California votes on same-sex marriage again

[BryanS]

The Iowa Supreme Court just unanimously approved same-sex marriage, overturning the 1998 law against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iow...rss&emc=rss

God bless Iowa.

Here is some commentary that summaries/explains the decision.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/civicfeminism/ar...from=blog_last3

...skip down to "Majority Rule" ... from there you can get excerpts on equal protection, procreation, why allowing murders and child abusers to freely marry vs. non-violent gay couples, etc, etc, etc. from the actual ruling.

The chief justice was put on the bench by a Republican governor. He carefully puts together arguments that eviscerates many, if not all, the typical arguments against equal marriage rights. Unlike other marriage rulings, this one was unanimous. Good for Iowa.

No more need be said. This is an elegant opinion, leaving no rational response.

I would have to agree.

[sevfiv]

And Vermont, by the legislative route:

The Vermont Legislature on Tuesday overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering just slightly more than enough votes to preserve the measure.

The step makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling.

The outcome in the House of Representatives, 100 to 49, was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.

“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08ver...tml?_r=1&hp

[BryanS]

And Vermont, by the legislative route:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08ver...tml?_r=1&hp

Wow. How about that. God Bless Vermont.

...and also Washington, D.C. is making progress:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/dc.marriage/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that Vermont's House and Senate voted to override GOP Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, the Washington City Council voted 12-0 Tuesday in favor of allowing same-sex marriages performed in other states to be recognized in the nation's capital.

12-0. Although, I doubt CONgress would approve. Even a democratic one. We'll see.

Regarding Iowa, I like especially the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal. A man who has a pair.

[HtownWxBoy]

This is great news for anyone who champions equality. I am still shocked a bit over Iowa... how amazing is that. I read that their governor or one of the lawmakers or a mayors or something like that said that he fears it will turn Iowa into a "gay mecca" with gays moving there so they can have equal rights. Yea, that would really suck for Iowa... I mean it's only been proven that wherever the gays go so does a lot of money.

From an article I just read....

A study by researchers at the University of California Los Angeles already had estimated that about 58,000 couples would marry in the first three years if same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa. That included an estimated 3,000 couples from Iowa and just under 1,000 from Nebraska.

With Friday's Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage set to take effect in three weeks, it appears that rush to the altar will begin this spring.

The sudden creation of what would essentially be a gay marriage tourism industry in Iowa would bring economic benefits, the UCLA

study said, estimating total economic impact at more than $50 million a year.

Oh No... $50 Million a year! Poor Iowa!

[KinkaidAlum]

"Build it and they will come."

[HtownWxBoy]

"Build it and they will come."

[sevfiv]

Not sure how much weight to put in a local survey, but Klineberg's yearly Houston Area Survey shows increasing support of gay rights:

In 1985, Houston’s business establishment and some of its leading politicians led a successful campaign to overturn a city ordinance that would have protected gay city employees from job discrimination.

Twenty-four years later, according to the latest Houston Area Survey, fewer than half of Harris County residents believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 61 percent believe it’s an innate characteristic rather than a lifestyle choice, and 43 percent believe gay marriages should have the same legal status as heterosexual ones — up from 32 percent just two years ago.

Every measure of support for gay rights has increased significantly in recent years, said Stephen Klineberg, the Rice University sociology professor who has directed the annual survey since 1982.

He attributed the change partly to changing individual attitudes, but mostly to the emergence of a new generation that grew up amid positive images of gay men and lesbians who no longer felt the need to conceal their sexual orientation.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6380671.html

[HtownWxBoy]

Not sure how much weight to put in a local survey, but Klineberg's yearly Houston Area Survey shows increasing support of gay rights:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6380671.html

Completely expected... and this will only continue. Look at any civil rights issue our Nation has ever faced and you will see the same thing. Gay marriage will be legal in the United States... in all 50 states, at some point in the future... you can't stop it... it's not a matter of if it's a matter of when.

[Native Montrosian]

I hope it's in my lifetime. I really need to get even with my brother for giving us a fondue pot.

[HtownWxBoy]

I hope it's in my lifetime. I really need to get even with my brother for giving us a fondue pot.

.....

[TheNiche]

Not sure how much weight to put in a local survey, but Klineberg's yearly Houston Area Survey shows increasing support of gay rights:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6380671.html

I'm all for making the rights of gays equal to those of everybody else (even if I don't always understand why they'd want to be subjected to them). But I'd point out that Kleinberg knows how to put english on a question. Do not ever take anything reported as a consequence of one of his surveys at face value until you've heard the question--word-for-word--that was asked of respondents.

[HtownWxBoy]

I'm all for making the rights of gays equal to those of everybody else (even if I don't always understand why they'd want to be subjected to them). But I'd point out that Kleinberg knows how to put english on a question. Do not ever take anything reported as a consequence of one of his surveys at face value until you've heard the question--word-for-word--that was asked of respondents.

You don't understand why gay people would be to be "subjected" to equal rights? You make it seem like having rights is a bad thing.

[TheNiche]

You don't understand why gay people would be to be "subjected" to equal rights? You make it seem like having rights is a bad thing.

Marriage and civil unions are bad things. I envy the queer.

[HtownWxBoy]

Marriage and civil unions are bad things. I envy the queer.

I didn't know straight people were forced to get married?

[TheNiche]

I didn't know straight people were forced to get married?

You've clearly never been exposed to the risk of common law marriage between two working adults making more or less the same amount of income, thus putting them at a disadvantageous income tax position.

[20thStDad]

I didn't know straight people were forced to get married?

Seriously? I know of at least 3 within my (extended!) family that were, um, strongly urged to get married as a result of poor (or none at all) prevention techniques.

[sevfiv]

At first, I thought this was a parody (it's not) but the parody below it is quite funny (also, does anyone think the wording of what the guy says around :20 is awkward?):

[barracuda]

At first, I thought this was a parody (it's not) but the parody below it is quite funny (also, does anyone think the wording of what the guy says around :20 is awkward?):

Stephen Colbert spoof is pretty funny too...

The great thing about the NOM commercial is just how pathetic it is. This organization makes no legal arguments against gay marriage. Instead, they use homely looking actors to spread fear and bigotry in an apparent hope to delay inevitable equal rights for gays. I am especially sickened by the actor playing a doctor who apparently would prefer to refuse treating gay patients (if she were actually a doctor).

I hope Americans are finally figuring out that doling out rights is not mutually exclusive between different groups of people. Gay marriage does not take away or effect in any way your straight marriage rights!

[rsb320]

I think this whole thing would not have blown up into such a big thing if they just didn't use the word Marriage. The term Civil Union is easier on the ears of the righties. Gay couples now proclaim themselves as married, even though not officially. If they were able to say "We're in a Civil Union". Now that's what I'm takin' about.

[sevfiv]

Here's a good (serious) response:

[sevfiv]

Alas:

UPDATE 1-New Hampshire lawmakers reject gay-marriage bill

Wed May 20, 2009 4:18pm EDT

* House blocks bill by slim two-vote margin

* Exemption for religious institutions sticking point

* Bill faces further debate and possible governor veto (Adds details, reaction)

By Andrew J. Manuse

MANCHESTER, N.H., May 20 (Reuters) - New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.

The state's Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after its Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines. An earlier version of the bill passed the lower chamber on March 26.

The legislature had been asked to approve language that would give legal protections, including the right to decline to marry same-sex couples, to clergy and others affiliated with religious organizations.

That wording was added by Governor John Lynch, a Democrat who promised to sign the bill if those changes were made.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...050926720090520

[HtownWxBoy]

The legislature had been asked to approve language that would give legal protections, including the right to decline to marry same-sex couples, to clergy and others affiliated with religious organizations.

They should have just allowed that to be added... churches already are allowed to marry who they want and not marry who they don't want.

[sevfiv]

...and:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- New Hampshire legislators approved a measure Wednesday that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign it later in the afternoon.

He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and the House -- where the outcome was more in doubt -- followed later in the day. The House gallery erupted in cheers after the 198-176 vote.

''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,'' Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.

New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though Maine opponents hope to overturn that state's law with a public vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03...tml?_r=1&hp

[rsb320]

...and:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03...tml?_r=1&hp

I think this statement really says alot.

''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,''

I'd like to add... Otherwise, it's discrimination.

[houstonmacbro]

I think this statement really says alot.

''If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness,''

I'd like to add... Otherwise, it's discrimination.

Ah, but we all know people CHOOSE their preferences.

[rsb320]

Ah, but we all know people CHOOSE their preferences.

Not so.

[VicMan]

California is now facing a budget crisis. Wouldn't the state have made some more money if gay marriage remained to be allowed (costs associated with being married)?

[HtownWxBoy]

California is now facing a budget crisis. Wouldn't the state have made some more money if gay marriage remained to be allowed (costs associated with being married)?

Yup.