Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Primula Baggins]

Frelga, an excellent point.

My husband and I are business partners, and we would certainly never want anyone to imagine that we ever. . . .

Erm.

No, actually, it's useful.

And, nel, sorry, but you have to be president first. That's just the way it is. Consider the analogies between yourself and Taft.

[elfshadow]

And, nel, sorry, but you have to be president first. That's just the way it is. Consider the analogies between yourself and Taft.

Oh, my. This could be great fun.


Getting excited about the indirect effect that these rulings will have on overturning the gay marriage ban in Colorado. There are two ways the issue could get on the ballot: either via a referred amendment requiring a 2/3 vote in the state legislature (near impossible), or a petition drive which requires signatures equaling a minimum of 5% of votes cast (currently around 86,000). I have high hopes that such an amendment could pass within the next several years, though it sounds as though activists are waiting to see if the SCOTUS rulings have affected opinion polls on gay marriage here.

Colorado politics are just strange. A state "progressive" enough to legalize marijuana still won't allow same-sex couples to get married? I am happy enough that the legislature passed the civil unions measure, but it just isn't the same at all. There are some powerful socially conservative lobbying organizations here that will do their best to make overturning the marriage ban difficult.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

This ruling, while good, disappoints me. Although there is a risk that they might have actually won, if CA had decided to follow through on the case then it wouldn't have been dismissed on the grounds of standing and a ruling against Prop 8 would have nation-wide instead of state-wide repercussions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Probably not, actually. If the SCOTUS had reached the substantive merits of the case, most likely they would have upheld the Ninth Circuit decision, which would have had the same effect that their standing decision had; allowing marriages to resume in California, but keeping the status quo elsewhere. I seriously doubt that Kennedy would have been willing to go further than that at this time, given how carefully his DOMA opinion is crafted.

[nerdanel]

I generally agree with V's assessment that Kennedy was not prepared to declare a sweeping, nationwide right to same-sex marriage. He certainly has laid the groundwork to do so in 5-10 years. If the current pace of increasing acceptance of gay couples and same-sex marriage continues, it is likely that the country will be still more receptive to this decision once Justice Kennedy is ready to issue it (and it seems very likely that it will be his opinion when it comes down; he has drafted EACH of the three major SCOTUS gay rights opinions of the decade - Windsor, Romer, and Lawrence.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Probably not, actually. If the SCOTUS had reached the substantive merits of the case, most likely they would have upheld the Ninth Circuit decision, which would have had the same effect that their standing decision had; allowing marriages to resume in California, but keeping the status quo elsewhere. I seriously doubt that Kennedy would have been willing to go further than that at this time, given how carefully his DOMA opinion is crafted.

Given how the political leadership feels about Prop 8, they could have put up such a lackluster defense of it that the court would have had no choice but to make a more expansive ruling.

[Frelga]

And now Great Britain?

[JewelSong]

Yep.

With little fanfare or controversy, Britain announced Wednesday that Queen Elizabeth II — hardly a social radical — had signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in England and Wales.

Washington Post article HERE

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I believe that this particular war on marriage equality has been basically won by the good guys - those in favor of marriage equality. Although it is only 14 states right now, I see the tide moving and eventually the rest will recognize marriage equality. Or the federal government will do so and sweep up all remaining states in the process. It's more a series of individual battles at this point, the war is basically won and everything else is cleanup.

Which brings us to the next marriage battle, which is apparently starting earlier than I thought it would. It took a whole generation between interracial marriage and gay marriage, but the next battle is already being written about. Nothing is being done yet, but it is being written about, and not just by libertarians who were ahead of the power curve the whole time on marriage equality.

I'm speaking about polyamory. (As a side note I don't like the term, it should be polyphilia or multiamory as I oppose mixing Latin and Greek roots - it's a joke people, don't take it seriously.)

When interracial marriages were being discussed, conservatives raised the specter of a slippery slope leading to gay marriage. Liberals were quick to say there is no slippery slope, interracial marriage was as far as they were fighting, it was their goal, no more. Libertarians, on the other hand, were already advocating for it, albeit in a manner unrecognizable to conservatives or liberals in that we want government out of marriage entirely but as long as it is involved it should be non-discriminatory.

Then a generation later the liberals caught up to the libertarians and advocated for gay marriage. The conservatives raised the specter of a slippery slope leading to polyamorous marriages. Liberals were quick to say there is no slippery slope, gay marriage was as far as they were fighting, it was their goal, no more. Libertarians, on the other hand, fans of Heinlein, were already advocating for it.

Now liberals have caught up to libertarians much more quickly than expected. There is already writing outside of libertarian circles asking why not to recognize polyamory.

Polyamory, by the way, is more inclusive a term than polygyny. Polygyny is the correct term for what most people think of as polygamy. Polygamy simply means more than one spouse, polygyny means more than one wife, polyandry means more than one husband. Polyamory is the most inclusive version of this.

It will necessitate some restructuring of the legal codes to make it possible, but I believe it is the next fight on the front of marriage equality.

[yovargas]

It will necessitate some restructuring of the legal codes to make it possible, but I believe it is the next fight on the front of marriage equality.

While I have no opposition to it in theory, I think the legal changes it would require (unlike inter-race or same-sex) are pretty darn significant. I know how this can sound but: since on a practical level a multi-person union really is different than a two-person union, any legal attempts to recognize this would probably work best if they are created separately from current marriage laws.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Welcome to the 21st Century, New Jersey!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-576 ... marriages/

[yovargas]

The blue states now allow SS marriage, the reds ban it:





At this point, the next time I'll get really excited will be when that southern red block finally starts getting chipped away. Some day.

(graphic from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... ted_States)

[Primula Baggins]

As with interracial marriage, I don't think the most conservative states are likely to change until the Supreme Court forces the issue.

Oregon will be navy blue within the next couple of years. It would be sooner if we didn't have to amend our constitution.

[WampusCat]

Unfortunately, North Carolina is going the opposite direction.

Someday.

[Primula Baggins]

This too shall pass. Obama winning NC in '08 wasn't an outlier but a portent of the future. Demography is destiny—which is panicking some people into extremism. But many of those extreme voters won't be voting ten or twenty years from now. They'll be dead.

There are young social conservatives, but not many who aren't also white. As long as social-conservative leaders try to build enthusiasm for their cause by exploiting racial and cultural fear, that disparity will only increase.

[Inanna]

Welcome to the 21st Century, New Jersey!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-576 ... marriages/

Yayyyy!

[nerdanel]

I have updated the thread title.

[Primula Baggins]

We're very close to the point where even the strongest opponents of SSM will have to concede that a Constitutional amendment outlawing SSM nationwide is not going to happen.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have updated the thread title.

And it appears very likely that it won't have to change back, because Gov. Chris Christie has seen the writing on the wall and dropped the state's appeal of the same sex marriage ruling (the state Supreme Court had refused to stay the decision, allowing the marriages to go forward, making it clear that they felt the appeal had little chance of being successful).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... BA20131021

[nerdanel]

Oh sorry, I meant to post the NYT link to that. I waited to update the thread title until it was official that there was not going to be a further appellate proceeding.