Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112036 times)

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #500 on: April 14, 2009, 07:42:42 AM »
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.

How so? Who cares what other people want to do? They're not hurtin anyone.
I hate the State.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #501 on: April 14, 2009, 08:13:11 AM »
How so? Who cares what other people want to do? They're not hurtin anyone.

Only people on the fringes care.

I'm more or less curious how redefining marriage will affect the family unit. I divorce the mother typically becomes custodial parent and there is a relatively simple child support formula. Considering the divorce rate is about 50% (first time) and 75% (second time around) it's impossible that gay marriage cannot affect children in some way. I'm simply curious what the effect will be.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #502 on: April 14, 2009, 10:40:31 AM »
No Beach... The trend is people being pro-choice... Even your own quotes prove so... You just refuse to see it.

Abortion based measures in 2008... 3 pro-choice wins.

It's ok... You're in denial.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #503 on: April 14, 2009, 12:21:52 PM »
No Beach... The trend is people being pro-choice... Even your own quotes prove so... You just refuse to see it.

Abortion based measures in 2008... 3 pro-choice wins.

It's ok... You're in denial.

Yes tu.  Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #504 on: April 14, 2009, 03:20:08 PM »
Yes tu.  Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. 

That's what one of my ex's used to say... Such a girl statement.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #505 on: April 14, 2009, 03:29:22 PM »
That's what one of my ex's used to say... Such a girl statement.

Maybe that's why she's your ex.  :)

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #506 on: April 14, 2009, 04:00:01 PM »
Maybe that's why she's your ex.  :)

So you're not denying you act like a girl ???

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #507 on: April 14, 2009, 04:21:22 PM »
So you're not denying you act like a girl ???

Are you denying that your ex broke up with you because you repeat the same nonsense over and and over again, regardless of what the facts actually show? 

(I'm actually responding to your toddler-like ad hominem comment by making one of my own.) 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #508 on: April 14, 2009, 04:37:11 PM »
Are you denying that your ex broke up with you because you repeat the same nonsense over and and over again, regardless of what the facts actually show? 

(I'm actually responding to your toddler-like ad hominem comment by making one of my own.) 

Yes, I'm denying that...

(See how simple it is to say Beach is wrong?)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #509 on: April 17, 2009, 11:00:48 AM »
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.

"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.

Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.

In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.

McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.

"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.

McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ex-mccain-aide-to-call-for-gay-marriage-support/

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #510 on: April 19, 2009, 06:42:39 PM »
Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.

Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans — a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.

"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.

Schmidt had previously expressed his personal support for gay marriage. Last month, he told the Washington Blade newspaper that he is in favor of legalizing it and that he voted against California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling that had legalized the unions in that state.

In making the case, Schmidt is putting himself at odds with the position of John McCain, whose 2008 campaign he effectively ran.

McCain rarely talked about same-sex marriage or other social issues, but when he did, he made clear he was in line with social conservatives in opposing same-sex marriage.

"Have no doubt about my commitment to the unique status and sanctity of marriage between man and woman," McCain said on the campaign trail.

McCain's daughter Meghan has become a vocal advocate in recent months for gay marriage, and is slated to participate in the Log Cabin Republican convention this weekend.

In his speech Friday, Schmidt will acknowledge that his is a "minority view" in the GOP, but will also say, "I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ex-mccain-aide-to-call-for-gay-marriage-support/


Oh, YES IT CAN be argued. Again, see the cases I listed from that article from Baptist Press, namely about the couple fined over $6K for refusing to perform a lesbian "commit ceremony" at their wedding chapel in NEW MEXICO (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal).

If the GOP switches their position on same-sex "marriage", they will lose their conservative base, without which they have NO CHANCE of winning. As stated before, they may not always win with that base; but they WILL NOT WIN without it.

The GOP's losses have virtually nothing to do with this issue. Look at the last two presidental elections. Obama won California HANDS DOWN; yet Prop. 8 still passed. In fact, the tipping point (much to gay activists' chagrin) was Obama's most-easily locked up demographic: black voters.

Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet Amendment 2 passed in the Sunshine state.

Going back to 2004, several "blue" states that Kerry won with relative ease (i.e. Michigan, Oregon) passed marriage amendments as well.

Therefore, I see no connection between the GOP's accepting gay "marriage" and future political success.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #511 on: April 19, 2009, 07:09:43 PM »
Oh, YES IT CAN be argued. Again, see the cases I listed from that article from Baptist Press, namely about the couple fined over $6K for refusing to perform a lesbian "commit ceremony" at their wedding chapel in NEW MEXICO (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal).

If the GOP switches their position on same-sex "marriage", they will lose their conservative base, without which they have NO CHANCE of winning. As stated before, they may not always win with that base; but they WILL NOT WIN without it.

The GOP's losses have virtually nothing to do with this issue. Look at the last two presidental elections. Obama won California HANDS DOWN; yet Prop. 8 still passed. In fact, the tipping point (much to gay activists' chagrin) was Obama's most-easily locked up demographic: black voters.

Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet Amendment 2 passed in the Sunshine state.

Going back to 2004, several "blue" states that Kerry won with relative ease (i.e. Michigan, Oregon) passed marriage amendments as well.

Therefore, I see no connection between the GOP's accepting gay "marriage" and future political success.


So you think the Christian right wing will just stop voting all together?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #512 on: April 20, 2009, 04:46:31 AM »
So you think the Christian right wing will just stop voting all together?

Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #513 on: April 20, 2009, 04:50:45 AM »
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?

So, what's evil about homosexuality?
I hate the State.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #514 on: April 20, 2009, 09:09:27 AM »
Hardly!!! My point, of course, was that gay "marriage" was hardly a factor in the GOP's loss and it has no bearing on its attempts to return to the winner's circle.

In fact, isn't this McCain aide speaking to the "Log Cabin Republicans" (i.e. gays who consisitently voted GOP, despite its backing of marriage amendments)?

I think the point is that they will always get the right wing vote... If they can get some of the gay or more liberal vote, then their party can potentially return to prominence.


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #515 on: April 22, 2009, 01:47:07 PM »
I think the point is that they will always get the right wing vote... If they can get some of the gay or more liberal vote, then their party can potentially return to prominence.


They already have "some of the gay vote" (i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans). What the GOP needs is to solidify the base and get more of them to vote. McCain had a scant handful of the social conservatives in his corner, until he picked Palin. Even then, when the big crowds were showing up, they were more for HER than for him.

The tandem of social and fiscal conservatism must be there, in order for the GOP to get it done. One without the other won't cut it.

One of the reasont the liberals are so enraged with "Christian right wing" is because they think they put Bush over the top in 2004, particularly with regards to the marriage amendments. Prior to 2004, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union. After 2004, it jumped to 17.

In any event, gay "marriage" has nothing to do with the equation. Even, in the "blue" states that Kerry had little trouble winning in '04, marriage amendments held in those states passed handily. In '06, when the GOP got bounced out of power, 7 state marriage amendments passed. And, of course, last year's election, with a decisive Obama win, amendments passed in three states: California ("blue"); Florida (flipped from "red" to "blue") and, Arizona ("red").


BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #516 on: April 30, 2009, 06:10:44 PM »
New Hampshire Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

CONCORD, N.H. — The New Hampshire Senate voted narrowly on Wednesday to legalize same-sex marriage, paving the way for the state to potentially become the fifth in the nation — and the third this month — to allow gay couples to wed.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 13 to 11 in favor of the bill, but only after a last-minute amendment strengthened language granting legal protections for religious groups and organizations that do not want to perform or help carry out same-sex marriages.

The House, which approved the marriage bill by a seven-vote margin last month, must vote on the Senate’s amended version. But supporters and opponents predicted that version would pass the House, which is more liberal and was more enthusiastic about same-sex marriage from the start.

It is unclear whether Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, will veto the bill or whether the new language will persuade him to endorse it. The bill probably cannot gain enough support in either house for an override, so its fate almost certainly rests with Mr. Lynch.

The governor has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, but he could also let the bill become law without his signature. Mr. Lynch did not reveal his intentions after the Senate’s vote but restated his belief that the state’s two-year-old civil-union law provides sufficient rights and protections to gay couples.

“To achieve further real progress,” he said in a statement, “the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. It denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages.

Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which was established to fight same-sex marriage around the country, said the group would intensively lobby Mr. Lynch to veto the bill.

“This vote is in no way representative of what folks in New Hampshire want,” Mr. Brown said, adding that the Senate leadership had used “arm-twisting” to change the votes of a few crucial Democrats. “If the governor is going to stand by his words,” he added, “he will veto this bill.”

To some extent, the support for same-sex marriage reflects a sea change in New Hampshire politics since 2006, when Democrats gained control of the legislature for the first time in over a century. While staunchly conservative on fiscal matters, New Hampshire has been less so on social issues, partly because its residents’ famous libertarian streak resists government intrusion in personal matters.

But last-minute politicking also played a role in the Senate’s vote. Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3 to 2 against the marriage measure, and the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat, said afterward that New Hampshire was simply not ready for same-sex marriage.

Ms. Reynolds, the only Democrat who opposed the bill in committee, emphasized that civil unions were still new in New Hampshire and that Vermont, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage on April 7, had done so only after living with civil unions for nine years.

But on Wednesday, Ms. Reynolds, who represents a fairly conservative region, said the new language made the bill acceptable. She described it as a compromise that was “respectful to both sides of the debate and meets our shared goals of equality under the state laws for all of the people of New Hampshire.”

Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, vetoed that state’s same-sex marriage bill, but the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode his veto, making Vermont the first state to adopt same-sex marriage legislatively instead of through the courts. Days earlier, the Iowa Supreme Court found a state law banning same-sex marriage to be a violation of the State Constitution.

In New Hampshire, more than 650 same-sex unions have been registered since they became legal in January 2008.

Same-sex marriage was among several contentious bills that the Senate took up Wednesday, all passed by the House in recent weeks. One, a measure to allow people with certain illnesses to possess marijuana for medical purposes, passed in a vote of 14 to 10. But the Senate voted unanimously against a bill that would guarantee transgender people protection from discrimination in housing and employment. It also put off action on a bill to repeal the death penalty.

Democrats hold a 14-to-10 majority in the Senate, but it is generally more centrist and cautious than the House, where Democrats hold a 223-to-175 majority.

Opponents of same-sex marriage appeared better organized here than in Vermont. Cornerstone Research Institute waged an intense phone campaign with help from the National Organization for Marriage, but the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition and other gay-rights groups also lobbied fiercely.

Mo Baxley, the coalition’s executive director, described the Senate bill as a fair compromise.

“It is in keeping with New Hampshire’s live-free-or-die tradition to stand up for individual liberties and against discrimination of any kind,” Ms. Baxley said.

“I have to say,” she added, “America is at a turning point.”


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #517 on: April 30, 2009, 06:53:10 PM »
It's business as usual: Another state with left-leaning Legislature, which prevents the people from actually voting on this issue, hardly an indication that "America is at a turning point".


BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #518 on: May 05, 2009, 06:26:09 PM »
Gay Marriage Advances in Maine
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and KATIE ZEZIMA

AUGUSTA, Me. — Gay-rights advocates moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England on Tuesday, when the Maine House of Representative voted to legalize such unions.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have won victory after victory this spring, with the legislatures of Vermont, New Hampshire and now Maine embracing it. The region is close to offering such marriages full support; Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to let gay couples marry in 2004, and Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage last fall.

But in Maine and New Hampshire, the governors, both Democrats, will be pivotal in determining whether same-sex marriage proponents succeed in winning over an entire region of the country. Neither Gov. John Baldacci of Maine nor Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire has made his intentions public. Both men opposed same-sex marriage in the past but have indicated they might be reconsidering.

No governor has yet signed a same-sex marriage bill that was not the result of court ruling. Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, vetoed a bill in Vermont last month, and the Legislature then enacted it after an override. And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, vetoed a similar bill in California in 2005.

Supporters of the measures probably do not have enough support to override a veto in Maine or New Hampshire.

With the movement enjoying momentum from the string of recent victories — including the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last month that same-sex marriage should be legal there — Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Lynch are facing considerable pressure from advocates and from their own party, which increasingly supports same-sex marriage.

Mr. Lynch will have five days to make a decision after the bill reaches his desk; Mr. Baldacci will have 10.

In California, where the State Supreme Court may rule this week on whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, gay-rights advocates are optimistic even though many expect the ruling to uphold the ban.

The next state to debate same-sex marriage will probably be New York. Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, introduced a marriage bill last month and the State Assembly, which strongly supports it, will probably take it up next week. The bill’s fate in the Senate is less certain.

In Maine, the Democratically controlled House voted 89 to 57 for the bill; the State Senate, also dominated by Democrats, approved the bill last week in a 21-to-14 vote. Mr. Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said he would not make a final decision before the bill reached his desk. That could be as soon as Wednesday, when the State Senate is expected to formally pass it.

“He absolutely is listening to what people have to say,” Mr. Farmer said. “But at the end of the day, I think it will come down to what he believes is the right thing to do.”

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland will be among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci, a Catholic, to veto the bill, as will the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council in Washington. “We’re going to be on his case,” said Marc R. Mutty, director of public affairs for the diocese.

The House chamber was thick with emotion on Tuesday as many legislators openly wept and revealed personal details. One told her colleagues for the first time that she has a lesbian daughter; another wept as he explained that he, as a white man, would not have been able to marry his wife of 25 years, who is black, if a law had not been changed. Other legislators spoke of sleepless nights debating how to vote.

Several political observers guessed that Mr. Baldacci, who is barred by term limits from seeking re-election, would sign Maine’s bill and that Mr. Lynch, who might run again, would let New Hampshire’s become law without his signature.

“I could see him letting it pass without his explicit approval,” Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, said of Mr. Lynch. “One of his hallmarks has been to put some distance between himself and the legislature.”

After the Senate’s vote last week, Mr. Lynch restated his belief that the state’s two-year-old civil-union law provided sufficient rights and protections to gay couples. But he did not repeat an earlier statement that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

While the Iowa decision gave supporters of same-sex marriage an important first victory in the nation’s heartland and a few other states are considering legislation this year, New England remains the nucleus of the movement. Gay-rights groups here have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign called Six by Twelve.

The region’s strong libertarian bent helps explain why the issue has found support. And voters in some New England states cannot initiate constitutional amendments, a strategy for blocking same-sex marriage elsewhere.

Maine does have a “people’s veto” process by which voters can put a question on the ballot. Opponents of the same-sex marriage law will surely try to collect enough signatures — about 55,000 — to suspend it until a public referendum can be held.

A Rhode Island bill is unlikely to be acted on soon; proponents believe its chances will improve in 2011, after Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, leaves office.

“We are closer than we thought we would be, although not closer than we hoped we would be,” said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group leading the New England campaign. Pointing out that May 17 is the fifth anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Ms. Swislow added, “New England is such a small region that people have been able to see it’s good for everyone.”

Washington, DC Acts on Marriages

The Council of the District of Columbia on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The measure now goes to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who has said he supports it. The committees in the House and Senate that oversee the District of Columbia would then have 30 session days to review the law. If Congress does not act within 30 days, the law will automatically take effect.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #519 on: May 05, 2009, 06:28:28 PM »
CNN Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage, but Those Under 35 Back It
May 05, 2009 11:06 AM ET
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

As a slew of states move to legalize gay marriage, a new CNN poll finds that most Americans still oppose it, though those under 35 are solidly for gay marriage legalization.

The poll finds that just 44 percent back gay marriage, compared with 58 percent of those under 35. The generational gap over the issue is striking: Only around 4 in 10 Americans ages 35 to 64 back gay marriage, and the number drops to 24 percent for those above age 65.

The numbers raise an important question about the strategy of the pro-gay marriage forces: Is their move to start legalizing gay marriage in many states far enough ahead of public opinion to provoke a serious backlash? Or, given the dramatic generational shift in public opinion on the issue, is their timing just right?

Read CNN's poll analysis here.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-most-americans-oppose-gay-marriage-but-those-under-35-back-it.html

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #520 on: May 06, 2009, 04:23:21 AM »
CNN Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage, but Those Under 35 Back It
May 05, 2009 11:06 AM ET
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

As a slew of states move to legalize gay marriage, a new CNN poll finds that most Americans still oppose it, though those under 35 are solidly for gay marriage legalization.

The poll finds that just 44 percent back gay marriage, compared with 58 percent of those under 35. The generational gap over the issue is striking: Only around 4 in 10 Americans ages 35 to 64 back gay marriage, and the number drops to 24 percent for those above age 65.

The numbers raise an important question about the strategy of the pro-gay marriage forces: Is their move to start legalizing gay marriage in many states far enough ahead of public opinion to provoke a serious backlash? Or, given the dramatic generational shift in public opinion on the issue, is their timing just right?

Read CNN's poll analysis here.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/05/cnn-poll-most-americans-oppose-gay-marriage-but-those-under-35-back-it.html

The strategy has little to do with demographics. It has everything to do with targeting states where the people can't vote on this issue (without going through a liberal-tilting Legislature or Senate to get it on the ballot).

That's the nature of the California suit on Prop. 8. The plaintiffs want to declare Prop. 8 a "revision" meaning it would have to go through CA's Legislature and pass by a 67% supermajority as well as a simple (51%) majority of the electorate. Of course, they know that the Legislature doesn't support Prop. 8, at least not by that margin.

If Prop. 8 stands as a mere amendment, the people don't need to go through the Legislature. Therefore the vote stands and marriage remains defined as a union between a man and a woman.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #521 on: May 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PM »
I think it's an age gap... Similarly to how interracial marriage was a taboo that became a non issue .

Younger people are always more accepting than the older.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #522 on: May 06, 2009, 03:10:45 PM »
I think it's an age gap... Similarly to how interracial marriage was a taboo that became a non issue .

Younger people are always more accepting than the older.

Perhaps.  Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #523 on: May 06, 2009, 03:17:00 PM »
Not so fast on Maine!!!

Maine gov. signs 'gay marriage' bill, but law could be overturned with 'people's veto'

AUGUSTA, Maine (BP)--Maine's Democratic governor signed a bill Wednesday, legalizing "gay marriage," setting the stage for what likely will be a high-profile and costly "people's veto" effort to overturn the law and restore the traditional definition of marriage.

With his signature Gov. John Baldacci, who is in his final term, became the first governor in U.S. history to sign a gay marriage bill. Vermont's legislature legalized "gay marriage" in April by overriding the veto of its Republican governor.......


Technically, Maine is the fifth state to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, but because of the state's unique constitution, citizens can gather signatures and place the law on the ballot. If that happens -- approximately 55,000 signatures are required -- the law would not go into effect until the people vote. It is called a "people's veto," and conservative leaders already have said they're going to go that route.

"All hope is not lost," Michael Heath, executive director of the conservative Maine Policy Council, which supports the people's veto effort, told Baptist Press. "Unlike Massachusetts and other states, we can go directly to the ballot. This is a direct democracy mechanism that will be utilized."

If past people's veto efforts are any indication, the signatures should be gathered with relative ease. Twice in the past 11 years conservatives in Maine gathered the required number of signatures to overturn sexual orientation laws, something less controversial than "gay marriage." Conservatives won one vote and lost the most recent one.

A vote on "gay marriage" -- which will take place either in November or next June -- would be the costliest and most high-profile people's veto in state history, Heath said. Opponents of the new law warn it will weaken religious freedoms and parental rights and lead to the requirement of "gay marriage" being taught in school as morally acceptable.



http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30434

Bascially, the law takes effect in June. From there, the people have about three months to get about 56,000 signatures, in order to vote on reversing the law this November.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #524 on: May 06, 2009, 03:59:15 PM »
Perhaps.  Another way to look at it is young folks tend to get smarter as they get older.

Not really... they never overturned women's right to vote or de-segregation... So I'd say not.

It's just the way things happen as time passes.

No one cares about abortion anymore either... Well, except you old people... And as you old people die off... Well... You get the idea.