American Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Potentially Historic Gay Marriage Rights Case

[Jingthing]

OK, as I'm not a lawyer or supreme court scholar I don't pretend to actually know if this interpretation of this news is fully accurate, but there is no doubt this is some kind of big news brewing, and we don't know yet how big, and whether the results will be pro or anti civil rights:

http://www.slate.com...ar_windsor.html

The justices announced Friday that they will hear two cases about gay marriage. The first, United States v. Windsor, is the small step. The second, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is potentially giant. With the choice between staging a nice little one-act play about states that recognize gay marriage and a full-dress, five-act opera about whether states can constitutionally ban it, the court chose the big production. This is it: The civil rights issue of our generation, in the hands of nine justices. As a reporter, I couldn’t be more excited. As a supporter of gay marriage who is also a nervous Nellie, I’m kind of terrified.

...

Earlier this week, Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog wrote of the gay marriage petitions granted today, “These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.”

http://www.slate.com...ar_windsor.html Edited December 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Some more analysis:

http://www.washingto...7f7b_video.html

[ProThaiExpat]

The quoted article below seems to provide a clear analysis of this "big news". What bothers me about the Supremes taking the Prop 8 case is that by refusing to hear it, they would have given us the best possible result, that is as Judge Kaufman of the 9th Circuit Court opined and slanted his opinion to Justice Kennedy an old collegue when they both served on the same court, once the right to marry was granted to same sex couples by the California Supreme Court, that right cannot be taken away by the voters through a referendum.

On the other hand, states rights being so popular a notion, certainly by Scalia et al, that they very well may say that the voters of any state, as in California, can decide who in their state can marry and they have so decided.

Justices may be headed toward a split or narrow decision on DOMA and Prop 8

(Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN, AFP/Getty Images)

Story Highlights

• Judges took special care to keep options open.
  

8:12PM EST December 7. 2012 - Will the Supreme Court rule next year that the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution implies a right to gay marriage?

While it's dangerous to make predictions in this fast-evolving area, my guess is: probably not. More likely is a split or narrow decision in one or both of the two cases the Court agreed to hear today.

The Justices today took special care to leave their options open, including the option to decide one or both cases on legal "standing" grounds that would settle nothing of substance.

Of the two cases, the better shot for conservative opponents of gay marriage is Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8. The Court's four most conservative justices are considered receptive to an argument that it should be up to California voters to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriage.

Even if Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with the liberals, few will be surprised if he writes an opinion narrowly tailored to the California facts while not creating a more general right to gay marriage.

In the other case the Court agreed to review, Windsor v. U.S., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the word marriage for purposes of all federal laws as solely the union of one man and one woman. (A second part of DOMA, section 2, which provides that states are not obliged to recognize other states' same-sex marriages, is not under challenge.)

Since DOMA was passed during the Clinton administration nine states have extended recognition to same-sex marriages, which means many couples are now married under the law of the state where they live but not federal law. And so it was that the IRS told Edith Windsor that she'd have to pay estate tax on the property left by her partner of 42 years Thea Spyer, to whom she'd been legally married under New York law.

Those aren't exactly the kind of facts that attract public sympathy. DOMA's defenders face several other problems as well. One is that multiple courts have now found the section unconstitutional. A second is that the Windsor opinion itself was penned by Second Circuit chief judge Dennis Jacobs, a leading conservative who's long been highly regarded in Federalist Society circles.

Voters and legislators are changing their minds fast on this issue. But it's unlikely that Congress will amend or repeal DOMA, or Californians vote to reverse Prop 8, in time to avoid the need for the Court to decide.

Walter Olson is senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies.

Edited December 8, 2012 by ProThaiExpat

[Jingthing]

The cases they selected lets them leave it open whether to make their decisions wide or narrow. Given the way the Obamacare decision turned out, you'd have to be rather brave to make specific predictions.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

Unfortunately, strict interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't favor marriage as a inherent right. Marriage has always been a state right and DOMA is the only example where the Feds got involved in an issue that was always left to the states. Remember, it was when GWB was President and he had both houses of the congress controlled by the Republicans that allowed DOMA to ever become law.

Note the 2nd Circuit Presiding Judge, a staunch conservative, ruled DOMA as unconstitutional as has every other court who has ruled on the issue of equal protection of the law.

My guess is that they will find DOMA unconstitutional and then rule Prop 8 the will of the people of California and that the basic principle enunciated by Judge Walker at the trial level that marriage is a basic human right, is not a basic human right and will rule in favor of the appellants, ie. Prop 8 is not unconstitutional.

There is a slim hope that Justice Kennedy will join the liberal wing and vote strictly as the 9th Circuit did on Prop 8, that once a right is granted to a group of people, it is unconstitutional to remove that right as Prop 8 did. California will have same sex marriage either in June or at the next election, it is just a matter of time, as you, Jingthing, have previously stated.

If it comes down that way, Californians will be voting on the issue at the next election and this time they will find in favor of same sex marriage and will repudiate Prop 8.

[Jingthing]

The justices are human beings. Don't you think it would be delicious for them to make the decision WIDE and be associated with the most important civil rights decision in our still new century? The setup is in place if they choose to go that way. I am hoping.

Depending on how the court approaches the question, its decision could apply to only California, or it could have more sweeping implications in terms of a “fundamental right to marry in every state,” according to Boies. He said that even a more limited ruling would still set a “very persuasive precedent” for other jurisdictions.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/12/07/supreme-court-hear-prop-8-doma-cases

[ProThaiExpat]

Yes, the decision in the Obamacare case does raise another "delicious" possibility. Chief Justice Roberts could cross over, as he did in the Obamacare decision and imortalize himself in this historic decision on grounds we have not thought of.

After all, historically, when discussing the Supreme Court, the "Warren Court" is always front and center due to Brown vs. Bd. of Education case, when the principle of "separate is never equal" was established in civil rights .

Roberts may well take a leadership position to establish his historical legacy and establish that freedom to marry who you choose is a "fundamental constitutional right", a fantasy, in my view, with the current court makeup. Judge Walker, the trial court judge in the Prop 8 case came out of the closet when he retired and was responsible for establishing freedom to marry who you please as a basic constitutional right. When Judge Kaufman reviewed that decison on appeal, he narrowed that decision markedly to reflect the general concensus that the broad freedom to marry who you choose would not pass muster before the Supremes.

He focused his decision on the hope that his old buddy, Justice Kennedy, would follow his two prior cross over decisons on same sex issues and join the liberal wing on the narrow issue of the unconstitutional removal of a right from a group once granted by law by a referdendum, as Prop 8 did.

To remind, both houses of the California legislature, in two sucessive years, passed same sex marriage laws that were both vetoed by the then govenor, Arnold Schwarznegger. Taken to the California Supreme Court, that court said same sex marriage was a constitutional right under the California constitution. It was only then that Prop 8 was passed due to poor tactics by gay activist groups and floods of money coming in from foes of same sex marriage out of state, particularly the Mormon Church.

Having learned their lesson, proponents of same sex marrige have won at the ballot box in three states during the last election cycle including Obama coming out of the political closet and endorsing same sex marriage. Thus my prediction that same sex marriage will pass in the next election in California if the Supreme Court rules against the issue.

[MrRealDeal]

DOMA was signed into law by pres CLINTON as a point of fact not GWB. Sept 24 1996

[CWMcMurray]

In the past marriage used to be a religious thing and this is what many try to use as the reason why gays should not be allowed to marry

The problem is that as big brother IRS has come up all of these specific tax codes set up for married couples and inheritance tax regulations.

Given this, marriage is no longer a religious issue, but rather has become an economic issue

As such it hAs become an equal protection issue, not just a religious ceremony

Edited December 9, 2012 by CWMcMurray

[ProThaiExpat]

I sit corrected. Faulty biased memory working. Clinton did sign the law, a product of a Republican controlled legislature, four months before his re-election on the reported grounds that he did not want this devisive legislation to interfere with his re-election bid, and it didn't. He thereafter came out against it and has publically denounced it. I can't blame him as his veto would most probably be overruled just before his re-election campaign finale and may have de-railed it.

Obama acted similarly during most of his first term and during his first campaign for the presidency and only came out for same sex marriage when the polls indicated it would be a plus for him in his re-election bid.

[MrRealDeal]

No problem ..... I have given my opinion on this last year when I stated they would hear this issue this year ...... They will in their Opinion state that you can't make it illegal through referendom or law and leave the rgulation to the states , some bonehead state will refuse to make the required procedure and someone will have to sue them to get it done but since the Courts opinion will be quite clear it will not need to go to the SC again. No State appelate court is going to go against the SC's opinion.

They won't mandate it to be legal they will simply say making it illegal is unconstitutional so no doubt some state will do nothing and need to be sued to get it done.

We shall see

[Jingthing]

Another odd wrinkle. Could the recent and unprecedented and massive victories at the ballot box actually hurt the cause at SCOTUS?

So what’s the bad news? By running the table in four states—after 32 consecutive losses at the ballot box—the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights movement weakened its argument that it lacks political power. And that might matter for how the Supreme Court decides whether DOMA or Prop 8 violate same-sex couples’ right to equal protection under the law. That’s because a minority’s access to political power is one of the factors the court uses in deciding how strictly to evaluate a challenged law.

http://www.slate.com...s_may_have.html

Also of note south of the border, a Mexican supreme court decision that may open up the possibility of nationwide legal same sex marriage in Mexico -- macho city.

http://abcnews.go.co...07#.UMcyN6zht9g

A unanimous ruling by the Mexican Supreme Court overturning a state law against same-sex marriage has opened the way for the eventual legalization of gay marriage across Mexico, legal experts say.

Everything helps. Canada already has these rights. If Mexico acts before the USA, the USA will be the North American outlier on this.

Another musing on how a step by step victory rather than a total victory might be better in the long run:

http://www.washingto...d-gay-marriage/

Well, I guess if that happens people who want to marry and get full federal rights can move to the few legal states, better than nothing. That is what happened to interracial couples living in the racist states until SCOTUS fixed it.

Linda Hirschman cautions on the New Republic blog that we’re in for either a gay Brown v. Board of Education moment where separate but equal treatment of same-sex couples is banished. Or we’re in for the gay rights version of Roe v. Wade, one that leads to decades of backlash and bad feelings that the court imposed its will on states, especially those with constitutional bans. “Procedural and other particularities of the two cases before the court could permit the justices to keep a door open to gay marriage without slamming another on its opponents,” writes my colleague Charles Lane, who also worries about the potential for backlash against the high court if folks think it pushed too far too fast. That’s why as much as I would like a sweeping ruling, I could live with a two-step punt that would get us to full marriage equality without the almost guaranteed backlash against it.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Another musing on how a step by step victory rather than a total victory might be better in the long run:

[Jingthing]

Another musing on how a step by step victory rather than a total victory might be better in the long run:

I know it sounds odd. I hope for a total victory ASAP. However, with that there would still be a backlash and possibly an ugly one. Look at abortion rights. The right wing is constantly trying to turn that back so that victory is less than totally solid in the long term. At this point it doesn't matter what the key gay civil tacticians think; the balls are firmly in the hands of SCOTUS. Of course another way to look at this is that gay rights advocates don't really EXPECT a total victory at SCOTUS now, and so this is a way to rationalize a more limited win, especially if it sets the stage for an inevitable complete victory. Of course the flip side is if the issue gets creamed, which I don't think anyone expects, and that would truly be a shocker. Edited December 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Another musing on how a step by step victory rather than a total victory might be better in the long run:

I know it sounds odd. I hope for a total victory ASAP. However, with that there would still be a backlash and possibly an ugly one. Look at abortion rights. The right wing is constantly trying to turn that back so that victory is less than totally solid in the long term.

Doesn't sound odd at all to me Jing. I thought it would sound unacceptable to you. That's what you've been telling us all this time when we recommended the "slowly slowly catchee monkey" method as an alternative way of doing things.

[Jingthing]

Another musing on how a step by step victory rather than a total victory might be better in the long run:

I know it sounds odd. I hope for a total victory ASAP. However, with that there would still be a backlash and possibly an ugly one. Look at abortion rights. The right wing is constantly trying to turn that back so that victory is less than totally solid in the long term.

Doesn't sound odd at all to me Jing. I thought it would sound unacceptable to you. That's what you've been telling us all this time when we recommended the "slowly slowly catchee monkey" method as an alternative way of doing things.

You've misinterpreted my position entirely. Cheers.

Anyway, I think you're probably referring to the civil union vs. marriage thing which is a UK issue that the USA is totally beyond that now that majority opinion polls say the people are OK with gay MARRIAGE, and younger people massively so. Same sex MARRIAGE equality is what is happening in the USA, quickly or slowly.

In the context of these SCOTUS cases, I am agreeing that if the court rules that a same sex marriage in a state (or a same sex civil union in a state) is treated by the FEDERAL government the exact same as hetero marriage, then that is an excellent precedent to move forward from and it would represent great progress on this civil rights issue. It would be well short of forcing all states to offer same sex marriages of course.

Of course I'd be thrilled with a total win at SCOTUS this time and worry about any backlash later. But that seems really too much to wish for with this particular court. Many including me felt it would have been safer/better for big things like this to happen later after Obama might get another pick or two.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

When the Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage was a constitutional right, most certainly there was no issue of "suspect class" as every person in the US was affected with full political power. Now there are more than 30 states that have banned same sex marriage. That certainly is a large majority supressing the right of marriage equality.

In the last analysis, the five justices who vote for or against same sex marriage will be able to choose from a wide array of justifications for their positions and when they can't agree on which justification to use to support their decision, they will write concurring opinions in which they delineate the justifiction they believe in.

Thus, I go with the thinking that Kennedy will be the swing vote unless Roberts comes across the divide as he did in Obamacare. I doubt they will rule that same sex marriage, or marriage in and of itself, is a constitutional right under the US Constitution as marriage has always been considered a state right and thus it varies widely between states as to the requirements to gain that status.

[ironbark]

Someone said marriage was a religious thing. This is only partially correct.

Marriage was all about inheritance issues for the ruling and wealthy classes. It was vitally important to them to have a clearly defined set of rules as to which descendants were legitimate and who were illegitimate and could inherit their money, land and power. After all so many of them would have so called "illegitimate" children.

The poor or peasant class had little or no property, (or other rights) especially in the feudal middle ages, it was a non issue.

The church got involved because it would "bless" the wedding and kept all the legal documents as "parish records"

Hence the confusion between marriage as a religious sacrament and a property contact within and between families.

The last hundred years or so has seen the codification of these inheritance and property rights into statue law. We now have legal definitions of defacto marriages and have given inheritance rights to ex nuptial children in most liberal Western democracies. And most important government has centralised the record keeping into national registries.

So the role of the church in the definition and administration of births deaths and marriages has already been greatly diminished. It is therefore clinging desperately to its belief that marriage can only be defined within in its own religious framework.

What they don't understand is marriage is a right not a rite.

Sent from my GT-N7100

Edited December 12, 2012 by ironbark

[CWMcMurray]

What they don't understand is marriage is a right not a rite.

Sent from my GT-N7100

Very pithy... I like that

Straight as an arrow here... But have absolutely no problem with the idea of gay marriage and believe the majority of other Americans feel the same

It is hard enough for anyone to find someone that they can commit to and want to spend the rest of their life with, so if someone can find this and want to "make it legal" they should be applauded.

After all, in the modern world there are so many benefits for the legal standing it gives e.g. inheritance, tax returns, visitation in hospital, custody of children, right to make medical decisions in case of emergency, immigration, etc...

If being gay is legal (which it is) then can not think of any justification for gay marriage to not also be legal

After all, even if all religions decide that their ministers can not perform the rites due to their religious beliefs, that is fine, as ceremony can be performed by judge or justice of the peace

I actually fee a bit strong on this issue as I had a really good friend (lost touch since I have been in Thailand), who has been together with his partner since the 1970's.

Every time this issue comes up, I can't help but to think of him and his partner

Two of the nicest guys and absolutely committed to each other... I always think "why shouldn't these two be allowed to marry" and have never heard a point raised by any party that could convince me that it would be a bad thing if Mark and Don were able to get legally married.

Edited December 13, 2012 by CWMcMurray

[Jingthing]

OK, I have a fun question.

Supposing SCOTUS makes a decision that mandates the federal government to treat state same sex marriages the same as hetero marriages.

So then a gay couple gets married in a legal marriage state and later MOVES to a no rights state. At that point, could this couple expect to their marriage to be treated equally at the federal level, or not?

Of course that is the kind of mess that IF SCOTUS goes that far, will more or less make it inevitable for their to be same sex marriage rights NATIONALLY. Over time, of course.

Same-sex couples could then marry in California, and married same-sex couples across the country could obtain federal benefits — but other states would have more time to consider their own policies on the issue. Such an outcome might disappoint those who see no justification for continued discrimination. But it would nevertheless be an important step in the right direction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-court-agrees-to-review-gay-marriage/2012/12/12/2e4fad9c-4316-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html

Also, what about RESIDENCY requirements for getting married in any given state? I know you don't have to be a Nevada resident to get a ten minute Elvis Presley style Las Vegas drive through wedding! So are there any current legal same sex marriage states that have no residency requirements for either spouse? In that case, the first part of my question would be a much bigger deal as people would just go on gay marriage vacations and earn FEDERAL recognition.

[ProThaiExpat]

Wikipedia says :

"Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.^[17]

The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. "

My guess is any favorable Supreme Court ruling will leave room for individual states to treat marriage laws as they wish and deny full faith and credit to legal marriages from other states. However, Federal Benefits for same sex marriage, once DOMA is struck down, will apply regardless in what state a legally married couple chooses to reside in. I would think it would be unconstitutional for the Feds to deny same sex marriage recognition to citizens legally married in one state who happen to reside in a state that bans same sex marriage. However, a no same sex marriage state could deny state benefits to a same sex married couple from another state Full faith and credit could be denied in matters expressly reserved to the states, such as marriage laws.

[LeCharivari]

...

Anyway, I think you're probably referring to the civil union vs. marriage thing which is a UK issue that the USA is totally beyond that now that majority opinion polls say the people are OK with gay MARRIAGE, and younger people massively so. ....

We must be looking at different polls, as usual.

In the UK the "civil union vs marriage thing" is not an "issue" at all except with a small minority and it is clearly going to be passed by a substantial majority in Parliament with a free vote.

In the US, on the other hand, all the polls I've seen except for a couple have come out against gay marriage.

[Jingthing]

...

In the US, on the other hand, all the polls I've seen except for a couple have come out against gay marriage.

You're looking at OLD polls. Recent polls are widely and consistently showing majority popular support in the USA for legalization of same sex MARRIAGE, and among younger people -- MASSIVELY. The popular opinion thing majority nationally is a done deal. It happened VERY QUICKLY in the last few years. There is still of course a strong opposition that will tend to show BACKLASH if the legal aspect moves too quickly for them but it probably won't as the smart money is the upcomning SCOTUS decisions will be more limited. Obviously by the time the current younger generation is old, there will be full equality.

There is really no point at all in talking about this issue in terms of dated information and theories. We (I mean pro gay civil rights people) have WON the public opinion battle and we even recently won BIG at the ballot box! Somehow all those American gay freedom day rallies didn't seem to stop us from getting to this amazing point that many didn't think was even possible for another 50 years.

Driven by a surge in support among the young and minorities, a majority of Americans now supports gay marriage, marking an abrupt shift in public opinion on a divisive issue.

http://blogs.wsj.com...s-gay-marriage/

Edited December 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

...

In the US, on the other hand, all the polls I've seen except for a couple have come out against gay marriage.

You're looking at OLD polls. Recent polls are widely and consistently showing majority popular support in the USA for legalization of same sex MARRIAGE, and among younger people -- MASSIVELY. The popular opinion thing majority nationally is a done deal. It happened VERY QUICKLY in the last few years. There is still of course a strong opposition that will tend to show BACKLASH if the legal aspect moves too quickly for them but it probably won't as the smart money is the upcomning SCOTUS decisions will be more limited. Obviously by the time the current younger generation is old, there will be full equality.

There is really no point at all in talking about this issue in terms of dated information and theories. We (I mean pro gay civil rights people) have WON the public opinion battle and we even recently won BIG at the ballot box! Somehow all those American gay freedom day rallies didn't seem to stop us from getting to this amazing point that many didn't think was even possible for another 50 years.

Driven by a surge in support among the young and minorities, a majority of Americans now supports gay marriage, marking an abrupt shift in public opinion on a divisive issue.

http://blogs.wsj.com...s-gay-marriage/

That's a very interesting development I wasn't aware of.

But then, we need to look at State level too. I can imagine there are majorities in different States that support/oppose gay marriage, as the US is not homogeneous.

[Jingthing]

Yes of course, big differences between states, just like in the red state/blue state thing. The South would be the most anti-gay region and all of the bible belt. But this change opens up the chances of FEDERAL recognition of state gay marriages quite a lot.

[LeCharivari]

That's a very interesting development I wasn't aware of.

Neither was I - I'd always thought that "majority popular support" meant over 50% of those voting, which simply hasn't been the case except in three States.

Where polls have been followed by actual votes/ballots the polls have, without exception, shown considerably higher support for same sex marriage than proved to be the case in a vote, so a single recent poll showing 51% support is hardly grounds for saying "The popular opinion thing majority nationally is a done deal. .... We (I mean pro gay civil rights people) have WON the public opinion battle".

I hope you're right, but the reality is that the actual figures don't support your view and the "pro gay civil rights people" appear to have a lot of persuading to do before a "majority nationally" not only support gay marriage but also support any legislation ending state and federal sanctioned discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.

Edited December 15, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Actually if we aren't in a rush there is NO work to do. Just let the current under 30s who are OVERWHELMINGLY pro gay civil rights get older and become the majority. But of course many of us would like to push things along somewhat quicker.

The popular thinking in the U.S. these days as to why the progress has been so dramatic so far, and it HAS been dramatic, yes I BELIEVE the polls as clearly mainstream Americans do too, is the mass numbers of gay people who have COME OUT to friends, family, and workmates. Most current Americans know, like, and love at least one gay person. That is a RADICAL change since I was a boy and again I think we owe a great debt to pioneers like Harvey Milk and Frank Kameny in pushing the coming out movement. Converting opponents from the inside, as it were. A good example if scary one is Dick Cheney.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

If you compare the progress in the US to that elsewhere, such as Canada, South America, Europe, etc, the progress is actually relatively similar over the last thirty or forty years, although there is still obviously considerably stronger, more vocal and more powerful anti-gay feeling in the States. The difference appears to be that elsewhere the legislature/those elected seem willing to represent the views of their electorate, which is why direct legislation has been possible, while in the USA they do not, which is regrettable.

The polls showing support for gay marriage in the US have actually been proven to be incorrect, as in most cases where the polls have shown a majority at state level this support has not been reflected in subsequent votes (except in three cases) and gay marriage has been rejected by a majority of the electorate.

[Jingthing]

The most RECENT election showed a massive total victory for gay rights in all cases it was tested. It was a sea change. It was HISTORIC. Things have changed for gay rights in the USA and changed quickly and that is a FACT. Could gay rights win in Alabama and such states? No. Maybe never. That really isn't the point. In the long run (or the outside chance the short run), this is going to be a NATIONAL thing decided at the NATIONAL level and outliers like Alabama will EVENTUALLY be forced to end their homophobic laws the same way they were forced to end their racist laws. This isn't a bloody footrace. If it was ... Canada wins! So many other countries win. So what? That means zilch to Americans. We're talking about the USA here which has made great progress within the context of the American social and political situation which is TOTALLY UNIQUE, and it is well understood now that equal civil rights WILL happen in the USA; the only question is how many years or decades. Recent rapid progress gives hope it will come sooner than many (including me) had thought before, but sooner or later it WILL happen.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I think if people were required to get out and vote it would be more obvious that Americans are not against Gay Mariage , however not being against it or for it and getting out and voting are 2 different things. If the large number of people who really don't care were required to vote they would side with mariage not against it imo.