Gay Marriage Cases Soon To Be Heard By American Supreme Court -- It's Complicated

[Jingthing]

Lady Gaga celebrates the recent court victories with a creative adjustment to the national anthem at New York Pride. Of course the right wing is going postal. Oh well!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uqeeNf4kOxc

[LeCharivari]

The ruling will not offer a total victory because of the fear of moving too fast and creating a backlash. The ruling will allow continued inevitable progress and it may take one more generation to achieve the goal of full equality. That equality will be called MARRIAGE and you can take that to the bank.

Any real “equality” won’t be “called” anything, because it won’t happen by legislation or by SCotUS rulings - it will be happen by a recognition and acceptance of other people’s rights to their beliefs, preferences and choices.

[LeCharivari]

No, this is a legal mess now with the state differences. You'll see. For example, Medicaid is a state AND federal system which treats single and married people differently. So a gay married couple moves from Vermont to Alabama, how does ALABAMA Medicaid view those two people, single or married? There are many many such complications coming up. This ain't over. It ain't over until there is TOTAL equality, all 50 states. The total win is inevitable now of course, but don't underestimate the complications coming up from the current MAJORITY of states who don't offer gay marriage during this MESSY phase.

You have a different opinion? Fine. Have it. I do not agree and assert the proof will become clear in the coming months and years.

Agreed, JT - but I would say that it was a “mess” before and that it’s now an unmitigated shambles which SCotUS have exacerbated, possibly deliberately in order to force legislation which they can’t make.

With the ruling that Section 2 of DOMA can stand they have also effectively ruled that it is the entitlements that gays have an equal right to, NOT the term “marriage”, leaving the door open for a future government to legislate that gay “marriages” are illegal but that partnerships giving the same entitlements are the legal equivalent as required under the Constitution, if they want to – something some States have already done and States could still do as an alternative to Prop 8.

You’re right: “This ain’t over”. I wouldn’t be so confident, though, that a “total win is now inevitable of course”, at least as you see a “win”, or that the 70% you and some polls claim to favour gay marriage will be reflected in elections for quite some time.

[LeCharivari]

When people move their federal rights stay intact, the only people who would raise an issue over taking away Federal rights by moving to another State would be people in the news with nothing better to talk about .... Legally it's an old hat issue , that doesn't mean some idiot won't try and make someone else sue to obtain their rights but it wouldn't go any further on the losing side than a District Court and if the idiots wanted to appeal it the SC wouldn't waste the time.

The risk one takes by doing that would be the SC would take a case over that if the District Court failed to do it's job properly and open themselves to a case that Would have standing to rule that Gay Marriage is a Right in every State rather than just rule that the benefits travel with you which is a non starter and absurd to try and argue against to the SC.

Honestly I can't imagine anyone making themselves look that stupid to try and argue in Court that Federal Rights only apply in certain States .... it's just so absurd it looks malicious to a Legal Scholar

News people arguing it is another story.

No, it's actually an unresolved issue.

Agreed again, JT - it’s far from a resolved issue and if anything it’s very much resolved AGAINST Federal rights applying where such marriages are invalid if heterosexual marriage case law applies – and if gay marriages are “equal” marriages in every way then those laws inevitably apply.

Mr RD, I agree with the majority of your posts but in this case you are simply incorrect. Your comparisons and the relevant case law actually support States being able to invalidate ANY “out of state” marriages and, consequently, stop benefits being paid to gay marriage partners for the same reasons that some heterosexual marriages are invalid and benefits, rights, etc, invalidated. It’s nothing to do with “right to travel” – it depends on established, tried and tested State marriage laws.

Making ALL gay marriages valid in ALL States would not be giving gays “equality” but would, in many cases, be giving gays rights and benefits that SOME legally married heterosexual couples are denied outside their State of registration in other States and which they have already been denied in State Supreme Court cases denying them veterans rights, benefits, inheritance, etc.

Marriages (and I mean heterosexual marriages) in one State are ONLY valid in another state if they conform to that State’s laws. Two 18 year olds can’t just go from Mississippi (where they have to be 21 to marry without parental permission) to another State where they only need be 18, get married, and return to Mississippi and claim federal benefits. If first cousins marry legally in Alabama (or 20 other States) their marriage is not only void if they go to Arizona (or 25 other States) but they will face criminal charges if they go to Texas (or half a dozen other States). As gay marriages are now simply “marriages” those exact same laws and precedents apply and it’s very difficult to see how that can be changed for what are legally “equal” marriages.

Far from being “absurd” it’s already established law with a number of case precedents up to State Supreme Court level (as any “Legal Scholar”, or anyone who does a simple “Google” could see!) and it’s difficult to see how this can be changed just for gays without some Federal definition of exactly who can marry whom, which would be against the established laws of half the States, one way or the other, just for heterosexual marriages between first cousins.

To use one of your comparisons, your driving license from one State is only valid in another if it is valid according to the laws of the State you are driving IN – not the laws according to the State where the license is FROM, so a 14 year old with a valid license from South Dakota allowing him to drive on his own does NOT have a valid license when he drives across the border to North Dakota where he has to be 17.

I can’t see the relevance of your point on being entitled to fly inter-state without an ID, but it is in any case incorrect (at least on public/domestic flights); while US citizens may be technically exempt under the Constitution, it’s certainly a requirement now and there’s always the Catch 22 that without an ID you can’t prove that you’re a US citizen and so entitled not to show any ID, etc, etc.

The problem is that it’s far from JUST about Federal benefits and choosing where to live so that you can remain entitled to them. Many gays simply won’t have that choice if, for example, they work for a large company or the military and they are posted to a State which does not recognize gay marriage. Even though the military have already said that they will recognize gay marriage rights to military benefits, housing, etc, they can’t authorize federal benefits except, possibly, for those serving overseas (or their spouses) which would lead to the seriously “absurd” situation where a gay serviceman (or woman) and/or their spouse would be entitled to benefits and rights when serving overseas but not when serving in most of the US.

It gets worse if you consider that these marriage rights (and the already established laws governing them) also cover inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, next of kin authority over ending life support, burial arrangements, etc, which heterosexual marriage case law has already established is based on where you (or your spouse) are AT THE TIME, not where you live or where you were married. A gay spouse would consequently lose ALL these rights if he/she had an accident in the wrong place (currently 75% of the USA), even if they were just visiting, passing through, or had their flight diverted due to bad weather.

These established laws and limitations don’t affect foreign gay marriages or Civil Partnerships as next of kins are authorized by their own embassies. Neither, following the SCotUS ruling, do they apply to the now Federally recognized institution of gay US State Civil Unions which are guaranteed equal rights and benefits under the Constitution. Those with a US State Civil Union were already better off for “coverage” than those with a US State gay marriage, as of the 35 States which legislated against gay marriage only 19 legislated against Civil Unions, but now it looks as if while marriage case law applies to gay marriages it doesn’t apply to Civil Unions, which are now apparently recognized US wide for all benefits and rights.

A "mess" is far too kind.

[Credo]

Your post is very informative, but be aware that the age for a Driver's License in North Dakota is 16.

The minimum driving age in North Dakota is 16.

[Jingthing]

Yes indeed now we have a very big MESS.

However, I agree with this prediction.

I don't believe a mess of this magnitude can hold and it is pretty much unheard of for the U.S. government to roll back civil rights already granted.

It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will eventually find it unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage, just as it did with laws banning interracial marriage.

But right now check out what a horrible mess GAY DIVORCE is:

When the Supreme Court ruled a key aspect of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional last month, it made a life-changing difference to many married same-sex couples, who will now be entitled to all the federal benefits they were previously denied. But those gay couples whose marriages aren’t working out remain in legal purgatory.

Divorce is solely the province of state law. If a couple who were wed in New York but live in Philadelphia want to be divorced, well, they can’t be. Not only is same-sex marriage prohibited in Pennsylvania — the court’s landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor does nothing to change that — but Pennsylvania’s “mini DOMA,” passed in 1996, provides that such a marriage entered into elsewhere is “void in this Commonwealth.” And if Pennsylvania doesn’t recognize you as being married, its courts have no authority to divorce you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gay-divorce-the-next-frontier/2013/07/05/6e1b9280-e44a-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

I don't agree that age of marriage state laws are the SAME KIND of mess that we know have with gay marriage. Straight people can marry in ALL states. For the small number of marriages involving very young people in states where that is legal, well ... THEY GET OLDER! Two men never become a man and a woman. OK -- sorted.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

(edited)

I don't believe a mess of this magnitude can hold and it is pretty much unheard of for the U.S. government to roll back civil rights already granted.

But right now check out what a horrible mess GAY DIVORCE is:

I don't agree that age of marriage state laws are the SAME KIND of mess that we know have with gay marriage. Straight people can marry in ALL states. For the small number of marriages involving very young people in states where that is legal, well ... THEY GET OLDER! Two men never become a man and a woman. OK -- sorted.

I agree, JT, but with one proviso about rolling back civil rights - remember that SCotUS have made it clear by retaining Part 2 of DOMA that whereas federal benefits, rights as next of kin, etc, are civil rights, "marriage" is not a civil right and a future government could quite reasonably sort out the whole mess with federally recognised Civil Unions.

Divorce? A disaster! As far as I can see if you are a gay couple unless you are living in the State you married in or a few other States that recognise out-of-state gay marriages you can't get divorced ... and if one moves to a different State or back to the original State, who knows? Ho hum ....

Marital age? Agreed, nothing like the same mess but just another hurdle to any sort of federal ruling on "commonality" or equality of marriages across States; first cousins is a much bigger hurdle, regardless of whether it applies to gays or not, as roughly half the states are for and half against and they'll still be first cousins however old they get.

[Jingthing]

For federal benefits even after DOMA falls, U.S. state gay domestic partnerships DO NOT COUNT. Marriages only. Yes, MARRIAGE makes a difference. The mess thickens.

The Obama administration will not extend federal-worker benefits to domestic partners under the Supreme Court ruling that overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, meaning the government will treat civil unions differently than legal same-sex marriages.

The Office of Personnel Management made that announcement in a series of memos tofederal benefits administrators and insurance carriers, saying couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/07/federal-benefits-wont-extend-to-domestic-partners-under-doma-ruling/

[Jingthing]

WOW!

Potential action to clean up the "mess" might be moving really fast.

I remain confident the mess will be resolved but I still can't predict the time frame.

I was figuring between 5 and 25 years at this point.

BUT, who knows ... maybe quicker?!?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/09/gay-couples-to-sue-for-the-right-to-marry-in-pennsylvania

The ACLU is representing 23 plaintiffs –10 gay couples, two children of one of the couples, and the surviving widow of a same-sex couple that was together for 29 years — in a lawsuit it will file Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa. James Esseks, who directs the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, said the group hopes to secure the right for gay couples to marry in Pennsylvania, force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and ratchet up the legal pressure on the Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal across the nation.

Noting that about half the couples in the lawsuit got legally married elsewhere in the United States, Esseks noted, “Pennsylvania recognizes straight people’s marriages from Maine and New York, but it doesn’t recognize gay people’s marriages from Maine and New York. The question is, why?”

Edited July 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

For federal benefits even after DOMA falls, U.S. state gay domestic partnerships DO NOT COUNT. Marriages only. Yes, MARRIAGE makes a difference. The mess thickens.

The Obama administration will not extend federal-worker benefits to domestic partners under the Supreme Court ruling that overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, meaning the government will treat civil unions differently than legal same-sex marriages.

The Office of Personnel Management made that announcement in a series of memos tofederal benefits administrators and insurance carriers, saying couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/07/federal-benefits-wont-extend-to-domestic-partners-under-doma-ruling/

Looks as if the Obama administration is trying to force States to adopt the gay marriage approach over Civil Unions, even if like Colorado and Illinois they don't want them and their own legislature have already said that they are equal and that was the Supreme Court's implication.

I'm all for gay rights and equality, but this seems to be chucking any semblance of democracy straight out of the window.

[Jingthing]

The MESS is already bad enough. Add another legal entity into the mix and the MESS gets much worse. It's clear what the goal is: MARRIAGE EQUALITY in all states and with the feds, for ALL things the same as straight marriage.

Probably made a requirement by the SUPREME COURT in a new case, sooner or later.

It is ALREADY complicated enough with ONLY marriage.

The USA is not England. The path has been clear in the U.S. The "debate" of marriage vs. civil unions has NOT been significant in the U.S. The goal has been clear for many years now: MARRIAGE.

When the polls are made about gay marriage acceptance (70 percent of under 30's) they usually don't even BOTHER to ask about civil unions. Please understand each country is different. Not better or worse. Different.

As an American this path of civil unions going by the wayside makes perfect sense for the USA. I think it means a quicker and cleaner path towards to the actual full goal. In the context of the American legal system.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

WOW!

Potential action to clean up the "mess" might be moving really fast.

I remain confident the mess will be resolved but I still can't predict the time frame.

I was figuring between 5 and 25 years at this point.

BUT, who knows ... maybe quicker?!?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/09/gay-couples-to-sue-for-the-right-to-marry-in-pennsylvania

The ACLU is representing 23 plaintiffs –10 gay couples, two children of one of the couples, and the surviving widow of a same-sex couple that was together for 29 years — in a lawsuit it will file Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa. James Esseks, who directs the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, said the group hopes to secure the right for gay couples to marry in Pennsylvania, force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and ratchet up the legal pressure on the Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal across the nation.

Noting that about half the couples in the lawsuit got legally married elsewhere in the United States, Esseks noted, “Pennsylvania recognizes straight people’s marriages from Maine and New York, but it doesn’t recognize gay people’s marriages from Maine and New York. The question is, why?”

Of course it'll be resolved - that's beyond any doubt.

Just how it'll be resolved is another matter.

[Jingthing]

Nobody knows. But I can say with confidence that marriage vs. civil unions is NOT IMPORTANT in the American debate. That was already settled in the supreme court recently. Americans don't have the hangup about this some other countries do. Americans understand what equality means: SAME WORD, SAME LAWS. It's partly our history of previous civil rights struggles and successes. Separate but equal is not something Americans really believe in. Our political culture is different, not saying better or worse, just different.

To obsess about the civil unions thing in the American context is irrelevant.

The issue and people have MOVED ON from that and it was never that big a deal anyway.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

(edited) The MESS is already bad enough. Add another legal entity into the mix and the MESS gets much worse.

There already IS "another legal entity" in the mix - there has been from the start!

(edited) The USA is not England. The path has been clear in the U.S. The "debate" of marriage vs. civil unions has NOT been significant in the U.S.

I am not sure what England (or the UK, or anywhere else) has to do with it.

The "path" in the US has included Civil Unions or some equivalent at every stage and the "debate" HAS been significant - the history of Civil Unions in the USA is a matter of record, not opinion.

9 of the 11 the States recognising gay marriages started out with Civil Unions/ Domestic Partnerships/ Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships/ Designated Beneficiary Agreements - 10 if you include Massachusetts who proposed Civil Unions before the Courts approved gay marriage . Half have now "converted" to gay marriages, but only one (California) started out by recognising gay marriage, and only three States out of the 50 chose to do so democratically.

35 States have legislated against gay marriage - only 19 of those have also legislated against Civil Unions. That indicates very obviously that many DO see it as a "big deal" and see differences in spirit but not civil rights and entitlements.

I doubt if anyone reading these threads can fail to understand your goal, or that the majority here support it at least in principle, but while that may well be your experience the simple fact of history is that what you are saying ("The path has been clear in the U.S. The "debate" of marriage vs. civil unions has NOT been significant in the U.S."... "it was never that big a deal anyway") is incorrect. Civil Unions were undeniably a major part of the process and they still are, particularly in many of those States strongly opposed to gay marriage.

I recognise that you are an American and so may have more personal interest and more personal experience of what happens in America than those who are not, albeit that the experience is now probably getting rather dated like my own, but what you are saying is simply not consistent with the facts.

Edited July 9, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

We are PAST the marriage vs. civil union debate in the USA. Read what happened in the supreme court. This is about MARRIAGE. These NEW states and stated currently with domestic unions, what are they going for now that DOMA is gone? Marriage and ONLY marriage. Again, why spend energy focused on something that is going away?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

We are PAST the marriage vs. civil union debate in the USA. Read what happened in the supreme court. This is about MARRIAGE. These NEW states and stated currently with domestic unions, what are they going for now that DOMA is gone? Marriage and ONLY marriage. Again, why spend energy focused on something that is going away?

The US may be past it, they may not - neither of us will know until the fat lady has sung, and the SCotUS ruling left her well and truly on stage.

"Read what happened in the supreme court." I did. "DOMA is" NOT "gone" - Section 3 (the definition of marriage) is, but Section 2 (powers reserved to the State) is still statute and it could be the biggest elephant in the room (pun intended) as although it seems to contravene Article IV of the US Constitution, Article IV clearly makes such decisions up to Congress, not SCotUS. Ignoring that is simply ignoring reality.

Article IV: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. ...The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. ...

Edited July 9, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Oy vey. I (and the movement) is looking forward to the FUTURE and the future is MARRIAGE equality. That is totally obvious. There is no current activism towards turning more states toward civil unions. NONE, and there won't be EVER AGAIN. For the life of me I don't get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore. That is so over. Yes they exist in some FEW states but that is headed towards historical RELIC.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Oy vey. I (and the movement) is looking forward to the FUTURE and the future is MARRIAGE equality. That is totally obvious. There is no current activism towards turning more states toward civil unions. NONE, and there won't be EVER AGAIN. For the life of me I don't get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore. That is so over. Yes they exist in some FEW states but that is headed towards historical RELIC.

I respect your right to speak for yourself, but you do not represent any "movement" 's views, however "obvious" these things may be to you. You are, again, factually incorrect and the information you are giving is highly misleading.

Civil Unions (or the equivalent) do not just "exist in some FEW states" - they "exist" in five, three of which have rejected legislation for gay marriage. Five may be only a "FEW" out of the 50 States in the US, but that is around half of the total number of States that have recognised gay marriage.

What is "NOT IMPORTANT" to "activists" may be of considerable significance and importance to legislators and the courts. "marriage vs civil unions .... was" NOT "settled in the supreme court" and DOMA is far from "gone" - if you read the ruling Justice Anthony Kennedy spelt that out beyond any doubt

Civil Unions may not be the "activists" ' aim, but the activists aren't the ones who make policy or pass legislation - the politicians are and just because you "don't get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore" doesn't mean that others don't "get" it and aren't "interested". The SCotUS ruling not only upheld but confirmed individual States' rights to ban gay marriage and Section 2 leaves the way wide open for any future government to approve Civil Unions nationwide but to uphold the bans, which would receive considerably more voter support in most States that currently ban gay marriage (a clear majority) than any suggestion of gay marriage would.

Obama has chosen to sideline civil unions - federal benefits already being paid to couples with civil unions will continue to be paid as those cannot now be withdrawn, but other marital benefits will not be paid even though their States have legislated that they are the equivalents of marriage - yet more court cases, inevitably, as that contravenes the SCotUS decision. An alternative administration may well take a different view and make those rights available, popularising civil unions without the controversy of marriage and sidelining the gay marriage drive - that may not suit the activists, but that does not mean it isn't a very real possibility.

According to James Esseks, who you mentioned is director of the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBT & AIDS Project and is consequently in a rather better position to speak for "the movement" any progress at federal / SCotUS level will not be "really fast" as you suggest may be possible but will be "several years" at best. According to a number of reports gay rights groups are far from united on the way ahead - Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, for example, takes a very different view to James Esseks and thinks that instead of challenging States constitutionally in the courts they should be consolidating and strengthening gay rights in their part of what the HRC describe as the "two Americas".

You think "it was never that big a deal anyway" even though that was the way 90% of States now with gay marriage chose to go? You think that "DOMA is gone" even though Section 2 was both upheld and confirmed by SCotUS and only Section 3 was revoked? You don't "get why anyone would be interested in civil unions in the USA anymore" ?

Fine. I am happy for you that you are happy that American gays are on "a quicker and cleaner path" to acceptance and equality and that it is "mission accomplished" so far. I'll leave it at that as I hope your predictions are proved correct, even if your views may not be.

[Jingthing]

There is NO WAY the movement is going to be focused on civil unions. That is completely out of the question. You present that as a possible alternative path. It is not. The goals will continue to be focused on marriage, now more than ever.

I have never not once not ever predicted really fast results. There is hope yes but predicting that would be foolhardy.

Of course the result so far have been much faster than expected.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

There is NO WAY the movement is going to be focused on civil unions. That is completely out of the question. You present that as a possible alternative path. It is not. The goals will continue to be focused on marriage, now more than ever.

I have never not once not ever predicted really fast results. There is hope yes but predicting that would be foolhardy.

Of course the result so far have been much faster than expected.

I DID NOT SAY THAT it was "a possible alternative path". I said that "Civil Unions may not be the "activists" ' aim, but the activists aren't the ones who make policy or pass legislation (etc, etc)" and that "OTHERS" may look at civil unions, NOT "the movement" who are ignoring it (at their peril, in my view).

"I have never not once not ever predicted really fast results."

I DID NOT SAY THAT you "predicted really fast results". I said that "According to James Esseks ... any progress at federal / SCotUS level will not be "really fast" as you suggest may be possible but will be "several years" at best." You earlier wrote (unedited) "WOW! Potential action to clean up the "mess" might be moving really fast. I remain confident the mess will be resolved but I still can't predict the time frame. I was figuring between 5 and 25 years at this point. BUT, who knows ... maybe quicker?!?"

My comment that "I hope your predictions are proved correct" was unconnected and came two paragraphs later.

I have lost any interest in your personal views, apart from correcting factual errors, but WILL YOU PLEASE STOP MIS-REPRESENTING WHAT I WRITE.

Edited July 10, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Scott]

Continued personal attacks will earn posters a suspension.

Stay on the topic.

[Jingthing]

Civil unions in the USA are a historical relic. Personally, I am entirely confident of this based on recent historical events. The focus is MARRIAGE EQUALITY, now more than ever. There is no logical reason why that would EVER revert to a lesser at this point. That would be downright un-American, speaking from an American civil liberties cultural POV. That would be going BACKWARDS. The supreme court has already indicated they are cool with gay MARRIAGES being recognized federally. That's the door. It's open and it is about MARRIAGE.

Referring to the article, hard core right wingers are never going to be the majority in the USA so their MINORITY interest in civil unions as a compromise position is a DEAD END. So when you add the left plus the center (which is admittedly relatively right wing for many countries) you've got a solid majority of public support going forward for MARRIAGE equality, especially as the young ones age.

Is this about politics? Yes, it is bloody well about politics.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/05/remember_civil_unions_the_shif044797.php

This burst of legislative movement, coupled with increasing numbers of polls showing majority support for same-sex marriage, makes it is easy to forget that until recently, this debate—and many public opinion polls—included civil unions as a viable third option. Now, many states that, like Illinois, legalized civil unions in the past decade appear to moving toward same-sex marriage.

Why have civil unions lost momentum?

....



The changing political composition of civil union supporters shows that the center of gravity of this debate has shifted significantly. The civil union option has moved from being a middle way dominated by political moderates a decade ago to one that is, today, most attractive to political conservatives. And looking ahead, there is evidence that the civil union option may have a limited future, at least if younger Americans are any indication. When given a three-way choice, civil unions are the least popular option among Millennials (Americans born after 1980). Only slightly more than 1-in-10 (13%) Millennials prefer civil unions, while 67% say they support allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, and 15% oppose any legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Sorry to keep banging on about this and I know its getting tedious, but SCotUS did NOT "indicate they are cool with gay MARRIAGES being recognized federally". They revoked Section 3 but UPHELD Section 2 which leaves decisions about gay marriage up to individual States.

Repealing DOMA and State-wide recognition of gay marriages is now firmly back with Congress in the form of the Respect for Marriage Act - in a democracy whether its passed or not will show if the polls and speculation are correct.

[LeCharivari]

Civil unions in the USA are a historical relic. Personally, I am entirely confident of this based on recent historical events. The focus is MARRIAGE EQUALITY, now more than ever. There is no logical reason why that would EVER revert to a lesser at this point. That would be downright un-American, speaking from an American civil liberties cultural POV. That would be going BACKWARDS. The supreme court has already indicated they are cool with gay MARRIAGES being recognized federally. That's the door. It's open and it is about MARRIAGE.

Referring to the article, hard core right wingers are never going to be the majority in the USA so their MINORITY interest in civil unions as a compromise position is a DEAD END. So when you add the left plus the center (which is admittedly relatively right wing for many countries) you've got a solid majority of public support going forward for MARRIAGE equality, especially as the young ones age.

Is this about politics? Yes, it is bloody well about politics.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/05/remember_civil_unions_the_shif044797.php

This burst of legislative movement, coupled with increasing numbers of polls showing majority support for same-sex marriage, makes it is easy to forget that until recently, this debate—and many public opinion polls—included civil unions as a viable third option. Now, many states that, like Illinois, legalized civil unions in the past decade appear to moving toward same-sex marriage.

Why have civil unions lost momentum?

....

The changing political composition of civil union supporters shows that the center of gravity of this debate has shifted significantly. The civil union option has moved from being a middle way dominated by political moderates a decade ago to one that is, today, most attractive to political conservatives. And looking ahead, there is evidence that the civil union option may have a limited future, at least if younger Americans are any indication. When given a three-way choice, civil unions are the least popular option among Millennials (Americans born after 1980). Only slightly more than 1-in-10 (13%) Millennials prefer civil unions, while 67% say they support allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, and 15% oppose any legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

For anyone not reading the whole article, the part quoted could be misleading as the article is actually raising a warning flag over ignoring Civil Unions, not saying that they are a "DEAD END" but that on the contrary "The empirical evidence, however, does not bear this out."

In 2004, civil unions were significantly more popular than same-sex marriage, with roughly one-third (32%) of the public voicing a preference for this option, while approximately 1-in-5 (21%) supported same-sex marriage. ....

As a result, most public opinion polls a decade ago also included civil union measures, either as the middle option in a three-part question or as a standalone question separate from same-sex marriage. As the public debate over same-sex marriage changed, however, advocates on both sides increasingly emphasized a binary choice of support for or opposition to same-sex marriage. .... In response, some polling firms such as ABC News and Quinnipiac have stopped asking about civil unions, with the assumption that opinion was polarizing into two opposing camps.

But are attitudes really polarizing among the public? If so, we would expect an evacuation of the civil union category as the culture war battle lines became more brightly drawn. The empirical evidence, however, does not bear this out. While opposition to any legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships has declined by nearly 20 points over the last nine years (from 44% in 2004 to 26% in 2013 in a three-part question), support for civil unions has fallen by only eight points (from 32% in 2004 to 24% in 2013). In fact, PRRI’s most recent survey (April 2013) found that roughly as many Americans support civil unions (24%) as say that there should be no legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples relationships (26%).

If that "limited future" depends on the "Millenials" then it looks like it could be some way off because, as JT rightly points out "it is bloody well about politics" - not polls, assumptions, or even public opinion.

[Jingthing]

It seems Obama is doing all he can to bring equality to legally MARRIED gay American couples, but there is only so much he can legally do.

Some is up to Congress and Congress is of course dominated by the anti-gay republicans.

Imagine if we had an unfriendly president? He would be fighting fair implementation.

Presidential elections are going to continue to be very important for the continuing gay rights struggle, and quite simply, democrats good, republicans bad. Not only implementation policy but also future supreme court picks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-married-couples-must-get-their-rightful-benefits/2013/07/21/893b1ef0-e99f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

In other areas, however, it’s a more complicated situation, especially when statutes consider marriage as between a man and a woman or, as is the case at the Internal Revenue Service, in terms of where a couple resides. Through any avenue of attack, these situations are bound to be a headache to update. The Obama administration should continue pressing hard to change them, but in some cases it will be up to Congress.

[LeCharivari]

Agreed, JT, but unfortunately for those who have Civil Unions (at a guess roughly as many as those who have gay marriages, as the number of States is similar) he's doing so at their expense (literally).

[Jingthing]

Agreed, JT, but unfortunately for those who have Civil Unions (at a guess roughly as many as those who have gay marriages, as the number of States is similar) he's doing so at their expense (literally).

I reckon your "guess" is extremely wrong as the two of the largest population U.S. states (by far) are now in the legal gay marriage category. Those would be California (1st) and New York (3rd). Texas is 2nd but has nothing.

[LeCharivari]

The numbers involved are really rather academic - the simple fact is that the Obama administration has chosen to discriminate against those with civil unions rather than gay marriages for no legal or constitutional reason. Personally I don't see that as "good", and I rather doubt if those involved do so either.

[Jingthing]

The numbers involved are really rather academic - the simple fact is that the Obama administration has chosen to discriminate against those with civil unions rather than gay marriages for no legal or constitutional reason. Personally I don't see that as "good", and I rather doubt if those involved do so either.

The U.S. is heading towards being a gay MARRIAGE equality nation.

The civil union thing in a few states is a historical relic.

There is no long term future for this RELIC.

In actually gay Americans consider Obama pretty much the Abraham Lincoln of gay rights.

Cheers.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It just gets better in the USA for MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

You see, dears, gay U.S. people from non-marriage-equality states CAN STILL get married in the marriage equality states and those marriages are recognized federally, which is a big deal.

The military gets in on the EQUALITY PARTY big time.

Note something I am ASSUMING is true. The holidays for military to get married in the EQUALITY STATES will definitely NOT include paid trips to CIVIL UNION states. Because the deal is for MARRIAGE. To me and I reckon about 100 percent of American gays, this is a GOOD THING. EQUALITY = GOOD. Yes.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/14/did_the_military_endorse_same_sex_marriage_today.html

Today, the Pentagon has announced that it will grant the exact rights and benefits to married same-sex couples that it does to married straight couples, including housing and healthcare, a vast expansion of its previously announced plans to extend only meager perks to gay couples. Even more surprisingly, the military will offer a 10-day leave to gay couples stationed in a non-marriage state to travel to the 13 states plus Washington, D.C., to be legally wed.

Make no mistake: This is huge news, the biggest military-related LGBT victory since the repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell. Arguably, by the letter of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA, the Pentagon is compelled to provide benefits to already-married same-sex spouses. But the marriage furlough is another matter altogether. To allow gay couples to leave the homophobic states in which they are stationed to gain equal rights—to encourage it, actually, by tethering it to a holiday—is a bold endorsement of marriage equality by the military.