Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would expect Rhode Island, Maryland, and California to be the next ones to legalize. Perhaps followed by Oregon and Washington.
Minnesota is a tossup, it's going to be on the voters ballot in 2012. I'm not holding my breath as I'm sure a lot of out state G.O.P. funding will go into it, as it did in California.
Last states, I can only echo diablo's post above - Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, & Arkansas no quuestion. I'd expect something to happen in the US supreme court before those states and quite a few others would legalize it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to be on the ballot in Minnesota in 2012. Same-sex marriages are currently banned in Minnesota by statute. What is on the ballot is a constitutional amendment to codify that ban in the state constitution to make it harder to one day repeal/overturn. But if the ballot initiative fails, it will still remain illegal.
With New York just passing gay marriage rights being the sixth state so far. It seems like it will only be a matter of time before the majority of other states eventually follow through it may be in some years (or decades perhaps) but it seems likely.
What do you think will be the last states or state to holdout?
Our state, Iowa, will repeal it with the next round of elections in 2012 and when the remaining Supreme Court judges who "passed" the measure are removed from the bench (three were removed in the last election, as their period for popular "verdict" had come). The whole issue of radical judicial activism dictating legislation from the bench was a bitter pill for the majority of the state, and they expressed their displeasure for this disregard of the legislative process in the polling places. Unfortunately, many of the liberal mindset see totalitarianism and tyranny of the minority as perfectly natural, so they really do not see the problem with the whole issue. These same sentiments, of course, have led to well meaning individuals (such as Pol Pot) disregarding the will of the populace, simply to do "what is right". Those totalitarian "experiments" have failed in every time and place in which they have been instituted; however, the history of these failures have been ignored by the current crop of leftists. Some have called insanity the repetition of failed behavior which is intuitively obvious to those of clear thought- this may be directly applicable to the repeated attempts to simply give "socialism just another try".
So I guess you had better put us at the bottom of the list, as there will be legislation that sticks the next time around. I really do not care whether gays cohabitate and raise children or whatever- that is their right. However, when they change the laws to subvert a several thousand year tradition for the pleasure of a vocal minority, then that demographic will naturally raise the ire of the majority. Beyond the defiance of cultural tradition, the gay marriage proponants use the tactic of judicial activism to subvert the will of the people, which only serves to rally previously indifferent individuals against their "cause". I have nothing against gays, but I wish that they would have nothing against me- that is unfortunately not the case.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 06-25-2011 at 03:45 PM..
This is what I think will happen and what I hope happens. Even though I feel great to be a New Yorker right now, there are still some issues that haven't been resolved.
Federal benefits like social security cannot be transferred between spouses. And if I married a foreigner, he could not acquire US citizenship.
We really need one of the conservatives on the SCOTUS to retire or die (of natural causes, I am NOT threatening their lives) during Obama's presidency for this to happen within the next decade.
I would guess that there are already five votes on the USSC should Perry v. Schwarzenegger to there (it likely will in 2-3 years).
Breyer
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Kagan
Kennedy
Remember, Judge Walker's decision in Perry was largely built around the precedents in the decisions Romer v. Evans (1996), which struck down a Colorado amendment preventing any municipality in the state from enacting laws prohibiting discrimination against gays, and Texas v. Lawrence (2003), which struck down all anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults.
The author of the majority decisions in each of those cases? Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Judge Walker is all but speaking directly to Justice Kennedy in his Perry decision.
Our state, Iowa, will repeal it with the next round of elections in 2012 and when the remaining Supreme Court judges who "passed" the measure are removed from the bench (three were removed in the last election, as their period for popular "verdict" had come).
So I guess you had better put us at the bottom of the list, as there will be legislation that sticks the next time around. I really do not care whether gays cohabitate and raise children or whatever- that is their right. However, when they change the laws to subvert a several thousand year tradition for the pleasure of a vocal minority, then that demographic will naturally raise the ire of the majority. Beyond the defiance of cultural tradition, the gay marriage proponants use the tactic of judicial activism to subvert the will of the people, which only serves to rally previously indifferent individuals against their "cause". I have nothing against gays, but I wish that they would have nothing against me- that is unfortunately not the case.
Same-sex marriage in Iowa cannot be repealed until the 2014 elections at the earliest.
It cannot be on the ballot until each legislative house votes to put it there, in consecutive sessions. The Iowa Senate will not do that this year or next year (2012). If the Republicans can capture the state Senate in 2010 while holding the state house, then have each body pass the proposed amendment in both 2013 and 2014, then it will appear on the 2014 ballot.
Same-sex marriage in Iowa cannot be repealed until the 2014 elections at the earliest.
It cannot be on the ballot until each legislative house votes to put it there, in consecutive sessions. The Iowa Senate will not do that this year or next year (2012). If the Republicans can capture the state Senate in 2010 while holding the state house, then have each body pass the proposed amendment in both 2013 and 2014, then it will appear on the 2014 ballot.
Also one has to consider what public opinion is and will be at that time. The trendline is about another 1-2% support a year and actually the last three years or so its more 3-4% a year swing. Statisically on a national level support has crossed the 50% threshold.
On the issue of the Supreme Court, The most likely outcome is they will make sure the "full faith and credit" clause is upheld where a marriage is recognized in different states regardless of laws. The other main debate federally will be to ensure benefits and immigration issues will apply to same-sex couples.
As to the comparision to civil rights with the argument that if not for the courts, it still would not have happened. My guess is that it would have happened but just a bit later. Mainly that the economic costs would have been too great for states not to. Consider that to this day, the areas of the south that dragged their feet the most on civil rights are still paying for it and are poorer than places that aggreed to it earlier.
Our state, Iowa, will repeal it with the next round of elections in 2012 and when the remaining Supreme Court judges who "passed" the measure are removed from the bench (three were removed in the last election, as their period for popular "verdict" had come). The whole issue of radical judicial activism dictating legislation from the bench was a bitter pill for the majority of the state, and they expressed their displeasure for this disregard of the legislative process in the polling places. Unfortunately, many of the liberal mindset see totalitarianism and tyranny of the minority as perfectly natural, so they really do not see the problem with the whole issue. These same sentiments, of course, have led to well meaning individuals (such as Pol Pot) disregarding the will of the populace, simply to do "what is right". Those totalitarian "experiments" have failed in every time and place in which they have been instituted; however, the history of these failures have been ignored by the current crop of leftists. Some have called insanity the repetition of failed behavior which is intuitively obvious to those of clear thought- this may be directly applicable to the repeated attempts to simply give "socialism just another try".
So I guess you had better put us at the bottom of the list, as there will be legislation that sticks the next time around. I really do not care whether gays cohabitate and raise children or whatever- that is their right. However, when they change the laws to subvert a several thousand year tradition for the pleasure of a vocal minority, then that demographic will naturally raise the ire of the majority. Beyond the defiance of cultural tradition, the gay marriage proponants use the tactic of judicial activism to subvert the will of the people, which only serves to rally previously indifferent individuals against their "cause". I have nothing against gays, but I wish that they would have nothing against me- that is unfortunately not the case.
Wow... yeah, allowing gays to marry is just like Pol Pot and his killing fields. Give me an effing break. People like you are destroying this country with these kinds of ridiculous arguments.
There will be a large group of them allowing it simultaneously since there will be a Supreme Court case declaring it legal.
I would hope so, but I doubt it. What will help now is that as gays and lesbians gain in increasing political and economic power, not just purchasing power, but sitting on boards of directors, &c, I think there will be pressure to invest where there are equal rights including marriage rights for all. You will find young people not willing to move to bigoted states and those who are married not willing to live where they are clearly not welcome.
Iowa is seeing no ill effects of gay marriage. In fact, Iowa as a conservative state is new, its roots are progressive and liberal. I would be more concerned with Iowa allowing 16 year olds to get married.
Marriage as we know it is not a several thousand year tradition. The tradition of one man one wife codifed in law is only a few hundred years old, was not codified in England until the 1740's, in the colonies a bit earlier. The religious practice of one man and one woman being "married" is older, but go to Bible to see how multiple wives are OK.
Things change, liberty is not something that can be parceled out to the few.
I predict Mississippi or Utah will be the last states to pass it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
