|
Post by ironbite on Apr 7, 2009 23:06:35 GMT -5
I have more hope for Gay Marriage staying in the east and moving west then I do for it starting in the west and moving east. California's constitution, as other's have said, is so easy to amend a caveman can do it. Other states have a much tougher time of amending their constitution that laws that allow gay marriage can't be struck down by a Prop 8 type thing.
Ironbite-that and after the stink that Prop 8 raised anyone bringing such a measure up in new England of all places is gonna find themselves run out of the region post-haste.
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Apr 7, 2009 23:16:26 GMT -5
California is a shining example illustrating that NOT everything should be decided via popular consultations.
Minority Rights especially, should never be left to the decision of the Majority. Totally undemocratic.
I have no faith in Direct Democracy.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 7, 2009 23:17:01 GMT -5
I have more hope for Gay Marriage staying in the east and moving west then I do for it starting in the west and moving east. California's constitution, as other's have said, is so easy to amend a caveman can do it. Other states have a much tougher time of amending their constitution that laws that allow gay marriage can't be struck down by a Prop 8 type thing. Ironbite-that and after the stink that Prop 8 raised anyone bringing such a measure up in new England of all places is gonna find themselves run out of the region post-haste. I just found my new business: A pitchfork, shotgun, torches, tar and feathers store.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 7, 2009 23:25:18 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article to estimate when states would legalize same-sex marriage. Mind you, the chart doesn't show WHEN gay marriage is expected to be legal, but when 50% of the populace would vote "no" to banning gay marriage. Obviously, with states that have constitutional amendments you need more than 50% of the popular vote to do so, and sometimes its not up to the popular vote. www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.htmlThe good news for Iowa is that while a simple majority do in fact oppose gay marriage, the assumption is that if current trends continue, this will reverse itself in 2013. The earliest anyone can withdraw the court decision is in 2012, so the worst case scenario for Iowa is one similar to Prop 8 in California, a slim, SLIM majority voting this down in 2012. Even then, that scenario is only possible if someone in the Iowa House decides to pursue this matter in 2010, and so far, no one seems to be doing so.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 7, 2009 23:27:31 GMT -5
California is a shining example illustrating that NOT everything should be decided via popular consultations. Minority Rights especially, should never be left to the decision of the Majority. Totally undemocratic. I have no faith in Direct Democracy. Good thing we don't actually have a Direct Democracy as our government. Ironbite-also I'm sad that they're predicting gay rights in Virginia in 2015
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 7, 2009 23:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 7, 2009 23:50:10 GMT -5
California is a shining example illustrating that NOT everything should be decided via popular consultations. Minority Rights especially, should never be left to the decision of the Majority. Totally undemocratic. I have no faith in Direct Democracy. Well, with a name like Machiavelli, I'd be disappointed if you did have faith in direct democracy.
|
|
Pyena
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Just Doing It To Get Attention
Posts: 108
|
Post by Pyena on Apr 7, 2009 23:51:52 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article to estimate when states would legalize same-sex marriage. Mind you, the chart doesn't show WHEN gay marriage is expected to be legal, but when 50% of the populace would vote "no" to banning gay marriage. Obviously, with states that have constitutional amendments you need more than 50% of the popular vote to do so, and sometimes its not up to the popular vote. www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.htmlThe good news for Iowa is that while a simple majority do in fact oppose gay marriage, the assumption is that if current trends continue, this will reverse itself in 2013. The earliest anyone can withdraw the court decision is in 2012, so the worst case scenario for Iowa is one similar to Prop 8 in California, a slim, SLIM majority voting this down in 2012. Even then, that scenario is only possible if someone in the Iowa House decides to pursue this matter in 2010, and so far, no one seems to be doing so. They've predicted Mississippi as being the last. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Apr 8, 2009 0:57:30 GMT -5
California is a shining example illustrating that NOT everything should be decided via popular consultations. Minority Rights especially, should never be left to the decision of the Majority. Totally undemocratic. I have no faith in Direct Democracy. Well, with a name like Machiavelli, I'd be disappointed if you did have faith in direct democracy. Very true....Peasants are quite Fickle !
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 8, 2009 1:32:05 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article to estimate when states would legalize same-sex marriage. Mind you, the chart doesn't show WHEN gay marriage is expected to be legal, but when 50% of the populace would vote "no" to banning gay marriage. Obviously, with states that have constitutional amendments you need more than 50% of the popular vote to do so, and sometimes its not up to the popular vote. www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.htmlThe good news for Iowa is that while a simple majority do in fact oppose gay marriage, the assumption is that if current trends continue, this will reverse itself in 2013. The earliest anyone can withdraw the court decision is in 2012, so the worst case scenario for Iowa is one similar to Prop 8 in California, a slim, SLIM majority voting this down in 2012. Even then, that scenario is only possible if someone in the Iowa House decides to pursue this matter in 2010, and so far, no one seems to be doing so. They've predicted Mississippi as being the last. Somehow, I'm not surprised. I'm not exactly surprised that the states further down the list are there, to be honest. And cheers AT for the link - not really been checking fivethirtyeight since the election. California is a shining example illustrating that NOT everything should be decided via popular consultations. At the very least some kind of law banning campaign funding from out of state; that seemed to be the core issue here and (admittedly from my vantage point(s) halfway round the world) struck me as extremely dodgy.
|
|
|
Post by malendras on Apr 8, 2009 2:32:35 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, go Vermont! Hopefully Iowa followed by Vermont will get the NY state assembly to get their asses moving on our bill (which I think is already submitted). I'll perform the marriages if anyone wants...
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 8, 2009 7:28:55 GMT -5
All important things. So why the fuck'd you veto the bill and prompt even MORE time spent on it? To thinly veil his prejudice?
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 8, 2009 8:26:15 GMT -5
At the very least some kind of law banning campaign funding from out of state; that seemed to be the core issue here and (admittedly from my vantage point(s) halfway round the world) struck me as extremely dodgy. It would be nice. [quote author=m52nickerson board=pg thread=627 post=19421 time=1239193735To thinly veil his prejudice? [/quote]I'd believe it. Douglas made several excuses. First, it was that there was no need for same sex marriages because civil unions existed. Next, it was that federal employees still wouldn't gain any benefits from it (Though that's not true; they still would have gained rights from the state that their job doesn't affect). Then it was that other states wouldn't recognize a marriage, so it didn't help Bermonters who moved out of state. Unless they moved to one of the states that currently recognizes same sex marriages or performs them themselves.... Now, it's "why are you wasting our time when the economy is bad?" Douglas wasn't going much for the economy before this became an issue. A shame he only gains interest in the loss of Vermont jobs when someone mentions gay marriages.
|
|
Pyena
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Just Doing It To Get Attention
Posts: 108
|
Post by Pyena on Apr 8, 2009 9:14:44 GMT -5
Quick question: what rights/benefits do married couples get, anyway?
I know they get the right to visit each other in the hospital, leave each other things in their wills, and insurance benefits as well. Right? (Forgive my ignorance. All they taught me in high school was how to pass the TAKS test.)
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 8, 2009 9:30:10 GMT -5
Quick question: what rights/benefits do married couples get, anyway? I know they get the right to visit each other in the hospital, leave each other things in their wills, and insurance benefits as well. Right? (Forgive my ignorance. All they taught me in high school was how to pass the TAKS test.) File taxes together, tax incentives, insurance coverage benifits. All of which civil unions can't replicate.
|
|