Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[MCWAY]

Who cares what other people want to do with their lives!? Why do you care?

Because, as has been shown in Massachusetts and in other places where gay “marriage” is legal (and even in some spots, where it’s not), the issue goes WAY beyond two homosexuals obtaining a license to mimic marriage.

In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling earlier this year that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.


In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state last year agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197

It’s about gay activists, imposing their lifestyle onto others (especially people of faith), while giving those people of faith, absolutely NO SAY in the matter, whatsoever. There was even a case in Sweden, where a pastor was thrown in jail, simply for stating that homosexuality was wrong. And, we’ve had near-cases of that happening right HERE in the USA.

The aforementioned scenarios doesn’t just affect the lives of the gay couples. If I (or any other person) can potentially be thrown in the slammer or slapped with over $6K in legal fees, for stating my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that goes WAY BEYOND simply "what other people do with their own lives". And cases like this are popping up left and right.

THAT is why I care.

[Deicide]

Because, as has been shown in Massachusetts and in other places where gay “marriage” is legal (and even in some spots, where it’s not), the issue goes WAY beyond two homosexuals obtaining a license to mimic marriage.

In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling earlier this year that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.


In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state last year agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29197

It’s about gay activists, imposing their lifestyle onto others (especially people of faith), while giving those people of faith, absolutely NO SAY in the matter, whatsoever. There was even a case in Sweden, where a pastor was thrown in jail, simply for stating that homosexuality was wrong. And, we’ve had near-cases of that happening right HERE in the USA.

The aforementioned scenarios doesn’t just affect the lives of the gay couples. If I (or any other person) can potentially be thrown in the slammer for merely stating my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that goes WAY BEYOND simply "what other people do with their own lives". And cases like this are popping up left and right.

THAT is why I care.

Fair enough. Private institutions have the right to not take on certain clients and what have you. As an atheist I think it is retarded to believe the crap you believe but my libertarian principles come first. People have a right to say whatever they want to say. I don't believe in curtailing freedom of speech. If religious wackos want to believe that gays are 'evil' let them, just as when idiots want to deny the Holocaust ever happened. People should have the right to say whatever stupid things they want to and if some privately owned business doesn't want to take certain customers, it's the perogative of the owners. That's how it works in a free society.

[MCWAY]

Fair enough. Private institutions have the right to not take on certain clients and what have you. As an atheist I think it is retarded to believe the crap you believe but my libertarian principles come first. People have a right to say whatever they want to say. I don't believe in curtailing freedom of speech. If religious wackos want to believe that gays are 'evil' let them, just as when idiots want to deny the Holocaust ever happened. People should have the right to say whatever stupid things they want to and if some privately owned business doesn't want to take certain customers, it's the perogative of the owners. That's how it works in a free society.

PRECISELY!!!!

If you were to be chucked in jail for expressing your belief that there is no God, or forced to let people have a Bible study in your private pavillion (or other place of business) else be hammered with thousands of dollars (or Euros, in your case) in legal fees, you'd know exactly why this is of such concern.

As Liberty Cousel head, Matt Staver puts it, "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values."

Even if you DON'T believe in God or any other deity yet believe that gay "marriage" is wrong (Yes, there are people who fit that description), you could face the same hostile treatment.

[Deicide]

PRECISELY!!!!

If you were to be chucked in jail for expressing your belief that there is no God, or forced to let people have a Bible study in your private pavillion (or other place of business) else be hammered with thousands of dollars (or Euros, in your case) in legal fees, you'd know exactly why this is of such concern.

As Liberty Cousel head, Matt Staver puts it, "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values."

Even if you DON'T believe in God or any other deity yet believe that gay "marriage" is wrong (Yes, there are people who fit that description), you could face the same hostile treatment.

Well, it is a pretty tricky question. Back in the earlier part of the 20th century, businesses and restaurants often refused black clients; where does one draw the line? 

[MCWAY]

Well, it is a pretty tricky question. Back in the earlier part of the 20th century, businesses and restaurants often refused black clients; where does one draw the line? 

One draws the line, when the issue becomes a constitutional breach. Over 36 years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Minnesota case (Baker v. Nelson) in which the MN court ruled that marriage laws, defining the institution as a union between a man and a woman, did not violate the 14th amendment. Two gay activists tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case (which eradicated the remaining laws preventing whites from marrying non-whites) to legalize gay "marriage" then.

When the gay activists tried to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, the appeal was dropped on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. In other words, it effectively agreed with Minnesota's court and thus was binding on all lower courts in the country.

That's why, when courts ruled that traditional marriage laws are "unconstitutional" (from a state perspective), the people can pass amendments to override their state courts, as most recently happened in California.

[Deicide]

One draws the line, when the issue becomes a constitutional breach. Over 36 years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Minnesota case (Baker v. Nelson) in which the MN court ruled that marriage laws, defining the institution as a union between a man and a woman, did not violate the 14th amendment. Two gay activists tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case (which eradicated the remaining laws preventing whites from marrying non-whites) to legalize gay "marriage" then.

When the gay activists tried to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, the appeal was dropped on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. In other words, it effectively agreed with Minnesota's court and thus was binding on all lower courts in the country.

That's why, when courts ruled that traditional marriage laws are "unconstitutional" (from a state perspective), the people can pass amendments to override their state courts, as most recently happened in California.

You hate those 'fags', don't you?

[BayGBM]

Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Staff Writer
 
NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.

"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."

The issue is also advancing in New Hampshire, where it has passed the state House and is awaiting action by the Senate, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, which are debating same-sex marriage legislation.

New Jersey, which now allows civil unions for gay couples, is a particular prize for advocates because of its large size, and they are hoping for action this year after a commission in December recommended making marriage laws gender-neutral. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill.

New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Gov. David Paterson has said he supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples. And sometime before early June, the California Supreme Court must decide whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State about five months after it became legal, was a valid use of the referendum power.

The action Tuesday in Vermont came swiftly, surprising even some of the proponents of gay marriage who were still celebrating their victory last Friday, when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could go ahead.

The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.

The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.

"All of us are thrilled at the pace," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates for gay rights. "This is a great day."

With the Vermont vote, and the D.C. Council action, Chrisler said, "I think this is a very significant indicator of how the tide is turning in this country and folks recognize that this is about love and commitment." She added, "The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."

The Vermont vote Tuesday was particularly symbolic for activists because this is the state that nine years ago became the first to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples. Seen at the time as revolutionary, Vermont has in recent years seen other states surpass it by legalizing same-sex marriage outright.

"Vermont opened an important back door," Pizer said. "Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage."

Some 43 U.S. states have laws prohibiting gay marriages -- 29 of those with constitutional amendments specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- but many of those are being subjected to court challenge. Gay activists also hope to challenge the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city.

Tuesday's legislation in Washington was billed as an important milestone in gay rights, because it explicitly recognizes married couples from other states.

The initial council vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

[BayGBM]

Liberty and Justice 

[MCWAY]

Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg, Washington Post Staff Writer
 
NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.

"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."

The issue is also advancing in New Hampshire, where it has passed the state House and is awaiting action by the Senate, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, which are debating same-sex marriage legislation.

New Jersey, which now allows civil unions for gay couples, is a particular prize for advocates because of its large size, and they are hoping for action this year after a commission in December recommended making marriage laws gender-neutral. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill.

New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states, and Gov. David Paterson has said he supports full marriage rights for same-sex couples. And sometime before early June, the California Supreme Court must decide whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State about five months after it became legal, was a valid use of the referendum power.

The action Tuesday in Vermont came swiftly, surprising even some of the proponents of gay marriage who were still celebrating their victory last Friday, when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could go ahead.

The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.

The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.

"All of us are thrilled at the pace," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates for gay rights. "This is a great day."

With the Vermont vote, and the D.C. Council action, Chrisler said, "I think this is a very significant indicator of how the tide is turning in this country and folks recognize that this is about love and commitment." She added, "The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."

The Vermont vote Tuesday was particularly symbolic for activists because this is the state that nine years ago became the first to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples. Seen at the time as revolutionary, Vermont has in recent years seen other states surpass it by legalizing same-sex marriage outright.

"Vermont opened an important back door," Pizer said. "Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage."

Some 43 U.S. states have laws prohibiting gay marriages -- 29 of those with constitutional amendments specifically defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- but many of those are being subjected to court challenge. Gay activists also hope to challenge the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city.

Tuesday's legislation in Washington was billed as an important milestone in gay rights, because it explicitly recognizes married couples from other states.

The initial council vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

I believe the count is 30, as far as states with marriage amendments go. It appears this guy is ignoring Prop. 8 in California, simply because of the ongoing court case. But, from all preliminary reports, it appears that Prop. 8 will stand (barring some super-prosecutor, saving the day for the plaintiffs).

I also find the claim about the country turning the corner, with regards to gay "marriage", is rather spurious as best.

All of the states that have legalized gay "marriage" have two things in common:

1) They have liberal/far-left Legislature and/or courts.

2) They are in states, in which getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires going through political red tape.

A Time magainze article indicated that gay "marriage" proponents should temper their expectations, because it's still vastly unpopular within the country. It further indicated that, even with Iowa's unanimous court decision, the ruling would be REVERSED, if the people were able to vote on it, any time soon.

As we've seen in California, a mere six months after the court struck down Prop. 22 (and, in spite of 18,000 licenses being given to gay couples), the people voted for Prop. 8, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

So, claiming that the entire country has turned the corner on gay "marriage", when one simple amendment in any of those states would overturn the Legislature (or Court) ruling, isn't quite accurate.

[Dos Equis]

I believe the count is 30, as far as states with marriage amendments go. It appears this guy is ignoring Prop. 8 in California, simply because of the ongoing court case. But, from all preliminary reports, it appears that Prop. 8 will stand (barring some super-prosecutor, saving the day for the plaintiffs).

I also find the claim about the country turning the corner, with regards to gay "marriage", is rather spurious as best.

All of the states that have legalized gay "marriage" have two things in common:

1) They have liberal/far-left Legislature and/or courts.

2) They are in states, in which getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires going through political red tape.

A Time magainze article indicated that gay "marriage" proponents should temper their expectations, because it's still vastly unpopular within the country. It further indicated that, even with Iowa's unanimous court decision, the ruling would be REVERSED, if the people were able to vote on it, any time soon.

As we've seen in California, a mere six months after the court struck down Prop. 22 (and, in spite of 18,000 licenses being given to gay couples), the people voted for Prop. 8, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

So, claiming that the entire country has turned the corner on gay "marriage", when one simple amendment in any of those states would overturn the Legislature (or Court) ruling, isn't quite accurate.

I agree that the country hasn't turned the corner yet, but it's only a matter of time.  We also have some issues the supreme court and/or Congress will have to decide, e.g., when a couple that gets married in Massachusetts tries to get their marriage recognized in one of the 30+ states that prohibit homosexual marriage, will the DOMA be deemed Constitutional?

And given that this entire movement includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people (and "gender identity" in Hawaii), what's next on the marriage front?  A bisexual who wants to marry a man and a woman?   

[MCWAY]

I agree that the country hasn't turned the corner yet, but it's only a matter of time.  We also have some issues the supreme court and/or Congress will have to decide, e.g., when a couple that gets married in Massachusetts tries to get their marriage recognized in one of the 30+ states that prohibit homosexual marriage, will the DOMA be deemed Constitutional?

That's been tried already. A lesbian couple "married" in Mass. tried to move to Florida and have the Sunshine State recognize it. A federal judge said nope. The state court didn't budge (and this was before Florida passed its amendment last year).

Plus, you have the issue, regarding "Baker vs. Nelson" back in 1972.

As mentioned earlier, the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the lower (MN) court that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates no constitutional amendments (It dismissed the appeal of two gay activists on its merits). States can define marriage as they see fit.

Some people would have you believe that gay "marriage" is an inevitable. But, activists on both sides of the equation would beg to differ. Again, the states where it's almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot are where gay "marriage" is having the most success.

[Dos Equis]

That's been tried already. A lesbian couple "married" in Mass. tried to move to Florida and have the Sunshine State recognize it. A federal judge said nope. The state court didn't budge (and this was before Florida passed its amendment last year).

Plus, you have the issue, regarding "Baker vs. Nelson" back in 1972.

As mentioned earlier, the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the lower (MN) court that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates no constitutional amendments (It dismissed the appeal of two gay activists on its merits). States can define marriage as they see fit.

Some people would have you believe that gay "marriage" is an inevitable. But, activists on both sides of the equation would beg to differ. Again, the states where it's almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot are where gay "marriage" is having the most success.

What happened with the Flordia case?  Is it being appealed? 

I'm one who does think it's inevitable.  The entire discourse is changing.  I know a guy here who was compared to Hitler because he didn't support the civil unions bill.     In many circles it is almost impossible to oppose these alternative lifestyle choices without being labeled a bigot.

Also, it is much more difficult to argue that we should prevent homosexual, bisexual et al. marriage when those same groups are given the same status as our traditionally protected groups (race, religion, national origin, etc.).  They are a protected class in our state law here.  Obama will assuredly sign federal legislation doing the same thing if it gets to his desk.  Marriage is the next logical step.  It might take a while, but I really see it coming down the pike.     

[MCWAY]

What happened with the Flordia case?  Is it being appealed? 

NOPE!! FL Supreme Court dismissed it and it's gone no further than that.

I'm one who does think it's inevitable.  The entire discourse is changing.  I know a guy here who was compared to Hitler because he didn't support the civil unions bill.     In many circles it is almost impossible to oppose these alternative lifestyle choices without being labeled a bigot.

Also, it is much more difficult to argue that we should prevent homosexual, bisexual et al. marriage when those same groups are given the same status as our traditionally protected groups (race, religion, national origin, etc.).  They are a protected class in our state law here.  Obama will assuredly sign federal legislation doing the same thing if it gets to his desk.  Marriage is the next logical step.  It might take a while, but I really see it coming down the pike.     

It could happen, if people who believe in traditional marriage get bullied into thinking they can't stop it. I don't fear any labels put on me, by gay "marriage" supporters. If the folks in CA, one of the most liberal states in this country, can vote for traditional marriage, that tells me that this is hardly a settled issue.

As for Obama, he has danced around this issue numerous times. How he actually feels depends on his audience.

[Dos Equis]

NOPE!! FL Supreme Court dismissed it and it's gone no further than that.

It could happen, if people who believe in traditional marriage get bullied into thinking they can't stop it. I don't fear any labels put on me, by gay "marriage" supporters. If the folks in CA, one of the most liberal states in this country, can vote for traditional marriage, that tells me that this is hardly a settled issue.

As for Obama, he has danced around this issue numerous times. How he actually feels depends on his audience.

I wasn't very clear, but regarding Obama I was referring to the legislation that will extend things like Title VII to GLBT people.  I forget the name of the legislation, but it's not a marriage bill.  If that is done, then it is harder to argue that those folks should be denied any "rights." 

But you're right about whether it's settled today.  If anything, the public has spoken decisively about preserving traditional marriage, including in Oregon where activists spent a lot of money and still lost. 

[tu_holmes]

I wasn't very clear, but regarding Obama I was referring to the legislation that will extend things like Title VII to GLBT people.  I forget the name of the legislation, but it's not a marriage bill.  If that is done, then it is harder to argue that those folks should be denied any "rights." 

But you're right about whether it's settled today.  If anything, the public has spoken decisively about preserving traditional marriage, including in Oregon where activists spent a lot of money and still lost. 

Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.

[Dos Equis]

Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.

I already addressed this:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=269708.25

You are welcome to go back to that thread and continue the discussion, or bury your head in the sand like you did when I presented you with the facts.   

[BayGBM]

Does that mean that the public has spoken about abortion? Are you willing to admit abortion is a done deal?

Pro-Life measures just do not get passed anymore.

If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.
If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the same sex. 

[tu_holmes]

I already addressed this:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=269708.25

You are welcome to go back to that thread and continue the discussion, or bury your head in the sand like you did when I presented you with the facts.   

You didn't present any facts Beach... you're using the same argument I used here... but it is ok for you here, but not abortion.

As a matter of fact, you should go back and look at the thread... I presented you with actual fact and YOU buried your head.

What's a fact?  Three initiatives failed so that establishes that the majority of Americans are pro choice?  Sorry.  Not buying.

See... That's called "ignoring".

[Dos Equis]

You didn't present any facts Beach... you're using the same argument I used here... but it is ok for you here, but not abortion.

As a matter of fact, you should go back and look at the thread... I presented you with actual fact and YOU buried your head.

See... That's called "ignoring".

lol.  Whatever dude.  Go back and read the thread, including the excerpts and links I posted. 

[tu_holmes]

lol.  Whatever dude.  Go back and read the thread, including the excerpts and links I posted. 

Again... my fact is recent and relevant... 3 pro-life measures 2 of them in "red states"... None of them passed.

That's a fact... Sorry you don't like it.

[Dos Equis]

Again... my fact is recent and relevant... 3 pro-life measures 2 of them in "red states"... None of them passed.

That's a fact... Sorry you don't like it.

Here is something that took me about a minute to find.  What's obvious, if you actually read it, is states have placed a plethora of restrictions on abortion, including banning abortion after viability.   


GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE
 
An Overview of Abortion Laws
STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF
As of 
MARCH 1, 2009
 
 
BACKGROUND:  Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states
have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what
circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.  The following table highlights the major provisions of these state laws. 
More detailed information can be found by selecting the table column headings in blue.  Except where noted, the laws
are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.
 
 
HIGHLIGHTS:
 Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19
states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require
the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
 
Gestational Limits:  36 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or
health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability. 
 
“Partial-Birth” Abortion: 15 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply
only to postviability abortions.
 
 Public Funding:  17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid
enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when
federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.  In
defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
 
 Coverage by Private Insurance:  4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the
woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Additional abortion coverage is permitted
only if the woman purchases it at her own expense.
 
 Refusal:  46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion.  43 states allow
institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.
 
 State-Mandated Counseling:  17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes
information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the
ability of a fetus to feel pain (8 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or
information on the availability of ultrasound (6 states).
 
 Waiting Periods:  24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours,
between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed.  6 of these states have laws that effectively
require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
 
 Parental Involvement:  34 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 
22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 10 require that one or both parents be notified
and 2 states require both parental consent and notification.

I also looked at the three bills/initiatives that failed in November:

California Prop 4:  parental notification
No - 6,111,260 - 52 percent
Yes - 5,599,878 - 48 percent

Colorado Amendment 48:  human life from moment of conception
No - 1,605,978 - 73 percent
Yes - 585,561 - 27 percent

South Dakota Initiative 11:  limit all abortions except for rape or health of mother
No - 206,488 - 55 percent
Yes - 167,536 - 45 percent

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/

You cannot reasonably conclude that the California measure is part of a trend, when (a) it was narrowly defeated with well over 5 million people voting "yes" and (b) 34 states require some form of parental notification.  The trend is clearly in favor of parental notification. 

The Colorado amendment didn't attempt to ban or limit abortion, although that would have started the dominoes. 

South Dakota's initiative was narrowly defeated and was pretty broad. 

So, what I said is absolutely correct:    "I would be more convinced if it was part of a trend in which every single proposed law restricting abortion in any way was defeated at the ballot box.  That hasn't happened."

[LurkerNoMore]

If you don't believe in abortion don't have one.
If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the same sex. 

LOL!!

Didn't you know? Republicans like to keep their gay tops single and unmarried.  They would really hate to violate those Family Values they treasure so much by forcing another married man to commit adultery with them.

[BayGBM]

Paterson Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill
By JEREMY W. PETERS

Gov. David A. Paterson will announce on Thursday plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

The action in Vermont, where state legislators overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, came less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Mr. Paterson has said in recent days that the state legislature should move ahead now with the legislation regardless of whether it can muster enough votes. His reasoning, which some gay rights advocates have challenged, is that New York should make a statement that it is committed to treating same-sex couples the same way it treats couples of the opposite sex.

The announcement will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday at Mr. Paterson’s office in Midtown Manhattan, said people briefed on the governor’s plans but who asked not to be identified because they did not want to upstage the governor.

Simply because Mr. Paterson is introducing a bill, however, does not mean that action in the legislature is imminent. It could take months – even longer – before the bill makes its way through the appropriate committees and onto the floor of the Senate and the Assembly.

“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The bill never reached the Senate.

The legislation is likely to have an especially long road in the Senate, where more lawmakers oppose same-sex marriage than support it. Gay rights advocates are now actively seeking more senators – both Democrats and Republicans – to vote for the bill.

While Mr. Paterson has said he would like to see lawmakers “fight it out” and debate the bill on the floor of both houses even if it fails, Albany tradition dictates that the bill is likely to come to a vote only when it has enough support to pass. Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Democrat and the bill’s chief supporter in the Senate has said he opposes the governor’s notion of fast-tracking it. And the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, has said he would bring the bill to the floor when it has enough support.

The same-sex bill Mr. Paterson plans to introduce is the same piece of legislation that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer introduced in 2007, said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell. The Assembly passed it 85-61, a wider margin than expected.

Mr. O’Donnell said there was some discussion among lawmakers, gay rights lobbyists and the governor’s office about whether the legislation should include any new language that would, for example, allow city clerks to refuse to marry same-sex couples. But Mr. O’Donnell said that the decision was made to leave the bill as is.

“Whether or not the bill should be amended is a political question, but it is a political question that would take more time than it’s worth to resolve. So we decided to leave it,” he said.

[Deicide]

Jeez, why can't we all just get along?

[drkaje]

New York isn't very religions but we're beyond zealous when it comes to children's rights. Gay marriage will probably only have adverse effects on people stupid enough to adopt.