If it's on the ballot, I hope it fairs better than it did in North Carolina. I was pretty disappointed with the outcome here. I think it's so odd that the GOP stumps on less government intrusion... unless it's in the bedroom. Makes no sense. Govt should be out of the marriage business all together imo.
Here here! Divorce is legal, people getting auctioned off on reality marriage shows like Flavor of Love or the Bachelor/Bachelorette are legal, no one goes after the catholic church for pedophilia and sexual assaults... but "oh noes... two dudes kissing? Gross! We need legislature preventing these people from ruining "the sanctity of marriage"!" Minnesota just passed our gay marriage bill recently, was so proud of my state that day. I don't even have any gay friends nor really care myself, but I care that my government thinks it's wrong for two consenting adults who love each other to get married. They say "Oh, well where do we draw the line!?"... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. DONE. No, people aren't going to be asking to marry their horses now. Such a stupid debate, but thankfully things are starting to change.Makes no sense. Govt should be out of the marriage business all together imo.
cough Amendment One was passed by a coalition of religious and socially conservative people across both parties. The Amendment had seven legislative sponsors - 5 (R) and 2 (D), or about the proportion of the legislative branch. Approximately 90% of black voters voted for Amendment One - a group that typically votes Democrat. For the record, I voted against it, for lots of reasons not germane to this thread. I will say that this is clearly a state level fight, under our federal system (or what remains of it), so good to see Michigan having the conversation. -XC
But as long as the Federal government gives benefits to heterosexual couples, the question remains a Federal one. IMO if you benefit from tax advantages from being married, it's only right to support same-sex couples to have the same. Otherwise, you could take a stand and refuse them for yourself while fighting to do away with them. ;) At any rate the SCOTUS will change the landscape soon, for better or for worse.I will say that this is clearly a state level fight, under our federal system (or what remains of it), so good to see Michigan having the conversation.
The federal gov't benefit has nothing to do with state recognition of marriage. The Fed gov't is excluding same-sex couples from benefits because they told themselves to do that. The same way they could change federal tax laws for inheritance by changing the tax laws. I really hate it when the SC legislates. Look what a crapfest always falls out of it. -XC
I think it does. The Feds decided that they would recognize some state definitions of marriage, and then benefit that. I got married in Michigan, and the Federal government uses that information to reward me. They exclude same-sex couples, because when the federal legislation was enacted, the states did too. It's not just restricted to federal tax law, either. I should mention that I don't think this is just a federal issue due to federal benefits. I also think it's a federal issue because we are talking about US citizens that should be protected against discrimination, including state-sanctioned discrimination.The federal gov't benefit has nothing to do with state recognition of marriage.
Hmm, I understand the history of DOMA differently. I'm at work, but IIRC, DOMA was intended as a barrier against same sex marriage and was signed into law by Bill Clinton, busily triangulating like crazy. His language was pretty strong as he was rallying his base. (See also my comment on socially conservative Democrats.) States sanction discrimination all over the place and the feds don't get involved, and nor should they. Not every discrimination requires legal remedies, especially federal legal remedies. Looks to me like another five or six years and same-sex marriage will be legal everywhere. I bet 90% of the kids coming into voting age think this is a stupid argument. In ten years you could spend a $B and wouldn't get 40% of votes for Amendment One in NC. You want people to calm down about something, the way to do it is not to have the big fat footprint of the federal gov't come down on the issue. -XC
Uh, I think you are mixing terms, so I'm confused. The Union is usually used in opposition to The Confederacy and their essential argument was about the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Segregation was a Democrat enacted set of laws usually known as Jim Crow in the South or just "the law" in the North. AFAIK, legal segregation wasn't as big a deal out West, but I'd not be shocked if that wasn't just my lack of historical knowledge. I think if you sat down and made an honest list of the similarities and differences between Jim Crow style discrimination and prohibitions against same-sex marriage you'd see how different they were. -XC PS - Other forms of discrimination practiced by states: drinking laws, voting laws, property ownership laws, divorce laws, parental rights laws, right to open a business, etc, etc. All discrimination, all not federalized.
I have little doubt. But I see the effect upon same-sex couples as meaningful enough for the Federal government to clarify the Law-of-the-Land. Yeah, some State laws preserve the State's interests and represent the will of their residents, and that's all well and good. But some run counter to our rights as US citizens. It's a complicated mess for sure. -It's a great out for politicians on the stump though.Uh, I think you are mixing terms, so I'm confused. The Union is usually used in opposition to The Confederacy and their essential argument was about the expansion of slavery into the western territories.
Sorry, up here we occasionally use it to refer to all of us States. Coney Island is also a chili-covered hotdog. :) -Note to self if I run for President.I think if you sat down and made an honest list of the similarities and differences between Jim Crow style discrimination and prohibitions against same-sex marriage you'd see how different they were.
PS - Other forms of discrimination practiced by states: drinking laws, voting laws, property ownership laws, divorce laws, parental rights laws, right to open a business, etc, etc. All discrimination, all not federalized.
I predict it will be much lower than that since "gay" is a spectrum across LGBTU and some of those categorizations will be net zero for various reasons. Some may be higher than average but it probably won't make up for the others. I also predict that once the furor dies down and "pop culture" focuses someplace different we'll also see a significant drop in self reported "gayness." Without any anecdotes to even masquerade as facts, I think the truly gay portion of the population is much lower than we see today for a variety of reasons. -XC
Probably higher because there is a significant stigma attached to being gay in the aggregate both in this country and across the globe. I know many gay people, including family, and I can tell you that zero have benefited from a social or professional standpoint by being gay, while 100% of them have experienced at least social trauma and the inability to even communicate who they were to those around them for a significant chunk of their lives due to fear (of many things, rejection, abuse, being cut off, religious persecution, etc). It's getting better but it's still a problem. When being gay is used as one of the number one insults throughout childhood, and a major part of our population is religiously opposed while nearly half of all citizens are behind legislative and proactive defining away of their right to marry, and across the globe in some of the most populous societies on Earth it is actually a crime, people, understandably, aren't eager to identify as gay when they are not, and gay people stay in the closet and unreported as a result. I don't know one gay person that wasn't closeted at some point. No way are they over-reporting on the balance.I think the truly gay portion of the population is much lower than we see today for a variety of reasons.
Stats 101. As long as the sample size is statistically significant, a well constructed survey will report accurately compared to a complete census. No need to ask every single individual on a census.They aren't surveying the general population or doing a census to get the 4% (or 5%) number - it's calculated by sample.
Approximately 90% of black voters voted for Amendment One - a group that typically votes Democrat.
This is sadly true.I think it's so odd that the GOP stumps on less government intrusion... unless it's in the bedroom.
This is also sadly true. You are not a typical "R" in this regard. In fact, I recall having conversation with you about how, like I mention in my original comment, government shouldn't be involved in marriages at all. All that you wrote in your comment is accurate. Mine is too, I don't think they're at odds.
Well, actually, I think I said that no matter what you think, that boat has sailed and what I think gov't needs to do is retrench in public policy parapets where there is still broad societal support - legal marriage age, number of spouses in a union, etc, etc. You get enough edge conditions and you get problems. _XC