12 States That Will Probably Legalize Gay Marriage in 2013-2014

  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Mar 12, 2013 3:58 AM GMT
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/29294/12-states-that-will-probably-legalize-gay-marriage-in-2013-2014

    Twelve more states are adopting same-gender civil marriage in 2013-2014. Moreover, they're doing it 13 times faster than in 1990, when three same-gender couples first sought civil marriage licenses in Hawaii. The first wave of 10 states took 22 years (1990-2012). But the second wave — 12 more states — is finishing in just two years (2013-2014). What used to average over 26 months per state is now averaging just eight weeks each.

    Over the last two decades, support for same-gender civil marriage grew rapidly, from only 12% in 1988 to 53% in 2012 — with similar results across 53 legislatures (50 states, the federal District, the Puerto Rico territory, and Congress), and overwhelmingly favorable progress with 42 lawsuits in state and federal courts.

    Among America's many voter types, there are only five demographic groups left where opponents of equality still show up: less educated Caucasians (56%), the over-65 crowd (58%), Republicans (69%), evangelical Protestant Caucasians (73%), and Tea Partyists (nearly 100%). Those five are the only opponent hideouts left; every other demographic group measured in a major national poll now supports same-gender marriage.



    As seen in ballot measures, legislation, and lawsuits, marriage equality is a prominent issue in 37 states. The next 12 states where legalization is underway are known, and the order in which they're finishing is now predictable. By the end of 2014, these next 12 states will join the 10 other jurisdictions that already have full marriage equality: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. At that point, 45% of America's citizens will live in the 22 states where lawmakers, courts, and/or voters decided to issue same-gender civil marriage licenses.

    How did the order in which states are adopting marriage equality become predictable? Each state's rank is affected by 9 key factors: neighboring states, LGBT population, current law, state constitution, voters, lawmakers, governors, litigation, and ballot questions. No single factor, by itself, guarantees success or assures failure; but when the 9 factors are analyzed together, after adjustments for legislative calendars and ballot timing, the national road map emerges.

    All 12 states have as many as four neighbor states with same-gender couples, and most already have a back-of-the-bus form of couple recognition such as domestic partnership or civil union, so voters already have proof that marriage equality brings no negative results. In all 12 of these states, pluralities of voters already support same-gender marriage, and in all but a couple of states, majorities support it. In most of these states, there is no constitutional ban, but even in those states that have one, most voters now want it repealed, or a lawsuit is about to strike it down, or, as in California, it's both unpopular on the street, and is losing in court. Most of these states also have precedent-setting lawsuits underway, most of which are approaching conclusion, so in some states the courts may be able to achieve marriage equality before the lawmakers can enact it.

    Each state in this next wave is taking its own, unique path. Here are the highlights:

    11. Illinois: Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union are pursuing two lawsuits representing 25 same-gender couples in civil unions that have been proven inferior to full marriage. But legislators are on track to pass a same-gender marriage law well before those cases go to trial.

    12. Rhode Island: Same-gender couples show little enthusiasm for the civil unions enacted in 2011, and appear to be waiting until they can truly, fully marry.

    13. Delaware: Laws change only via this state's legislature or its courts; there is no ballot initiative, referendum, or recall. With no option for a ballot, and no litigation pending, all eyes are on the State House, where the governor is calling same-gender marriage "inevitable."

    14. New Jersey: All three options are running in parallel: Democratic lawmakers are a few votes shy of overriding the Republican governor's veto of the marriage equality law that they passed in 2012; some lawmakers want to put human rights up to a popular vote, which the latest polls show would pass 53% to 36%; and litigation begun 11 years ago might generate a ruling before a veto override or a voter ballot.

    15. Minnesota: The governor has promised to sign a marriage law as soon as the legislature can pass it. A few fearful Democrats are reluctant to do so, but in their places are a few brave Republicans, making the final vote a cliffhanger.

    16. Hawaii: At the first state legislature to ever consider marriage equality, the 23-year fight continues. Multiple measures (statutory and constitutional) would allow same-gender civil marriage, and multiple counter-measures would ban it. Meanwhile, LGBT couples suing for full marriage to replace their back-of-the-bus civil unions lost their case in district court, but then appealed, with a trial likely around January 2014, the same time that legislators resume debating.

    17. Michigan:Some citizens are trying to raise $10 million and gather 300,000 signatures for a 2014 ballot measure, while other citizens want to delay that human rights vote until 2016. Meanwhile, a federal judge just told two nurses who sued (so they could marry each other and adopt all their children jointly) that he won't rule on their case until he sees what the U.S. Supreme Court does in other marriage cases.

    18. Oregon: Citizens are gathering 116,284 signatures to put their own human rights up for a vote on the 2014 ballot.

    19. Colorado: Democrats retrieved control of the legislature from Republicans in 2012, at which point the victors said they'd pass a civil union law in 2013, repeal the constitutional ban against same-gender marriage in 2014, and then pass a new marriage law, also in 2014.

    20. New Mexico: If both the House and Senate approve a constitutional amendment allowing same-gender marriage in 2013, it will appear on a statewide ballot in 2014.

    21. Nevada: Eight same-gender couples sued in federal court for full marriage rights, and the Mormon judge who ruled against them said that they have no constitutional right to marry, after wrongly assuming: (1) that same-gender couples do not procreate; and (2) that when same-gender couples marry more often, then mixed-gender couples marry less often. He appears unaware that same-gender couples often raise children from prior marriage, fertilization, surrogacy, foster care, and/or adoption. The judge also ruled that gays and lesbians are politically powerful enough to protect themselves, and too powerful to qualify as a minority class. Lambda Legal appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (where California Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional). A ruling is likely in 2014. Meanwhile, if the House and Senate approve a constitutional amendment for same-gender marriage in 2013, it will appear on a ballot in 2014.

    22. California: The most complex, unusual, and long-running marriage equality battle in America continues to entertain, and to anguish. Now in its 13th year, the final disputes are before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide three main questions: whether the defendants (the sponsors of California Proposition 8, which ended marriages between same-gender couples) can defend a state law after state officials opted not to; whether those defendants would suffer harm from same-gender marriages; whether it's constitutional for California voters to repeal same-gender couples' constitutional right to marry; and whatever other topics the court might add. The possible rulings
  • Hotgymguy22

    Posts: 98

    Mar 12, 2013 2:17 PM GMT
    States where gay marriage is already legal:
    Connecticut
    Iowa
    Maine
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    New Hampshire
    New York
    Vermont
    Washington
    District of Columbia

    States that will likely add gay marriage shortly:
    California
    Colorado
    Delaware
    Hawaii
    Illinois
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Nevada
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Oregon
    Rhode Island

    22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world.
  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Mar 12, 2013 2:33 PM GMT
    Hotgymguy22 said 22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world.


    It is 2013 and Mississippi just ratified the amendment banning slavery. It's the South. What do you expect?

    There is a really good chance that DOMA will get struck down this summer. If that happens, then the 10 states plus the 12 states likely to legalize gay would represent about half of the country. If you live in a state that does not allow gay marriage and you want to be married, then I would recommend LEAVING. Come to the half of the country where we support equal rights. We will be happy to have you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 2:52 PM GMT
    studflyboy87 said
    Hotgymguy22 said 22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world.

    It is 2013 and Mississippi just ratified the amendment banning slavery. It's the South. What do you expect?

    There is a really good chance that DOMA will get struck down this summer. If that happens, then the 10 states plus the 12 states likely to legalize gay would represent about half of the country. If you live in a state that does not allow gay marriage and you want to be married, then I would recommend LEAVING. Come to the half of the country where we support equal rights. We will be happy to have you.

    I don't know what the chances for DOMA are, the Supreme Court is hard to predict. Certainly the big break came when the Obama Administration refused to defend DOMA, effectively endorsing gay marriage at the Federal Level, but which can't become official until DOMA is overturned by the Court or repealed by Congress.

    Obama has already begun undermining DOMA in the armed forces, and in immigration matters. But there again the law remains on the books. And the Republican House has been spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to defend DOMA before the Court on its own, since the Administration won't, supporting the Republican view that the Federal Government has a role in defining marriage and excluding gays, and is not the right of the States exclusively.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 12, 2013 4:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    studflyboy87 said
    Hotgymguy22 said 22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world.

    It is 2013 and Mississippi just ratified the amendment banning slavery. It's the South. What do you expect?

    There is a really good chance that DOMA will get struck down this summer. If that happens, then the 10 states plus the 12 states likely to legalize gay would represent about half of the country. If you live in a state that does not allow gay marriage and you want to be married, then I would recommend LEAVING. Come to the half of the country where we support equal rights. We will be happy to have you.

    I don't know what the chances for DOMA are, the Supreme Court is hard to predict. Certainly the big break came when the Obama Administration refused to defend DOMA, effectively endorsing gay marriage at the Federal Level, but which can't become official until DOMA is overturned by the Court or repealed by Congress.

    Obama has already begun undermining DOMA in the armed forces, and in immigration matters. But there again the law remains on the books. And the Republican House has been spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to defend DOMA before the Court on its own, since the Administration won't, supporting the Republican view that the Federal Government has a role in defining marriage and excluding gays, and is not the right of the States exclusively.


    The Republicans are trying to get the President to uphold his oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws. A President that does not enforce the laws is ruling by fiat, and that is unconstitutional.

    But of course, a President ruling by fiat is fine with the Democrats, so long as the President is a Democrat.


    and the president is saying that the constitution prohibits the discrimination afforded by the law, and thus the law should not be enforced.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Mar 12, 2013 4:54 PM GMT
    Hotgymguy22 saidStates where gay marriage is already legal:
    Connecticut
    Iowa
    Maine
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    New Hampshire
    New York
    Vermont
    Washington
    District of Columbia

    States that will likely add gay marriage shortly:
    California
    Colorado
    Delaware
    Hawaii
    Illinois
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Nevada
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Oregon
    Rhode Island

    22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world.
    I would love to see both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin join the list of states legalizing gay marriage.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Mar 12, 2013 5:07 PM GMT
    The Republicans are trying to get the President to uphold his oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws. A President that does not enforce the laws is ruling by fiat, and that is unconstitutional.

    But of course, a President ruling by fiat is fine with the Democrats, so long as the President is a Democrat.

    One of the sillier posts in recent weeks. First, “fiat”:

    1
    : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
    2
    : an authoritative determination : dictate
    3
    : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree

    Refusing to defend a law deemed unconstitutional is not “creating” something, nor is it an “arbitrary order.” Thus, it is not a “fiat” – and cannot be un-constitutional for that reason.

    If the president refuses to uphold a law he deems un-constitutional, he is, in effect, defending the constitution.

    Moreover, your first sentence is questionable: many would feel that what Republicans are attempting to do is simply to retain their waning power in the face of declining support; this is hardly the heroic effort you portray of a gallant few defending the standards of democracy.

    Broad generalizations with regard to Democrats are as vacuous as broad generalizations with regard to Republicans. Rather more so, as the latter tend more to vote as a bloc and follow party discipline; the essence of liberalism is plurality of opinion.

    Such simplistic ranting is exactly what is wrong with current politics, because it replaces reasoned discussion with partisan rhetoric.

    Odd, that you would be supporting a party that opposes marriage equality, and by implication go against it yourself.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Mar 12, 2013 5:07 PM GMT
    Illinois should happen this week.
  • SomeSiciliano...

    Posts: 543

    Mar 12, 2013 5:11 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Hotgymguy22 said[

    22 states plus the District of Columbia are represented. Zero from the South. Welcome to my world. [/quote]

    Could happen within our lifetimes in Florida (I know, Southern in geography only) and Louisiana with Georgia being a long-shot because of Atlanta. At least a half a century away from the rest of the SEC states (and NC).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 5:12 PM GMT
    Does anyone know why Florida isn't in the list of places to legalize gay marriage soon? I feel like it's one of the states with the most gay people in the US. I mean c'mon, Miami, Orlando, Tampa.... They all have a decent to huge-sized gay scene. Is it because a lot of retirees in Florida are against it? Maybe Hispanics as well?
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Mar 12, 2013 5:22 PM GMT
    I wonder why Ohio isn't getting any press about our gay marriage initiative happening this year.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Mar 12, 2013 5:26 PM GMT
    bmw0 saidI wonder why Ohio isn't getting any press about our gay marriage initiative happening this year.
    I am sorry for not including Ohio on my wish list for states legalizing gay marriage. Wishing you the very best. Be sure to twist your governor's arm in signing it into law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    bmw0 saidI wonder why Ohio isn't getting any press about our gay marriage initiative happening this year.


    Never heard of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 6:04 PM GMT
    Unintended said[quote]Broad generalizations with regard to Democrats are as vacuous as broad generalizations with regard to Republicans. Rather more so, as the latter tend more to vote as a bloc and follow party discipline; the essence of liberalism is plurality of opinion.

    Such simplistic ranting is exactly what is wrong with current politics, because it replaces reasoned discussion with partisan rhetoric.

    Odd, that you would be supporting a party that opposes marriage equality, and by implication go against it yourself.


    Thank you. Let me add somethings:

    1) No President selectively enforced laws more than George W. Bush:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/americas/24iht-bar.2280701.html?_r=0

    "Signing Statements", as his administration called them.

    2) The number of laws technically on the books that are not enforced probably outnumbers those enforced.

    3) Republican hypocrisy and blatant lying to the American people is far more concerning than the Obama Administration not enforcing the DOMA.

    Personally, nothing galls me more than right-wing gays. Even more so than Tea Party kooks.

    Continued state-by-state approval of gay marriage is inevitable bring me great joy knowing that such makes the right-wingers go crazier than they are already.[/quote]

    Oh so shocking .... another homosexual lefty.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

    "Even more so than Tea Party kooks."

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

    Mar 12, 2013 6:06 PM GMT
    Unintended said[quote]And... the President doesn't have the authority to decide. But that's ok... he's a Democrat, so the media and the RJ membership has no problem with that.


    But you had no problem when George W. Bush did similar...

    Just in case you missed this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/americas/24iht-bar.2280701.html

    But then again, you only trust Fox "News".[/quote]

    "But you had no problem when George W. Bush did similar..."

    But you had no problem when William Jefferson Clinton did similar

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

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

    Mar 12, 2013 6:14 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    calibro said
    southbeach1500 said

    and the president is saying that the constitution prohibits the discrimination afforded by the law, and thus the law should not be enforced.


    And... the President doesn't have the authority to decide. But that's ok... he's a Democrat, so the media and the RJ membership has no problem with that.


    Actually the President does have the right to decide not to defend unconstitutional laws in court cases. It must be done after careful analysis which was done by the DOJ. Additionally several lower courts had already deemed DOMA unconstitutional.

    I believe this has been done at least 11 times in the past by various Presidents.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 6:25 PM GMT
    Unintended said[quote]

    But you had no problem when William Jefferson Clinton did similar

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf



    Typical. You don't even read what you reference:

    "At first glance, it does not appear that President Bush departed significantly from prior practice in the signing statement context, having issued 161 signing statements as compared to 381 during the Clinton Administration. However, the qualitative difference in the Bush II approach becomes apparent when considering the number of individual challenges or objections to statutory provisions that were contained in his statements. Of President Bush’s 161 signing statements, 127 (79%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration."

    [/quote]

    No need when arguing with a lefty.

    So 127 versus 70. Big deal!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 6:29 PM GMT
    Unintended said[quote]
    Oh so shocking .... another homosexual lefty.



    And proud of it. More important, I can go to any of my party's meetings, stand up, be proud, speak my mind and not be booed, jeered or harassed.

    I dare you to be pro-gay at a Tea Party meeting.
    [/quote]

    Past tense I assume? And what exactly was supposed to happen that did not happen? Or CPAC?

    To clarify, I'm pro American, not necessarily pro homosexual.

    "I can go to any of my party's meetings"

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

    Mar 12, 2013 6:37 PM GMT
  • tckrguys

    Posts: 133

    Mar 12, 2013 6:41 PM GMT
    [quote]and... the President doesn't have the authority to decide. But that's ok... he's a Democrat, so the media and the RJ membership has no problem with that.
    [/quote]

    President Obama didn't stop enforcing DOMA until after the Federal district court in Massachusetts ruled it unconstitutional. Therefore what he did was proper as the courts have the final say in what is constitutional and what is not. Of course, that ruling has been appealed and made its way to the Supreme Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 7:02 PM GMT
    Unintended said
    freedomisntfree said
    Unintended said[quote]
    Oh so shocking .... another homosexual lefty.



    And proud of it. More important, I can go to any of my party's meetings, stand up, be proud, speak my mind and not be booed, jeered or harassed.

    I dare you to be pro-gay at a Tea Party meeting.


    Past tense I assume? And what exactly was supposed to happen that did not happen? Or CPAC?

    To clarify, I'm pro American, not necessarily pro homosexual.

    "I can go to any of my party's meetings"

    coward.


    You are the coward. A self-loathing one...

    But more important, I would not go to a Tea Party meeting because they have nothing to say...

    At least to anyone intelligent...[/quote]

    Just like that face pic in your profile! Real brave .... chump..

    And that "self loathing" bullshit again. Real original sweetheart! Hilarious!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 7:03 PM GMT
    Unintended said
    freedomisntfree said
    Unintended said[quote]

    But you had no problem when William Jefferson Clinton did similar

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf



    Typical. You don't even read what you reference:

    "At first glance, it does not appear that President Bush departed significantly from prior practice in the signing statement context, having issued 161 signing statements as compared to 381 during the Clinton Administration. However, the qualitative difference in the Bush II approach becomes apparent when considering the number of individual challenges or objections to statutory provisions that were contained in his statements. Of President Bush’s 161 signing statements, 127 (79%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration."



    No need when arguing with a lefty.

    So 127 versus 70. Big deal!


    No:

    "Of President Bush’s 161 signing statements, 127 (79%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration."

    79% vs. 18% contain some type of constitutional challenge is a big deal.

    But the right wing does not accept facts.[/quote]

    Certainly not your version of the 'facts' cupcake
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 7:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidPointing out the truth is hardly "support." That's the problem here, when someone points out a truth that is counter to what the liberals / progressives / Democrats here on RJ would like to believe, one is labeled as "supporting" it.

    As for the rest of your "points" I addressed them in the post above this.


    You don't get to show up this late in the game and then start criticizing how the fucking quarterback tosses the ball.

    Your posts are not constructive, as in, "Let's keep the pressure on Obama, girls, so that he 'evolves' better in line with liberal ideology."

    No, you're implying that you've adopted the gay liberal stance on marriage (have you?), and that somehow you've been responsible for advancing this agenda by pointing out liberal and administration hypocrisy. You have done shit. Join us or shut the fuck up. If you haven't joined us, seriously shut the fuck up...we don't take advice from the visiting kicker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 7:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidClearly an emotionally disturbed individual...

    And... girls???


    I'm flattered that you read my posts. However, nice dodge. Are you with us or not?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2013 7:44 PM GMT
    Actually it appears that you are the one that is just now making the connection.

    As I mentioned in my post, the President does have the authority to decline a case in court based on it's constitutionality, which is something you said he did not have the right to do.

    This was not an issue in the Obamacare case so there is no similarity there.

    Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the individual mandate (that portion of Obamacare that was considered unconstitutional) was constitutional.

    So far the President has done nothing outside of his jurisdiction in either case.

    southbeach1500 said
    tckrguys said
    President Obama didn't stop enforcing DOMA until after the Federal district court in Massachusetts ruled it unconstitutional. Therefore what he did was proper as the courts have the final say in what is constitutional and what is not. Of course, that ruling has been appealed and made its way to the Supreme Court


    Well at least I've got some of you thinking in terms of Constitutionality. Obamacare too was ruled as unconstitutional by Federal district courts, but that didn't stop the left from continuing to consider it constitutional.

    I know... it's hard for liberals to make the connection (perhaps not you, but most of the others here).