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

[LeCharivari]

It would be illegal for a gay (or any other) couple to get married in more than one State, as they would already be married - whether they were married to each other is irrelevant.

On a more serious note, this is one of the problems with a country recognising same-sex marriages but not civil partnerships, as couples in civil partnerships which cannot be converted to marriages in their original country/State cannot just "get married" elsewhere without first getting legally divorced wherever their original civil partnership was registered - they cannot get a Certificate of No Impediment from their original country/State, so literally cannot get married somewhere else even if their civil partnership isn't recognised there.

Wait a minute - the marriage is not recognized if it is called Civil Partnership, but still you cannot marry elsewhere because you are not single?

Correct - you are not only not free to marry the same or a different person elsewhere but you are generally not able to marry elsewhere as most countries/States require documentation from your original country/State to show that you are single / divorced / widowed, which obviously your original country/State cannot provide.

Looked at from the opposite perspective, someone who is from a country/State that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions would be able to get married or have a civil union in as many countries/States as they wanted (but only to one partner in each), because their original country/State would still consider them single and be able to give them the documentation to support that.

All countries that recognize same-sex civil unions and/or same-sex marriages (except one, as far as I am aware) avoid this potential problem by recognizing all other countries' same-sex civil unions and/or same-sex marriages as equivalent to whatever same-sex arrangement they themselves have.

As far as "equitable principle" is concerned, not only does it not apply here as it has only been applied to dissolving failed civil unions so that one or both partners can marry someone else, not so that they can re-marry each other which is what you, I and the bar-mitzvah boy were talking about, but the majority of civil unions cannot be dissolved on those grounds and Scott's link is very clear on that point, as is the link below which goes into more case detail (and which are from 2011 and 2012 so are hardly "dated"):

The first round of civil-unionites discovered, for example, that it was virtually impossible to dissolve the union. Out of state couples could not file for divorce in Vermont because only residents can file for divorce there. And, for the most part, such couples could not file in their home states either ..... some individuals found a sympathetic court to dissolve the union based on "equitable principles", but many couples are still stuck in civil unions ..."

http://www.empirejustice.org/issue-areas/civil-rights/case-law/dickerson-v-thompson.html

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/08/21/beware-the-undissolved-civil-union

[Jingthing]

Progress and setbacks shown in GIF form:

The above GIF shows developments in the fight for marriage equality from 1973-2014. While it looks black at first, the pink and purple start creeping in there to give us hope

http://www.thedatereport.com/dating/marriage/watch-the-slow-progress-of-marriage-equality-in-one-gif/

Edited December 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for any "new" States to be added to the list, rather than just ones which are "converts" from Civil Unions or previous legislation. Things seem to have come to a grinding halt on that front, for the moment ....

[Jingthing]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for any "new" States to be added to the list, rather than just ones which are "converts" from Civil Unions or previous legislation. Things seem to have come to a grinding halt on that front, for the moment ....

As I've posted about for years now it seems, it's going to come down to a definitive ruling at the U.S. SUPREME COURT. For now, the state game is going to slow down for awhile. BTW, you seem to suggest there haven't been any states that went directly from nothing to marriage equality with the civil union step, but you are wrong.

"People shouldn't feel discouraged that we're only at 16 states and we have 34 to go," says Solomon. "Ultimately, our national win is going to come from the United States Supreme Court. It's how other civil rights have succeeded. Our job right now is to show the court that the country is ready."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-next-five-states-to-legalize-marriage-equality-20131127

[Jingthing]

Speaking of the supreme court ...

OK, she didn't beat the Pope (and who would want to) but she was in the FINALIST list for this year's iconic Time Magazine Person of the Year. Who is she? That would be Edith Windsor, age 84, gay activist:

http://poy.time.com/2013/12/11/runner-up-edith-windsor-the-unlikely-activist/

Edited December 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It's official!

VIVA NEW MEXICO

Another state legalizes same sex marriage.

Now 16 plus D.C.

Fantastic!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/same-sex-marriage-ruled-legal-by-nms-high-court/2013/12/19/96f63be0-68db-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Major Surprise!

While the general consensus is that the march to inevitable 50 state marriage equality is now going to slow down on the state by state battles (with the SUPREME COURT final decision being the obvious endgame) here's some news indicating that consensus might be wrong.

UTAH.

Mormon UTAH.

Wow.

A federal judge on Friday ruled Utah’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in a state dominated by the Mormon Church, one of the country’s staunchest opponents of gay marriage.

“The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, wrote in his opinion. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional-judge-rules/2013/12/20/8f9bd9f8-69c7-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html

[Jingthing]

More surprises.

A surprising PREDICTION from a very credible source.

OK, it's official. This has ALREADY gone quicker than most (including me) expected and now it seems this dizzying pace is set to CONTINUE.

Given the supreme court ruling, it shouldn't be surprising that marriage equality cases are winning and WILL win in FEDERAL courts.

As I've said before on this thread, it's not IF with the 50 state marriage equality, but WHEN.

With so many cases before federal judges, it is likely that 2014 will be the year in which states accounting for a majority of Americans will allow gay marriage.

The pace of change over the last two years is especially notable when considering the politics of the last decade. Ten years ago, support for same-sex marriage was so far outside the mainstream in American politics that the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, John Kerry, reaffirmed his opposition several times. Advocating gay marriage was a position reserved for a small slice of coastal liberals.

A decade later, as 2013 draws to a close, the sea change of public opinion has been so swift and dramatic that support for same-sex marriage has become a majority opinion — and the pace of change suggests 2014 will be the year in which a majority of Americans live in states in which gay marriage is legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/24/gay-marriage-fight-shifts-to-federal-courts-2014-set-to-be-tipping-point-year/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

[Jingthing]

Marriage equality musical performance at this years' Grammy Awards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6OVxPiZQDc

And then the hateful backlash:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/01/27/25-most-hateful-tweets-about-same-sex-weddings-grammys

[onthemoon]

Marriage equality musical performance at this years' Grammy Awards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6OVxPiZQDc

And then the hateful backlash:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/01/27/25-most-hateful-tweets-about-same-sex-weddings-grammys

Well, the YouTube video you embedded has been "removed by the user".

The other link is interesting. I though the US was ready, but apparently I was wrong. Along with the Grammy marketing people.

[Jingthing]

Different link.

Of course there will always be haters.

Doesn't mean the legal equality goals can't be met.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFsIA86LqVA

[pxlgirl]

feels kinda awkward to be engaged, knowing that you either can't get married where you live, or it won't be recognized elsewhere. It's sad, really...

[Jingthing]

Yes, that's sad. But the good news is the rapid progress made in recent years has been beyond the wildest expectations of American gay civil rights activists. Now ANY American same sex couple CAN marry in some state (if not their home state) and have that marriage recognized at the national level, which is much more important legally than state recognition. Also couples are at least free to move to a freedom state and get both state and federal recognition now. The 50 state thing is now inevitable. Just a question of when.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

President Obama moving things forwards, yet again!

Although he is mired with popularity problems at present, his very impressive historical legacy with expanding health care access and gay civil rights remains intact.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/02/08/feds-extending-numerous-rights-same-sex-spouses-couples

The new rules governing same-sex spouses cover all those married in states and cities with marriage equality, even if they don’t live in places that legalized same-sex marriage.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” read Holder’s prepared remarks released by the Justice Department and obtained by The New York Times.

[Jingthing]

Another "red state" moving towards marriage equality!

Yes, this is DEFINITELY happening faster than most predicted.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/02/12/kentuckys-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional

In the final pages of his ruling, Heyburn addresses those who would argue that religious liberty is infringed upon by the state granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. It's one of the most clear-cut, logical explanations of why civil marriage should be considered a civil right seen to date:

"Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons."

[Jingthing]

Yes.

VIRGINIA!

I think the title of this thread might be better saying NOT SO LONG ROAD now to 50 state marriage equality.

It’s Over: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Courts

A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring: Did the Windsor decision—striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act—pretty much strike down gay-marriage bans as well?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/virginia_s_gay_marriage_ban_ruled_unconstitutional_a_perfect_record_for.html

Edited February 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The hardest marriage equality nut to crack. THE DEEP SOUTH.

But it will happen, probably mostly via the supreme court.

[onthemoon]

The hardest marriage equality nut to crack. THE DEEP SOUTH.

But it will happen, probably mostly via the supreme court.

I think it should happen because the people want it to happen.

The people should shove it down the government's or the courts' throat, not the other way around. There is some convincing to do before any law is accepted by society. Society should demand the law, not be forced to live with it.

I believe that the way of thinking must be changed in order to make gay people being accepted.

[Jingthing]

It's a mix. Gay people living in Alabama shouldn't have to wait 100 years for what people in so many other states have already. The majority national public is already on our side. This state by state thing is just a peculiar aspect of the American government structure. Our supreme court is there for a reason, and this kind of thing is a great example of it. If ONE case from ANY state declare discrimination against American citizens being denied equal marriage rights, then it applies to ALL states, as it SHOULD, which is EXACTLY how the national SUPREME COURT ruling was made about interracial marriages. Acceptance is nice. Equal rights under the law is a basic aspect of citizenship. There will ALWAYS be people who hate gay people. You can't legislate to stop that.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Jingthing

[olddoc]

Gay and marriage

An oxymoron ?

[Jingthing]

Gay and marriage

An oxymoron ?

Don't worry. With an attitude like that, no gay man will want to marry YOU.

[onthemoon]

Gay and marriage

An oxymoron ?

No, it isn't. Quite the opposite in many countries in the world.

Why did you ask?

[olddoc]

best of luck in Thailand !

[Scott]

It would be nice if acceptance of gays, and equality happened because it was the will of the people, but the US is simply too diverse, and in some areas, too conservative and too rural for that to happen easily. I grew up in state that has one of the worst track records for gays. Some people were gay and everyone sort of knew it and it was sort of acceptance, but no way was anyone going to accept them California gays.

Governments have to exist to allow protection against those elements which are not very accepting.

[Jingthing]

More good news.

The supreme court is generally more conservative than public opinion and tends to avoid going places where the public opinion hasn't arrived (though they do sometimes).

Well, in this case, what is stopping the supreme court from making the final decision on constitutionality of marriage equality for the entire nation?

I think nothing.

Half of all Americans believe that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll in which a large majority also said businesses should not be able to deny serving gays for religious reasons.

Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.

Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

[OMGImInPattaya]

"Marriage" is a hetero-normative construct for the trading of property (women) between families and the legalization of issue that result from certain action within such unions. No self-respecting queer would go anywhere near such an institution with a 100 foot "pole."

[Scott]

You are wrong, some self-respecting queers will and do go near it.

[OMGImInPattaya]

If you want to cover your queer nature with a veneer of some discredited (even "they " would agree) heterosexual institution it's your choice. I prefer my queerness to stand apart and opposed to such archaic notions of human bonding.

As to the op's post, which I guess I should address, the Supreme Court will rule, within possibly the next year or two, that laws restricting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples only are unconstitutional. At that point, "marriage equality" will be the law in all 50 states.

So all you non-queer gays and lesbians can run out now and buy your tux's and book your church halls!

[Jingthing]

Within a year or two, you say?

Now that seems optimistic.

But it's possible, surely.

You know personally my feeling about gay marriage is that when you win gay marriage equality, you at least symbolically win all equality.

After his happens (50 state marriage equality) how can ANY form of anti-gay discrimination hold up in any U.S. court?

I agree marriage isn't for everyone, gay or straight.

But having the same choices as an option for all citizens is a wonderful thing.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Within a year or two, you say?

Now that seems optimistic.

But it's possible, surely.

You know personally my feeling about gay marriage is that when you win gay marriage equality, you at least symbolically win all equality.

After his happens (50 state marriage equality) how can ANY form of anti-gay discrimination hold up in any U.S. court?

I agree marriage isn't for everyone, gay or straight.

But having the same choices as an option for all citizens is a wonderful thing.

Yes. The timing is a little complicated because were talking about Supreme Court terms, which do not corelate with calendar years. There are cases percolating through the lower federal district and now appellate courts on this question that will have to be resolved by the Supremes. They may take such a case next term or the one after, which would mean a decision within 2-3 years (or even 1.5 years). Almost all legal commentators, liberal and conservative, agree that the Court's logic in the DOMA and Windsor cases will lead it to rule in favor of marriage equality.

Then the 3-5% of gay people who want to act like straight people and get married will have the right to do so in all 50 states.