The Gay Marriage Thread 2012

[Milkster]

Might as well make a thread for this and all the good and bad that arises due to people's beliefs.

In four weeks, Marriage Equality will be voted on in four states: Maine (for a second time), Washington (the state), Minnesota, and Maryland.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-marriage.html

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage: every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. Over the past decades, voters in twenty-eight states have passed constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage. The trend continued as recently as earlier this year, in North Carolina voted to ban such marriages.
This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say. The precise nature of the questions in each state varies. In Maryland and Washington, the voters will decide whether to override new state laws that allow same-sex marriage. The measure in Minnesota, if passed, would limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the one in Maine would explicitly allow same-sex marriage. Still, the larger issue is the same on all of these issues. Do the voters want to permit gay people to marry in their state?
As a technical legal matter, the results of these referenda are irrelevant to legal questions about gay marriage that are now before various courts. The Supreme Court will soon reveal whether it will hear one or two major cases about same-sex marriage this year. In one, the federal appeals court in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional; in the other, the federal appeals court in San Francisco invalidated Proposition 8, which barred same-sex marriage in California. The Constitution either does or does not guarantee the rights of gay people to marry—and the opinions of voters has nothing to do with resolving that question. The whole point of judicial review is to protect minority groups from having their rights violated by the whims of the majority. In theory, the work of the courts and the will of the voters operate on entirely separate tracks.
The real world, however, works very differently. The courts, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court, are acutely aware of how their rulings reflect (or conflict with) public opinion. Even Justices who are sympathetic to legal claims worry when their positions put them too far out of step with the voters. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, who made her name as the leading feminist lawyer of her generation, has expressed such views. Though Ginsburg herself always believed that women have a legal right to an abortion, she has often expressed unease with the Court’s approach in the 1973 landmark of Roe v. Wade.
In Ginsburg’s view, the Court generally should follow rather than lead on such controversial social issues. This is what happened with the Court and racial intermarriage. It was not until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that the Justices got around to declaring that states could no longer ban interracial marriage. Many (but not all) such laws were ignored or obsolete by that point. This is not to diminish the significance of Loving. The case was and remains a key practical and symbolic statement about race and the constitution. But by 1967, the hard work of changing the country on this issue had already been done by the civil-rights movement. The Court was a lagging indicator of where the country already was.
And so while both cases, as I wrote recently, are potential landmarks, neither may turn out to be as important as four ballot initiatives. The votes will give us the best picture of where the country is on same-sex marriage. The snapshot will be imprecise, of course. All four states are generally Democratic in their orientation, so they are not a true cross-section of country. But given the Court’s history, even the more liberal justices may be reluctant to impose same-sex marriage on the country if the people—the voters—repeatedly say that they do not want it. The polls predict close races in all four states. The results will echo well beyond their borders.


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz28pdDqXpr

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8980EI20121009

(Reuters) - When Nathan Meyer calls voters who are undecided about same-sex marriage, he talks about his parents' marriage and how he sees it as a model for what he hopes to have -- before he mentions that he and his boyfriend plan to one day wed.
Meyer, 30, a high school English teacher from the St. Paul suburb of Roseville, is part of a team of volunteers who aim to reach 1 million Minnesota voters before the state votes on November 6 on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"All people get married for the same reasons. And my parents and their marriage, that's common ground for people," Meyer said.
He said he's been surprised at how many people are willing to have such a personal conversation with a stranger on the telephone. While some people hang up on him, most calls last 10 minutes, some have stretched to 20 minutes or longer.
Ballot initiatives banning the legal recognition of same-sex marriage have succeeded in 31 states, and no state has ever approved same-sex marriage by popular vote. In this year's November 6 election, advocates of same-sex marriage hope to change that.
Maine - which rejected gay marriage in a referendum in 2009 by 53 to 47 percent - could become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage solely by popular vote. In Washington and Maryland, where the state legislatures passed laws expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples earlier this year, citizens will vote on whether to let the laws stand.
Meanwhile, defenders of traditional marriage hope Minnesota will become the latest state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman - effectively banning same-sex marriages.
Six states, as well as the District of Columbia, have expanded marriage rights to include same-sex couples. In Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, the laws followed court rulings that found same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry. Legislatures brought on the change in Vermont, New York and New Hampshire. (For a graphic on marriage laws, see: link.reuters.com/wyv23t)
"Winning a ballot measure is really the last barrier that we have to overcome," said Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a national marriage equality campaign.
Bolstered by public opinion polls showing growing acceptance of same-sex unions, particularly among young people, advocates this year are hoping to win over skeptics with personalized appeals for allowing same-sex couples to wed. For example, voters reached by pro-gay marriage volunteers are asked if they know anyone who is gay, and the volunteers often bring up gay family members or friends.
"IT'S A FREE COUNTRY"
When Maine last took up a gay-marriage referendum, Lynn Sailor, 37, a divorced mother of three, opposed anything beyond civil unions for same-sex couples. A visit from an activist last summer changed her mind and this year she plans to vote in favor of the referendum.
"My question is, why not allow gay people to get married if that's what they want to do? It's a free country and it doesn't hurt me any," she said.
Advocates for same-sex marriage in Maine say they have had 200,000 one-on-one conversations with voters. They are now reaching out to those voters a second time for follow-up conversations.
"In Maine, what we're doing is we're going on the offense for a change," said Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, and a veteran of successful marriage fights in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. "We decided we were going to use the ballot option as a tool, whereas it's been used by our opponents as a weapon."
But Matt Hutson, campaign director for Protect Marriage Maine, which opposes the referendum, said the group's internal polling showed a dead heat on the issue.
"I don't believe there are a whole lot of undecideds on this issue. People know where they stand, just as they did three years ago," said Hutson. "Quite honestly, we're seeing a groundswell of people saying, we don't agree with this and we don't like that they keep bringing this up again, even though we already voted against it."
A poll by the non-partisan Maine People's Resource Center found registered voters think the state should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples 53 to 43 percent.
In Maryland, an OpinionWorks survey conducted for the Baltimore Sun found voters favoring same-sex marriage 49 to 39 percent. And in Washington, a SurveyUSA poll found voters back the referendum 50 to 43 percent.
In Minnesota, a survey by Public Policy Polling found voters split almost down the middle, with 48 percent of voters supporting the ban and 47 percent opposing it.
Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, rejects the idea that public opinion is turning in favor of expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The wording in many surveys on the topic is biased, and many respondents who oppose same-sex marriage might claim to be undecided simply to avoid discussing it, he said.
"This isn't a chess game. We're telling the truth and time and time again voters are rejecting efforts to redefine marriage," he said in an interview.

[Milkster]

Videos being run in Washington opposing Referendum 74:

The anti-Referendum 74 group Preserve Marriage Washington is out with two new videos warning that “homosexual marriage” will be taught in grammar schools and that doctors, lawyers and accountants “risk their state licenses” if they refuse to go along with legalization of gay marriage.
“We stand on the dangerous precipice of being the only state in the history of our country to approve same-sex marriage by public vote of the citizens,” warns Joseph Backholm of Preserve Marriage Washington.
The videos are a signal that opponents of marriage equality will use a broad-brush campaign seeking to generate and fan doubts about marriage equality. Such campaigns worked in California in 2008 and in Maine in 2009.
“When voters are confused, the tendency is to vote No: This sort of campaign is very dangerous,” said State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Wash., the chief sponsor of the marriage equality bill that passed the Legislature and will be voted on in November.
The videos make a sweeping claim:
“Everyone in Washington must comply with the new definition of marriage or face negative consequences. Anyone who does not accept this new definition of marriage will soon find themselves at odds with the law and facing legal consequences.”
One video claims: “In Massachusetts kids as young as the second grade have been taught homosexual marriage.” It claims, too, that Catholic Charities had to give up its adoption services when the Bay State and the District of Columbia legalized same sex marriage.
“Whenever schools educate children about marriage, public schools will have no alternative but to teach this new genderless institution,” Preserve Marriage Washington claims.
Education is not mentioned in Referendum 74. “There is nothing in R-74 that says kids have to learn something,” Murray said. anything,” said Murray. “Children learn values at home, not school.”
In writing legislation earlier this year, advocates of same-sex marriage included a provision recognizing the rights of those who refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples. It says:
“A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi or similar official shall be immune from any civil claim of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize a marriage.”
In endorsing Referendum 74, The Columbian argued: “No religious institution or member of the clergy is affected in any way” by the legislation.
The reassurances have not stopped cries of alarm. The most strident came Sunday in a pastoral letter from Bishop Joseph Tyson of the Catholic Diocese of Yakima. Referendum 74 “jeopardizes freedom rather than expands it,” Tyson alleged. “It endangers our religious liberty and the right of conscience.”
“The terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and ‘father and mother’ will continue to recede as so-called gender-neutral terms overwhelm our public lexicon,” Tyson warned.
In a video for clergy, Preserve Marriage Washington declared: “God designed marriage” and that civil society cannot “resign” it. The National Organization for Marriage has poll tested the term “redesign” and urged opponents of same-sex marriage to use it as much as possible.
On Monday, Preserve Marriage Washington reported a new $400,000 contribution from the National Organization for Marriage, along with $250,000 from the Knights of Columbus. It has reserved $1.5 million in TV time during closing weeks of the campaign.
In a rejoinder to the videos on Tuesday morning, former judge and Seattle deputy mayor Anne Levinson wrote:
“Once again, they are using the same tired rhetoric and tactics. The fact is that the real harm here is the harm that will be suffered by those committed, loving gay and lesbian couples who will be excluded from the opportunity to marry the person they love if Referendum 74 is not approved.”
But opponents are arguing their case with a religious zeal. “God is the author of marriage in virtually every nation since the dawn of time,” says Backholm.

[Demosthenes11]

our state will have dem gays married here soon again.

CA is just fickle

[Milkster]

Video in support of Referendum 74

[zoobernut]

Nothing rallies people together better than hate.

I think that one dude said it best when he said "Issues of civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote. They should be guaranteed to all citizens of the USA." (Paraphrasing a bit)

The fact that we are even voting on this issue in this country is a very sad thing.

[ronin sparthos]

But we're all about freedom!

We want to export our freedoms yet we're so blind we can't even recognize the problems inherent here at home. Oh well, whatever makes the war go down better.

[Scythiroth]

Nothing rallies people together better than hate.

I think that one dude said it best when he said "Issues of civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote. They should be guaranteed to all citizens of the USA." (Paraphrasing a bit)

The fact that we are even voting on this issue in this country is a very sad thing.

I always feel this way when this issue comes up. I just feel this will be one of those things in the future that we will look back on and facepalm at how much time and money was spent trying to stop it from happening.

[Cream Soda]

We can facepalm now, no need to look back

[BaneTheBrawler]

I am woefully ignorant of local politics. What's the MN one and how do I vote on it? As in, will it be a check-box on the November election sheet thing, or what? Also, would voting for the change allow or disallow gay marriage? I got confused with that when CA's Prop 8 was going around.

Only voted once before, safety not guaranteed, etc

[RKenshin]

What the hell @ that video supporting a ban on gay marriage.

'If you pass legislation allowing gays to get married, you can no longer discriminate against them without potentially facing penalties under law.' That's basically all the entire video reiterates in 10 different ways/examples.

How is that seriously an argument? Much less the best one they can come up with?

[ronin sparthos]

You're acting like there are many arguments against gay marriage to choose from.

You've got a theological argument and varying degrees of "I don't feel comfortable with this" to choose from.

[Yuri-G]

just like to point out that we're not voting on marriage equality in Minnesota. we're voting to make something that's already illegal even more super-mega-illegal by enacting law into the constitution. a vote against the amendment is not a vote to legalize gay marriage, unfortunately.

[Yuri-G]

You're acting like there are many arguments against gay marriage to choose from.

You've got a theological argument and varying degrees of "I don't feel comfortable with this" to choose from.

you forgot one.

Spoiler: show

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4NVvGQEIqm...e-children.jpg

[RKenshin]

You're acting like there are many arguments against gay marriage to choose from.

You've got a theological argument and varying degrees of "I don't feel comfortable with this" to choose from.

I'm just caught off-guard by the rallying cry of the counter-argument being such blatantly obvious discrimination.

[ronin sparthos]

I expect no less from those who continue to protest against gay marriage.

It is nearly impossible to argue against the practice intellectually without tapping a theological vein or utilizing fear and some writers have genuinely tried.

[Cream Soda]

just like to point out that we're not voting on marriage equality in Minnesota. we're voting to make something that's already illegal even more super-mega-illegal by enacting law into the constitution. a vote against the amendment is not a vote to legalize gay marriage, unfortunately.

What does voting against the amendment do?

[Weegion]

We all saw what happened to Chic-Fil-A.

Spoiler: show

Absolutely no legal repercussions whatsoever.

[Talint]

[Yuri-G]

What does voting against the amendment do?

it keeps the amendment from going into place. that's it. gay marriage will still be illegal in Minnesota even if the amendment fails.

I am woefully ignorant of local politics. What's the MN one and how do I vote on it? As in, will it be a check-box on the November election sheet thing, or what? Also, would voting for the change allow or disallow gay marriage? I got confused with that when CA's Prop 8 was going around.

Only voted once before, safety not guaranteed, etc

It'll be on the November election ballot. see my response to Cream Soda above for your other questions.

[Restrat]

What does voting against the amendment do?

Then a gay marriage ban won't be in the state constitution