Changes to marriage laws in 7 states of the USA

MobBoss · Nov 8, 2006

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIzMTY5OThiNDZhOWNhNzZlZDdjMDQ5NmE5YWU3YmM=

With the important exception of Arizona, 2006 was an excellent election for those who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Amendments defining marriage as a man-woman union passed in seven out of eight states (Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado, South Dakota, and Idaho) by an average vote of 61 percent. The narrow loss in Arizona was not because voters favored gay marriage, but because of a successful campaign against the measures ban on domestic partner benefits.

So this should push up to about 30 states that have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman by law. Not too bad.

nivi · Nov 8, 2006

:thumbdown

warpus · Nov 8, 2006

Haters

JollyRoger · Nov 8, 2006

Aren't you concerned that the votes are narrowing on this issue and Arizona was the first time your side lost a referendum on this issue? Also, you can't be happy about the abortion referendum in South Dakota.

El_Machinae · Nov 8, 2006

MobBoss said:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIzMTY5OThiNDZhOWNhNzZlZDdjMDQ5NmE5YWU3YmM=

So this should push up to about 30 states that have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman by law. Not too bad.

From a practical standpoint; we don't want too many states banning it, because then the homosexuals who want to be married suffer from a lack of options while migrating.

Right now, there's enough diversity that homosexuals who want to be married can move to where they can become married (if more places recognise their union).

As well, people who're unwilling to recognise homosexual couples as married can move too.

JerichoHill · Nov 8, 2006

I dont see it as good news

Xanikk999 · Nov 8, 2006

That doesnt really pick up my spirits. It justs shows how silly many people are in trying to defend the sanctity of marriage. :rolleyes:

What sanctity is thier in this day in age. :lol:

Masquerouge · Nov 8, 2006

If that's secular marriage we're talking about, that's silly. But hey, majority decided

MobBoss · Nov 8, 2006

JollyRoger said:
Aren't you concerned that the votes are narrowing on this issue and Arizona was the first time your side lost a referendum on this issue? Also, you can't be happy about the abortion referendum in South Dakota.

An average of 61% approval rating is not "narrowing" no matter how you try to spin it. :lol:

Again, please read the story on Arizona. Its fairly easy to see such a referendum will pass if written correctly.

And I have never been an advocate of a total abortion ban.

MobBoss · Nov 8, 2006

El_Machinae said:
From a practical standpoint; we don't want too many states banning it, because then the homosexuals who want to be married suffer from a lack of options while migrating.

Right now, there's enough diversity that homosexuals who want to be married can move to where they can become married (if more places recognise their union).

Huh? Only one state allows gay marriage. You see that as "enough diversity"?

Or are you saying that they could all migrate to Canada if they wish?

JollyRoger · Nov 8, 2006

MobBoss said:
An average of 61% approval rating is not "narrowing" no matter how you try to spin it.

When these referendums first starting hitting the ballots a few years ago, the average margin was greater than 61%. You are holding on by only 11%. Good luck with that as the decades roll on.

AL_DA_GREAT · Nov 8, 2006

stupid liberals

El_Machinae · Nov 8, 2006

MobBoss said:
Huh? Only one state allows gay marriage. You see that as "enough diversity"?

Or are you saying that they could all migrate to Canada if they wish?

Only one state may recognise gay marriage; but don't more allow civil unions? Or am I off base?

I wasn't suggesting Canada. While it's an option for the truely determined, switching countries is onerous compared to switching states. I think that laws like these aren't too bad, if people are allowed to vote with their feet (if you know what I mean). The truely motivated (either way) can just move, if they're in the minority.

Xanikk999 · Nov 8, 2006

AL_DA_GREAT said:
stupid liberals

What? I thought you were liberal along with the rest of europe.

Dont you mean stupid neo-conservatives?

Little Raven · Nov 8, 2006

Only Vermont allows civil unions ATM. Though something will change in New Jersey, soon.

skadistic · Nov 8, 2006

Just goes to show that the discrminitory practices of controling other peoples lifes is alive and strong in in the christian majority. Law based on the religious views is not only wrong but is sure to trample on the rights of some. This institutional bigotry won't hold for to long. Lets just hope it doesn't take as long to fix as other civil rights like sufferage and racial equality.

MobBoss · Nov 8, 2006

JollyRoger said:
When these referendums first starting hitting the ballots a few years ago, the average margin was greater than 61%. You are holding on by only 11%. Good luck with that as the decades roll on.

Incorrect. Totally incorrect. The margin has always been anywhere between 55% and 70% with very few exceptions. Oh...and a 61% average is still considered a landslide victory.

Considering the fact that it is much harder to do away with an existing state constitution amendment than simply implement one, I will remain quite happy as the decades roll on.

El_Machinae · Nov 8, 2006

Little Raven said:
Only Vermont allows civil unions ATM. Though something will change in New Jersey, soon.

Hmmn, discard my statements then. I'll cut & paste later (in a couple years), when there's a more even balance.

Xanikk999 · Nov 8, 2006

MobBoss said:
Incorrect. Totally incorrect. The margin has always been anywhere between 55% and 70% with very few exceptions. Oh...and a 61% average is still considered a landslide victory.

Considering the fact that it is much harder to do away with an existing state constitution amendment than simply implement one, I will remain quite happy as the decades roll on.

Do you seriously beileve that discrimination against gays will continue?

The world is becoming a increasingly liberal place since the fall of the european monarchs and that trend will never reverse.

Its only a matter of time before the U.S allows more gay marriages like many european countries.

Little Raven · Nov 8, 2006

JollyRoger said:
When these referendums first starting hitting the ballots a few years ago, the average margin was greater than 61%. You are holding on by only 11%. Good luck with that as the decades roll on.

A good reference list is here, though without the margins on the most recent attempts.

Without the exact data, it's hard to indentify a trend, though I'm convinced sheer demographics will ultimately turn the tide.

Changes to marriage laws in 7 states of the USA

Off-Topic Overlord

Call me Ishmael

Sommerswerd asked me to change this

Slippin' Jimmy

Colour vision since 2018

Bedrock of Knowledge

History junkie

Deity

Off-Topic Overlord

Off-Topic Overlord

Slippin' Jimmy

amour absinthe révolution

Colour vision since 2018

History junkie

On Walkabout

Caomhanach

Off-Topic Overlord

Colour vision since 2018

History junkie

On Walkabout

Similar threads