1 for 31 no more: Gay rights movement ends dismal record

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2012 8:29 PM GMT
    Supporters of same-sex marriage had lost 30 statewide votes on the issue (interrupted only by a vote in Arizona that was later reversed in another ballot) before Tuesday’s victories in Minnesota, Maryland and Maine, turning the tide on LGBT rights on what one expert calls a “red letter day.” Pro-gay marriage forces also hold a lead in a Washington state vote, although that one remains too close to call.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14998618-1-for-31-no-more-gay-rights-movement-ends-dismal-record?lite
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14350

    Nov 07, 2012 8:43 PM GMT
    This is long overdue. I am very happy about both Maine and Maryland approving gay marriage. I would love to see Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island join the rest of their fellow northeastern states by making marital equality the law of the land. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2012 9:13 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThis is long overdue. I am very happy about both Maine and Maryland approving gay marriage. I would love to see Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island join the rest of their fellow northeastern states by making marital equality the law of the land. icon_biggrin.gif

    Don't forget Washington State & Minnesota. I believe MN has rejected an anti-gay constitutional amendment, but a State law still exists banning gay marriage, which will require reversing before gay marriage is legal there. Washington State's ballot measure is still too close at this moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2012 10:33 PM GMT
    In 2004, Oregon voted to ban gay marriage by a vote of 56% and Michigan by 57%. In 2006 Wisconsin voted by 56%. Those votes happened at a time when some states were passing these proposals by 70 to 80%. With the change in attitudes over the last few years, it is too bad we can't revisit it in Mich, Wisc, or Ore. With those margins years ago, I think the results would be very different today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 12:03 AM GMT
    Iceblink saidIn 2004, Oregon voted to ban gay marriage by a vote of 56% and Michigan by 57%. In 2006 Wisconsin voted by 56%. Those votes happened at a time when some states were passing these proposals by 70 to 80%. With the change in attitudes over the last few years, it is too bad we can't revisit it in Mich, Wisc, or Ore. With those margins years ago, I think the results would be very different today.


    Yes, well they made it part of the constitution. Much harder to change. It seems like the best path to reversing those constitutional amendments is a supreme court ruling that strikes them all down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 12:38 AM GMT
    mindgarden said
    Iceblink saidIn 2004, Oregon voted to ban gay marriage by a vote of 56% and Michigan by 57%. In 2006 Wisconsin voted by 56%. Those votes happened at a time when some states were passing these proposals by 70 to 80%. With the change in attitudes over the last few years, it is too bad we can't revisit it in Mich, Wisc, or Ore. With those margins years ago, I think the results would be very different today.


    Yes, well they made it part of the constitution. Much harder to change. It seems like the best path to reversing those constitutional amendments is a supreme court ruling that strikes them all down.


    Difficult in Michigan to change, but not much more difficult than it was to get the amendment passed. There has been some backlash in Michigan about how easy it is to change the constitution. It would also probably only work in 2016 when there is a wider cross section of voters than in a midterm election. Maybe by that time it will have been heard in the court and will not matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 12:46 AM GMT
    SO PROUD TO BE A MINNESOTAN!!!! WE KICKED ASSSSSS!!!!!
  • monet

    Posts: 1093

    Nov 08, 2012 3:29 AM GMT
    I predict that within the next two years we will have nation-wide marriage equality.

    Marriage equality is a civil right, not something to be decided by referendum.

    I think that the the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down a decision giving marriage equality to all same-sex couples by the end of 2014.

    See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia (1967): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 3:45 AM GMT
    monet saidI predict that within the next two years we will have nation-wide marriage equality.

    Marriage equality is a civil right, not something to be decided by referendum.

    I think that the the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down a decision giving marriage equality to all same-sex couples by the end of 2014.

    See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia (1967): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia





    And back then, religion was being used as a reason against interracial marriage. The Virginia trial judge in his opinion against the couple said, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 4:03 AM GMT
    mindgarden said
    Iceblink saidIn 2004, Oregon voted to ban gay marriage by a vote of 56% and Michigan by 57%. In 2006 Wisconsin voted by 56%. Those votes happened at a time when some states were passing these proposals by 70 to 80%. With the change in attitudes over the last few years, it is too bad we can't revisit it in Mich, Wisc, or Ore. With those margins years ago, I think the results would be very different today.


    Yes, well they made it part of the constitution. Much harder to change. It seems like the best path to reversing those constitutional amendments is a supreme court ruling that strikes them all down.


    That's my feeling too. Only we need a court with balls so Obama better put some women on there.

    I was in a similar discussion early this evening with my brother and we were thinking of how changes are made because I am so frustrated with the idea of the population voting for my human rights. It truly horrifies me & diminishes those rights as far as I am concerned.

    My brother was thinking these types of changes were always voted on, but civil rights was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not voted on by the states nor the population but proposed by a president doing his job and legislatively passed. On the other hand, women's suffrage was passed legislatively but then ratified as an amendment so in a sense, I guess, voted on by the states. however that works, I'm not familiar.

    But I think we get our rights by court decision.

    This isn't the early 1900s, this isn't even 50 years ago. We think we're living in this modern, enlighted age then how is all this such fucking stupidity still going on? They know they're wrong, so just make the fucking correction already. They come up with every fucking excuse in the book to try and deny what they know is true. It's outrageous. How would they feel if their children acted like that?

    It's like knowing murder is wrong but going over to your neighbor's and murdering him anyway. Then thinking about how wrong that is, the next day you do it again. What the fuck? How do those bastards not feel terrible for how they make us live? Where is their conscience? The whole thing is fucking disgusting. I am so sick of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    It's not just the ballot measures like these that's critical, it's stuff left to state and local legislative decision making, like whether to include LGBT provisions in hate crime laws, equal employment opportunities, equality in customer service, and adoption.

    Here in Georgia we have a lesbian State Rep (very safe in her district, she's great) who is literally held hostage annually by rural reps who want to include in innocuous bills legislation to ban adoption for gay and even unmarried straight couples. She literally has to negotiate just so the measure isn't brought up for a vote, essentially, "What crap do I have to co-sponsor just to make this go away?"

    In Manhattan, Kansas the city council passes an LGBT anti-discrimination measure in 2010. Thanks to gullible voters, Christianists take over the council expressly to repeal it and swiftly do so once elected.

    The phobes couldn't replace the council members in Missoula, Montana, so they got their State House to try and repeal it before their anti-discrimination ordinance was even one year old. It stalled in the Senate, but it just hangs out there like a pinata for any politician that comes down the pike thinking they can get brownie points for swinging at it.

    Behind all of these anti-LGBT measures are hundreds of thousands of local and state politicians that conflate "will of their citizenry" with "will of their individual conceptual religious deity." And they rely on this conflation not only for their current job, but for advancement to bigger jobs down the line. Until the courts can do their duty, it's up to voters to keep these clowns out of office, and at least, make their political lives frickin' miserable if they even try to approach rescinding or withholding people's equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    Two more examples in Kansas:

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/11/08/voters-two-kansas-cities-repeal-antidiscrimination-laws

    The AdvocateVoters in two Kansas cities, Salina and Hutchinson, Tuesday repealed gay-inclusive antidiscrimination laws that had been adopted this year by the cities’ governing bodies.

    The Salina ordinance was repealed by a vote of 54% to 46%, while the Hutchinson law was voted down by a margin of 58% to 42%, The Wichita Eagle reports. “It’s clear we have a lot more educating to do,” Jon Powell, chairman of the Hutchinson chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition, an LGBT rights group, told the Eagle.

    The votes leave Lawrence, home to the University of Kansas, as the only city in the state with an LGBT-inclusive antidiscrimination law. Lawrence has prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation since the mid 1990s, and it added gender identity to the law last year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2012 4:27 PM GMT
    First state to trounce an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment - 51 to 49! Our state house, now controlled by dems, has wisely decided to focus on economic issues this session....once we get our economic house in order we can then focus on getting gay marriage approved legislatively, perhaps next session. I think trying to do so now would only rally the other side and end in defeat; after their stunning loss, they gonna be pisssssed.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 10, 2012 4:37 PM GMT
    Jim Burroway (Box Turtle Bulletin) offers a correction for me and others on "the first":

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50704

    Jim BurrowayMinnesota Was NOT the First State To Defeat A Constitutional Ban on Same Sex Marriage

    That distinction goes to Arizona, which became the first state to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 2006 when voters rejected Prop 107 by a margin of 48.2% to 51.8%. Prop 107 would have been a comprehensive ban, prohibiting same-sex marriages as well as any “legal status for unmarried persons… that is similar to that of marriage.” That was the sticking point for Arizona’s large number of co-habiting seniors who remain unmarried in order to protect their pension benefits. Once that clause was removed, Prop 102 passed in 2008.

    A lot of people are celebrating Minnesota’s defeat of Amendment 1. I, too, am overjoyed to see Minnesota — as Midwestern a state as they come — declaring that discrimination stops here. But it is really bugging the hell out of me to see so many media outlets proclaiming Minnesota as the “first state in the nation” to reject a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That is not correct. I live in one of the most god-awful, backward and angry states in the union, but for two lovely years from 2006 to 2008, my adopted home held the distinction for being the only state to turn down a marriage amendment, and it will always remain the first to do so.

    So that truly wonderful feeling that Minnesotans are feeling right now? That feeling that the world has changed in a most (wonderful) way? That feeling that you get when you look at your neighbors with the confidence of knowing that they also see you as their neighbor in a way you perhaps hadn’t felt before? I know that feeling very well, and I’m thrilled that others are feeling it again today. And I’m not giving that memory up. It’s one of the very few proud memories around here to hold on to.


    Maybe Minnesota can be "the first" state to permanently kick these ballot proposals to the proverbial curb. We'll see over the next few years.