...

conservative forums are full of posts acknowledging inevitable defeat on marriage equality

and

they want Republicans to stop talking about it


Here's a juicy little quote:

...We look intolerant and we ARE on the losing side of history. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is the norm. It may be 5 years or 50 but gay marriage will be accepted one day. Moderates feel like the GOP is trying to force religious ideas down their throats. How would we react if Islamic values were forced on us? Threatened. The moderates feel the same...

[EastMed]

http://www.hrc.org/

[Just_Believe18]

Referendum 71 (the Domestic partnerships) passed with 52% of the voters supporting it, and 48% against. And this was after the Yes on R-71 stressed that supporting domestic partnerships was NOT the same thing as gay marriage. That means that 48% of Washington voters were against even giving gays domestic partnerships that were not marriages.

If same-sex marriage can lose the public vote in such a socially liberal state as California (a la Prop 8), I don't think it has a chance anywhere else

Sorry hunny

Worth repeating.

[rareboy]

Worth repeating.

yeah.

sorry hunny.....

[palbert]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/us...l?ref=politics

Washington State's anti-same-sex marriage groups have conceded.

Washington now joins Maine and Maryland as the first states to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote.

[Kulindahr]

^
Predictable: the new mantra is "real marriage".

[palbert]

SCOTUS can decide the Prop 8 case so it only applies to California:

[At their private conference, the justices may agree to hear the California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. But they need not decide it on broad grounds if they do. Indeed, the appeals court in the case gave the justices a legal road map for requiring same-sex marriage in California but not the rest of the nation. The Supreme Court could also sidestep or defer consideration of the case.
....

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is thought to hold the crucial vote in gay rights cases, and he wrote the majority opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that struck down a Texas law making gay sex a crime, and in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us...es.html?ref=us

[JockBoy87]

Last night really is a big loss, no way to spin it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...gie-gallagher#

[scream4ever]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...gie-gallagher#

lol get used to losing Maggie!!!

[JockBoy87]

lol get used to losing Maggie!!!

Damage control is in full swing...

It's totally popcorn worthy.

[Rolyo85]

Nom nom nom ^_^