The short or long road to 50 state American marriage equality going forward

[Jingthing]

In the coming months, years, hopefully it won't much more than a decade, there will be news story after news story of progress going forward towards 50 U.S. state marriage equality. There will be some setbacks and delays, but it's obvious now where the trend is going.

These changes will occur via different means, state legislatures, state popular votes, state courts, and no doubt at least one more supreme court case.

Along the way, there will be activists pushing the issue along, as happened recently in New Mexico.

Starting this thread here as an attempt for it to be a "bucket" for these predictable news stories about the inevitable progress and success of 50 state marriage equality, going forward.

This topic of this thread is NOT about civil unions or domestic partners. The only exception would be the news as it comes along as the remaining four current U.S. civil union states all convert to marriage equality states.

Please respect the clearly defined focus of this thread: USA marriage equality progress. Anyone who wants to talk about civil unions in the USA, please post in another thread because here that would be off topic. Thank you!

At this stage, precluding a monumental supreme court decision before then, it seems realistic to hope that a MAJORITY of U.S. states (over 25) will have marriage equality within 5 years.

Todays news: NEW MEXICO ... on the path to being yet another marriage equality state:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/county-clerk-in-new-mexico-issues-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples.html?_r=0

County Clerk in New Mexico Issues Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples LAS CRUCES, N.M. — Saying he was upholding New Mexico’s Constitution — amended four decades ago to guarantee equal rights to all — a county clerk here began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday, magnifying a fight that could become one of the key issues in next year’s elections for governor.

[onthemoon]

Well noted, this thread is about the US relic of same-sex marriage rather than legal equality. Enjoy yourself while the world moves on.

[Jingthing]

Well noted, this thread is about the US relic of same-sex marriage rather than legal equality. Enjoy yourself while the world moves on.

OK. Thanks for sharing your POV that marriage is a relic, yes some people think that way but hopefully not too many people are being forced to get married, and also thanks for understanding that this thread is restricted to news and discussion about marriage equality in the U.S. The marriage equality movement in the U.S. is about all U.S. citizens having the SAME CHOICE to enter into marriages with the person they love, regardless of gender, and all U.S. state marriages having the same and equal federal recognition.

Gay Americans today who don't live in the current marriage equality states can now choose to marry in a marriage equality state and obtain federal recognition in that way. Not good enough yet, of course.

Cheers,

[onthemoon]

Yes, I get it. It is about marriage equality, not about legal (i.e. real) equality. It is sad that real legal equality is not on the agenda (yet?), but only marriage equality is.

But, as I said earlier, enjoy yourself exploring this first step.

[Jingthing]

Yes, I get it. It is about marriage equality, not about legal (i.e. real) equality. It is sad that real legal equality is not on the agenda (yet?), but only marriage equality is.

But, as I said earlier, enjoy yourself exploring this first step.

Yeah, whatever.

Again, hopefully the actual topic is clear to all. If nobody is actually interested in these news items as they come along in future, that's totally fine.

I started this because I just can't see starting a new thread every time an item like New Mexico comes along. As there are so many states, that's just too much! Thus, the bucket idea.

Obviously at some point there is going to be much bigger news at the supreme court level again which probably will be too big for the bucket.

See how this goes. Thanks all for respecting the topic. Cheers.

[Jingthing]

Alexander the Great comes back to bite us in New Mexico!

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/08/29/new-mexico-republican-gays-should-stop-whoring-around-marry

Sharer told Talking Points Memo Wednesday that he holds no animosity toward gay and lesbian couples, but that he opposes marriage equality. He again referenced Alexander the Great to highlight what he believes is proof that marriage should only exist between a man and a woman.

Every little bit helps, and this I think when the history is written is going to be seen as rather a BIG bit. Now same sex MARRIED couples who got married in ANY marriage equality state will be recognized as married by the federal IRS taxation system. This is the kind of MESSINESS that will inevitably lead to new and bigger supreme court cases, and such couples now resident in non-equality states will NOT be seen as married for their state taxation.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/08/29/irs-recognize-legal-same-sex-marriages-tax-purposes

Legally married same-sex couples will now be treated as such for federal tax purposes, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced today.

The ruling implements the tax aspects of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s section 3, which prevented the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages. It applies to all couples in legal marriages, even if they don’t live in a state that recognizes their union.

[Jingthing]

Almost definitely, the final realization of 50 state marriage equality will be centered in a future supreme court decision.

So this news story, also historic, symbolizes and underlines the connection of that court to this movement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ginsburg-to-officiate-same-sex-wedding/2013/08/30/4bc09d86-0ff4-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court member to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony Saturday when she officiates at the Washington wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser.

[ToddWeston]

I wonder if she will recuse herself from future hearings ? Just wondering out loud.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if she will recuse herself from future hearings ? Just wondering out loud.

Absolutely not. There would be no need.

Would a justice who performs an opposite sex wedding need to recuse herself on a case that touches on marriage law in general? Of course not!

But she's quite old and won't be on the court much longer anyway.

It is settled law that the federal government recognizes same sex marriages in states in which they are legal as fully equal to any other marriage.

[ToddWeston]

I wonder if she will recuse herself from future hearings ? Just wondering out loud.

Absolutely not. There would be no need.

Would a justice who performs an opposite sex wedding need to recuse herself on a case that touches on marriage law in general? Of course not!

But she's quite old and won't be on the court much longer anyway.

It is settled law that the federal government recognizes same sex marriages in states in which they are legal as fully equal to any other marriage.

But but - same sex marriage is law.

I've never heard of her until this post so more power to her I guess.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if she will recuse herself from future hearings ? Just wondering out loud.

Absolutely not. There would be no need.

Would a justice who performs an opposite sex wedding need to recuse herself on a case that touches on marriage law in general? Of course not!

But she's quite old and won't be on the court much longer anyway.

It is settled law that the federal government recognizes same sex marriages in states in which they are legal as fully equal to any other marriage.

But but - same sex marriage is law.

I've never heard of her until this post so more power to her I guess.

Not sure what you mean.

In the U.S. there is no such thing as FEDERAL marriages. They are only done at the state level and Washington, D.C., etc.

If she had engaged in civil disobedience and performed a same sex marriage in a state like New Mexico that does not yet legalize same sex marriages, that would be different.

Now legally speaking there is no difference in her performing a same sex marriage as any other, as long as done in a same-sex marriage legal state.

She's a great liberal justice.

[Scott]

There is this topic running in the World News Section which might be of interest to those with a US partner:

Veterans Benefits extended to same sex spouses.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/665757-obama-directs-feds-to-extend-veterans-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses/#entry6791124

[Jingthing]

A rather surprising and encouraging development from Hawaii, the original home state of gay civil rights hero President Obama.

The governor has called a special session for a gay marriage vote and there is a good chance the votes are there to pass the bill.

If a bill is passed in time, Hawaii could begin issuing licenses and conducting ceremonies Nov. 18, Attorney General David Louie said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/hawaii-gay-marriage_n_3896746.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

[Jingthing]

Marriage tourism.

American style.

This article is how I see it too. This mess cannot stand. The only solution is a grand supreme court fix. The only question is ... WHEN?

With DOMA dead, however, marriage tourism is suddenly a real and practical option for gay couples—one that makes a mockery of our patchwork of state-by-state marriage laws. Legally speaking, the current system is nightmarishly muddled: Thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government are currently at odd with 37 other states on a major legal issue, leading to a bizarre and headache-inducing mess for pretty much everybody.

...

The marriage equality split likely won’t be solved by a constitutional amendment or an act of Congress. It’s much more plausible that the issue will return to the Supreme Court in the near future. And anybody who reads the tea leaves of U.S. v. Windsor knows that individual states’ same-sex marriage bans are probably on constitutional life support.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/12/marriage_tourism_for_gay_couples_won_t_survive_for_much_longer.html

[Scott]

I know some posters are getting tired of the posts about American same sex marriages, but this might be of some interest:

George H.W. Bush witnesses same-sex wedding Former president, first lady attend ceremony

Read more: http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html#ixzz2g4YWhwjO

http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html?hpt=us_bn7

[sustento]

I know some posters are getting tired of the posts about American same sex marriages, but this might be of some interest:

George H.W. Bush witnesses same-sex wedding Former president, first lady attend ceremony

Read more: http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html#ixzz2g4YWhwjO

http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html?hpt=us_bn7

Yes - I saw that in the Huff yesterday.

[Jingthing]

Big happenings in New Jersey:

New Jersey is unconstitutionally denying federal benefits to same-sex couples and must allow gay couples to marry starting Oct. 21, a judge ruled Friday.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_NJ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-27-14-58-00

[anotheruser]

New Jersey is one of four states that offer civil unions, but not marriage, to same-sex couples. The others are Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois.

So the other states will probably have to follow suit under their constitutions. I am no lawyer but it seems to be a pretty simple idea that individual states can not deny federal benefits to it's residents. ONe more step forward and a huge victory for sure.

[Jingthing]

Of the four, Colorado is the one that will likely take a longer time. Hawaii and Illinois should be upgrading to marriage equality rather soon.

[onthemoon]

I know some posters are getting tired of the posts about American same sex marriages, but this might be of some interest:

George H.W. Bush witnesses same-sex wedding Former president, first lady attend ceremony

Read more: http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html#ixzz2g4YWhwjO

http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/York-County/george-hw-bush-witnesses-samesex-wedding/-/9284124/22124424/-/7pkoqiz/-/index.html?hpt=us_bn7

Well I'm one of the posters who are getting tired, and I also feel that this is an interesting turn of events.

George H.W. Bush is in my view an arch-conservative. I may be wrong about him, and obviously I am indeed. I consider this a very good development, and he is looked up to by many conservatives in the US.

[Jingthing]

Nope. Daddy Bush is more like a moderate conservative by American standards accounting for the fact the USA is a right wing country so labels are different than Europe. He is nothing like the majority of the current republican party which is FAR to the right of Daddy Bush. I don't believe Daddy Bush has explicitly made any political statement in support of marriage equality. That would be much bigger news. As an American who has met some of these old money New England super rich WASP republican elite types, they often make personal exceptions for people that they KNOW in these matters. As in, you're one of the good ones, credit to your race and all that creepy stuff. I agree its something but I suspect it's one of those situations where it's just personal and not any kind of national policy opinion change. If someone has a quote that it is, please supply. I would be very surprised.

That said, younger republicans are significantly more liberal on gay civil rights issues than their elders. Which is all part of the inevitability of full 50 state marriage equality happening, with the only question being WHEN.

[onthemoon]

Nope. Daddy Bush is more like a moderate conservative by American standards accounting for the fact the the USA is a right wing country so labels are different than Europe. He is nothing like the majority of the current republican party which is FAR to the right of Daddy Bush. I don't believe Daddy Bush has explicitly made any political statement in support of marriage equality. That would be much bigger news. As an American who has met some of these old money New England super rich WASP republican elite types, they often make personal exceptions for people that they KNOW in these matters. As in, you're one of the good ones, credit to your race and all that creepy stuff. I agree its something but I suspect it's one of those situations where it's just personal and not any kind of national policy opinion change. If someone has a quote that it is, please supply. I would be very surprised.

That said, younger republicans are significantly more liberal on gay civil rights issues than their elders. Which is all part of the inevitability of full 50 state marriage equality happening, with the only question being WHEN.

From afar, it does look different to me. I would not have considered Bush 41 to be a moderate. You have a point comparing the USA in general to Europe, though.

You're the expert on US politics towards gay people. But his endorsing this particular gay marriage is indeed a political statement, wouldn't you think?

I'll keep watching this space.

[Jingthing]

Like I said, I do NOT think it is political statement. If he wants to make a political statement on marriage equality, he would need to open his mouth, and change his long standing political position which has indeed been against gay marriage. Again, I think this was most probably a PERSONAL action for his PERSONAL friends. Yes of course he knew it would be national news and seen as some kind of signal so I agree it is something.

[onthemoon]

Like I said, I do NOT think it is political statement. If he wants to make a political statement on marriage equality, he would need to open his mouth, and change his long standing political position which has indeed been against gay marriage. Again, I think this was most probably a PERSONAL action for his PERSONAL friends. Yes of course he knew it would be national news and seen as some kind of signal so I agree it is something.

A politician doing something that is a controversial issue and hits national news IS a political statement. Politicians don't have the luxury of personal actions for personal friends - having gay friends (and not being secretive or ashamed of it) is a political statement in itself.

And if you want to say he is not a politician anymore, I have to disappoint you: As a former president, he is an elder statesman for the rest of his life.

[Jingthing]

Like I said, I do NOT think it is political statement. If he wants to make a political statement on marriage equality, he would need to open his mouth, and change his long standing political position which has indeed been against gay marriage. Again, I think this was most probably a PERSONAL action for his PERSONAL friends. Yes of course he knew it would be national news and seen as some kind of signal so I agree it is something.

A politician doing something that is a controversial issue and hits national news IS a political statement. Politicians don't have the luxury of personal actions for personal friends - having gay friends (and not being secretive or ashamed of it) is a political statement in itself.

And if you want to say he is not a politician anymore, I have to disappoint you: As a former president, he is an elder statesmen for the rest of his life.

I just don't agree with you! I also think he is still a politician. Never said he wasn't. Reagan and his wife had many gay friends, that was WELL KNOWN, and yet he was a HORRIBLE president for gay people (during the peak of the Aids pandemic). If he wants to change his policy on gay marriage, again, he needs to open his pie hole. I don't think he will. Cheers.

This supports my point. He did this for friends. That's it.

I know people like that. They can have anti civil rights political opinions but are happy to say to people they know and like: You are Different. I'm not super impressed with that.

No big statement from the ex-prez’s office. His rep Jim McGrath confirmed his and wife Barbara’s presence at the Kennebunkport wedding: “They were private citizens attending a private ceremony for two friends.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/25/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-marriage-in-maine/

[onthemoon]

I don't get it: He can be against gay marriage and still state that endorsing his gay friends' marriage is a different issue? How hypocritical would that be?

If you think that's what is happening, the USA is a weird place indeed.

[Jingthing]

I don't get it: He can be against gay marriage and still state that endorsing his gay friends' marriage is a different issue? How hypocritical would that be?

If you think that's what is happening, the USA is a weird place indeed.

I've met people like him. Not as elite as him but a similar demographic. The contrast between their political viewpoints and their personal life can indeed be very, very bizarre. Believe it or not. Again I'm not saying it is nothing and it is a welcome signal that has the potential of softening more republicans. It just doesn't mean that his specific long standing on record political viewpoint on national gay marriage policy has necessarily changed.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Daddy Bush is not much admired among today's republicans, who like I mentioned before are overwhelmingly more right wing than he was. So I'm not sure what great impact he would have even if he did make a big public statement of support for marriage equality to the republican audience. But again, he won't do this.

Daddy Bush now is actually more admired by democrats, who wax nostalgic about when republicans were more REASONABLE.

[Scott]

The fact is rather simple. He showed up for a gay wedding and that says a lot. He doesn't have to open his mouth.

A few years back, he wouldn't have shown up at wedding. He wouldn't have let the Mrs. show up and there wouldn't have been a comment or a card.

Again, it's not a matter of actively supporting it as it is a matter of not really caring whether it exists or not.

Where's that emoticon with the guy drinking his coffee and looking bored?

[sustento]

[Jingthing]

IF Daddy Bush allowed himself to be put into a situation where he would be interviewed on political issues of the day (which he probably won't) what do you really think he would actually say if questioned directly about the national marriage equality issue?

I think he would say:

1. I decline to inject myself on a current political issue like this. I had my time as president and that is over. The fact that I witnessed a same sex marriage for some friends was a personal matter only.

OR

2. It's a matter for the states for decide.

Sorry in my view, there is no way this old man will EVER make a public statement of political support for the national issue of same sex marriage equality. Would be pleased to be proven wrong. But I seriously doubt it.

I get it that some people will see his witnessing action as the same thing as an open and clear statement of support. I just don't and I think he's smart enough to know he didn't do that either.