Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

What Effect Will Marriage in IA and NH have on the 2012 Primaries and the Current Administration?

By

Countries granting same-sex marriage

Belgium

Canada

Netherlands

Norway

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Countries recognizing same-sex marriage

Aruba (Dutch only)

France

Israel

Netherlands Antilles (Dutch only)

States granting same-sex marriage

Massachusetts

Connecticut

California (?)

Iowa

States recognizing same-sex marriage

New York

Rhode Island

New Mexico

On the cusp or granting same-sex marriage

New Hampshire

Vermont

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It seems you are actually showing some optimism about the direction this issue is headed.  The crux of any disputes on this matter that you and I have had hasn’t been on the merits, but rather how we see this unfolding.  I have said all along that despite setbacks, time favors same-sex marriage.  I’m glad to see you may be starting to agree:)

    • the question is how much will our “allies” make us suffer along the way.  the foot dragging is leaving gouges in the earth visible from space.

      • Every little bit of momentum creates the context that holdouts pleading caution and a slower pace will have a harder and harder time justifying their stance.

        • although, we’re dealing with an odd phenomenon here in washington state.  it appears that the anti-gay xtians are  going to run an anti-marriage initiative campaign even though they have a good chance of failing, because it is a way to fill their coffers in the near term.  with the press of progress in other states, it only promotes the idea of “fleece the sheeple now or never” in them.  i have my fingers crossed that the people of washington are with us enough to fend off this craven cash grab (all the while the haters bemoan our DP law because they claim it’s such a drain on the budget).

          • … that for many, playing the ‘oppressed victim’ card can generate revenue.  I assume there is an effort to track where the money is coming from so people can, if necessary, mount a campaign illustrating any outsider influence running contrary to ‘fair play’ sensibilities.

            • the problem with that is that it is information after the fact.

              <

              p>but on this note, don’t suppose anyone around here has access to GuideStar?  I’ve seen our orgs 501(c)3 reports, but not 501(c)4.  Could be some good dirt in there.  The (c)3s for example keep showing no income but lots of expenditures.  they’re not reporting faithfully, and haven’t for years.

          • (all the while the haters bemoan our DP law because they claim it’s such a drain on the budget)

            <

            p>The Iowa ruling actually addressed this ridiculous argument. Tore it to pieces.

            <

            p> link to part of it:

            <

            p>

            The conservation of state resources is another objective arguably furthered by excluding gay and lesbian persons from civil marriage. The argument is based on a simple premise: couples who are married enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. In the common sense of the word, then, it is “rational” for the legislature to seek to conserve state resources by limiting the number of couples allowed to form civil marriages. By way of example, the County hypothesizes that, due to our laws granting tax benefits to married couples, the State of Iowa would reap less tax revenue if individual taxpaying gay and lesbian people were allowed to obtain a civil marriage. Certainly, Iowa’s marriage statute causes numerous government benefits, including tax benefits, to be withheld from plaintiffs. Thus, the ban on same-sex marriages may conserve some state resources. Excluding any group from civil marriage – African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals – would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities.

            <

            p>(Bold added for emphasis by me)

  2. Thinking about Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont makes me wonder whether the shift in momentum toward marriage equality will have an effect on the efforts to repeal or overturn at least parts of DOMA.  The more states that recognize marriage equality, the more issues arise concerning social security, medicare, federal employment benefits, immigration status, and other federal benefits that depend on a state-recognized marital status.  The reality of discrimination at the federal level rises with the number of marriages.  I’ll be interested to see how the GLAD suit proceeds.  Now might be a good time to chat up our congresspeople about introducing legislation that would at least repeal the federal recognition aspect of DOMA.

    <

    p>Today’s developments also increase the likelihood that DOMA will be challenged on the state-to-state recognition of marriages.  The Full Faith and Credit Clause may well trump DOMA’s attempt to validate state decisions not to recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples from other states.  I hope that when that challenge comes, enough states have marriage equality to create a critical mass making it easier to uphold marriages from state to state.  

    <

    p>The marriage equality folks have circled the walls of the government for a long time, and it seems that the walls are starting to tumble down.

  3. I just finished reading the whole Iowa ruling from yesterday …..

    <

    p>WOW. It’s the most amazing thing I’ve ever read. I cannot conceive of a ruling that tore to shreds every argument used to maintain marriage discrimination. I suspect that this ruling will be cited in all sorts of places across the nation in future cases.

    <

    p>And Laurel — a question, from a Seattle guy who is in Boston now, but may be coming home soon. Do you hear anyone talking about perhaps trying again with the courts? Much of what the Iowa justices had to say smacked down the reasoning in the 2006 WA Supreme Court ruling. (I was still living there then; 1 of the plaintiffs was a colleague of mine) I’ve not paid close attention to changes in the makeup of the court since I moved east.

    <

    p>It must makes me wonder…..I’d love to come home. My husband and I would like to remain legal husbands though. None of that “partner” BS for us…..

    • comes from the fear-mongering haters.  as far as i know, the court was very clear in saying that we have no constitutional claim to marriage, but that the legislature was free to create something separate but equal.  this they are doing.  

      <

      p>so, i don’t think anyone is headed back to court.  but believe me, we’re not stopping with DPs.  DPs were put in place step-wise for three reasons that i know of:  1) to give us legal protections while we work to bring legislators and voters along towards marriage; 2) as a means to (you guessed it) bring legislators and voters along, and 3) the step-wise thing has made DPs a difficult target for a referendum until this point.

      <

      p>provided we survive the referendum/initiative, marriage legislation will be introduced when we can win.  maybe in a few years, but of course it’s impossible to predict.  with IA, if CA rebounds, maybe even sooner?

      <

      p>i absolutely understand your not wanting to move to a more backward state.  on the other hand, we sure could use you out here! đŸ˜€

      <

      p>i still have to read the IA decision, but i’d heard like you said that they demolished lots of talking points.  looking forward to the good read. đŸ™‚

Archives