Gay marriage update, state by state (Spoiler alert: We’re winning)

Gay marriage is on a roll.  In the last week or so, there have been quite a few advances on the gay marriage (aka marriage equality) front in more than a few states and locales.

Below, I have updates on at least 12 states in which things are happening this week on the gay marriage front, starting with last night’s (or early this morning’s) commencement of marrying gay couples in New Jersey.

Counting New Jersey, there are 14 US states (and the District of Columbia) where gay couples can currently marry.

BREAKING UPDATE: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s office has announced they’ve withdrawn the state’s appeal. It’s not clear if anybody else could take up the challenge and keep it going with the NJ Supreme Court, but it seems unlikely. Marriage equality is probably a done deal now in the Garden State.

As of Monday, 21 October, same-sex couples in New Jersey will no longer be relegated to their state’s former (manifestly unequal) ‘civil unions’ and instead be able to apply for actual marriage licenses. The NJ Supreme Court last week (Friday) denied the state’s request (read: Republican Governor Chris Christie’s request) to issue a stay on a lower court ruling from September. The actual court case will be heard by the NJ Supreme Court in January, but given the unanimous decision not to issue the temporary stay, most analysts are predicting a slam-dunk for gay marriage rights. From Friday’s decision:

“When a party presents a clear case of ongoing unequal treatment, and asks the court to vindicate constitutionally protected rights, a court may not sidestep its obligation to rule for an indefinite amount of time. Under those circumstances, courts do not have the option to defer.”


One of the very first gay couples married in New Jersey at 12:01am today.

In New Mexico, eight of its counties (including three of its most populated) are continuing to issue and register marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Several of the counties were ordered by judges in August and September to issue the licenses, in one case (Los Alamos county) over the objections of its Republican county clerk.

This coming Wednesday, 23 October, the NM Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge that could decide once and for all whether the state will lose its asterisk (*) on the question of whether or not marriage equality is a civil right for gay and lesbian couples. This particular case to be presented is the one filed by the 33 county clerks who are essentially asking for statewide clarity and consistency, as the current patchwork situation and lack of clarity as to whether the state itself will recognize the marriages happening inside its own borders is untenable in the long run.

Previously, both the legislature and the courts had been dragging their feet, until one very brave county clerk, Lynn Ellins, decided gay and lesbian couples in New Mexico had been forced to wait long enough.

The asterisk, by the way, refers to New Mexico’s unique status among all the states in not having an explicit ban — legislative or constitutional — on gay marriage, and moreover, a plain reading of existing state law and constitution would strongly suggest that at minimum New Mexico should be required to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. As state courts have ruled recently, so far it’s been unanimous among judges that the de facto ban is, in fact, unconstitutional. As a New Mexican resident, I’m optimistic.

Meanwhile, news out of Pennsylvania isn’t quite as optimistic on the marriage equality front, but that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. Montgomery county clerk D. Bruce Hanes did what New Mexico’s Sandoval county clerk Victoria Dunlap did nearly ten years ago and Lynn Ellins of NM’s Doña Ana county did in August: Decided it was simply unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Hanes, like Dunlap, was eventually ordered by a state court to cease-and-desist. However, over the course of two months, 174 licenses were issued.

There are at present (as far as I can tell) two cases in Pennsylvania courts challenging the constitutionality of its 1996 ban on gay marriage, and it’s openly being discussed that if the Republicans are sufficiently trounced in 2014 (GOP Gov. Tom Corbett is VERY unpopular), there might be a legislative move to enact same-sex marriage equality in the state. PA’s Attorney General Kathleen Kane (Dem) has said she won’t defend the state ban, calling it “wholly unconstutional.”

In Ohio, in late September, a gay man sued successfully to have his marriage recognized despite the state’s ban on same-sex marriage so that he would be listed as husband on his husband’s death certificate. Ohio Judge Timothy Black has since caught all kinds of hell from GOP bigots and homophobes, some even calling for his impeachment. Black based his ruling, by the way, on the historical presumption that out-of-state marriages are valid as long as they were legal where they were enacted. Recent polls have indicated that Ohioans are now in favor of marriage equality rights for gay and lesbian couples.

In Illinois, Democrats in the state legislature, led by Rep. Greg Harris, thought they had the votes to pass a same-sex marriage law — which the state Senate had already passed and Governor Pat Quinn had said he would sign. At present, Illinois has civil unions, and the new law would’ve converted the existing ones automatically into legal marriages within a year of the law’s enactment. Unfortunately, due to weirdness in Illinois’ legislative rules, instead of 60 votes to pass, due to the delay, the bill would need 71 votes — and state legislators have had to deal with a deluge of lobbying from the usual anti-gay homophobes — conservative GOP leaders, Catholic and Christian fundamentalist leaders, and so on. Meanwhile, two lawsuits have been given the green-light to challenge Illinois’ ban on gay marriage.

In Indiana, a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban both gay marriage and anything resembling it (civil unions, domestic partnerships) is apparently becoming ever more unpopular among Hoosiers. Especially when they learn it isn’t just about reserving the word ‘marriage’ to hetero couples, but would aggressively deny any and all rights to gay and lesbian couples. Depending on the wording of the question, opposition to the amendment ranges from 46 to 54 percent; in neither case does the “yes, pass it” side of the question lead. 64% of the polled Hoosiers said it wasn’t right to use the state constitution for this purpose — including 57% of Republican voters and 54% who identify themselves as ‘very conservative.’ A solid majority support either marriage rights (35%) or civil unions (38%), while just 28% said they opposed any recognition at all.

In Michigan, a federal judge delayed hearing a challenge to that state’s gay marriage ban until 25 February 2014 — a huge disappointment to the plaintiffs and gay rights activists who were hoping for a swift decision. (Oh well, it can’t all be good news.)

In Oregon, in a decision from last Wednesday, 16 October, even though gay and lesbian couples can’t get married in the state, state agencies will recognize same-sex marriages (and DPs and civil unions) performed in other jurisdictions — despite Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘one man and one woman’. At present, Oregon has a domestic partnership registry, and gay rights groups are hoping to put a marriage equality measure on the ballot in 2014. And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the district court case filed on October 15th.

In Nevada, it’s one step back but two steps forward, hopefully. Last year, a U.S. District Judge upheld Nevada’s state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Last Friday, Lambda Legal filed a challenge with the 9th U.S. Circuit to attempt to overturn the ruling. Nevada legislators have begun the process of undoing their 2002 ban by voting this year to repeal it; the law must be passed again in 2015 and ratified by voters in 2016 to enact a repeal. Or if we’re lucky, it’ll just be overturned.

In North Carolina (?!!), Buncombe county Register of Deeds Drew Reisinger announced last week that he will begin accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples, despite that state’s constitutional ban. Alas, he says he won’t actually issue the licenses, but instead plans to “seek the North Carolina Attorney General’s approval.” Well, NC AG Roy Cooper has already said no, despite saying he does support marriage equality — but still, it’s an important symbolic gesture of solidarity.

Hawaii has had civil unions for a while now, but also has a a same-sex marriage ban. That state’s attorney general has ruled that the legislature does have the authority to rescind the state ban, in that the amendment passed gave lawmakers the authority to restrict marriage — but does not rise to the level of a required ban. It says, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Note how it doesn’t say “must” reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie has said he’ll call a special session of the legislature on October 28 to attempt to pass a marriage equality bill.

Virginia has had a gay marriage ban since 2006. Guess who’s going to challenge it? David Boies and Ted Olson, the super-lawyers who helped overturn Prop 8 in California. In fact, in the linked story, there are now a reported “dozens” of lawsuits being filed in state and federal courts throughout the country. Despite Virginia’s rather draconian ban on gay marriage (it outlaws everything, including anything resembling marriage, such as civil unions) having passed easily in ’06, a majority of Virginians now favor legalizing same-sex marriage. Boies and Olson think they might be able to pull off another “Loving v. Virginia” precedent. Ordinarily, I’d say they’re nuts for trying, but if anybody can win, it’s these two.

And in closing, some humor and schadenfreude… This is the pathetically inaccurate map that currently appears at the top of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (sic) Facebook page:

NOM's incredibly out-of-date marriage equality map

NOM’s incredibly out-of-date marriage equality map. Apparently, Adam & Eve aren’t terribly good at geography.

If the map were even close to accurate, California, New Jersey, and Oregon would be red, while the light blue states would include New Mexico (with a smattering of red counties), Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada, Hawaii… Just to name the obvious ones. In reality, it ought to look more like this (apologies in advance for the crude Photoshop color replacement work — I’m really not very good at it):

NOM's out of date map revised to reflect reality

NOM’s out of date map corrected by me to reflect the reality that we’re winning.

In truth though, everything dark blue up there should probably be light blue at this point, thanks to the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision and the inescapable fact that there’s been a seismic shift in public opinion nationwide on gay marriage.

In closing, I’m going to go ahead and ask the question that remains on everybody’s mind: Exactly WHY does that family up there appear to have one Mom and two Dads? Or is it Mom, Dad, and Dad’s down-low boyfriend?

Published professional writer and poet, Becca had a three decade career in technical writing and consulting before selling off most of her possessions in 2006 to go live at an ashram in India for 3 years. She loves literature (especially science fiction), technology and science, progressive politics, cool electronic gadgets, and perfecting Hatch green chile recipes. Fortunately for this last, Becca and her wife currently live in New Mexico. @BeccaMorn

Share This Post

48 Responses to “Gay marriage update, state by state (Spoiler alert: We’re winning)”

  1. ramonita21 says:

    Find out how to earn 50 usd every day from home!! Just go to: surveymoneymaker dot net

  2. Bill_Perdue says:

    All of those judicial decisions are very recent.

    Both parties are moving right at a very fast pace.

    Republicans embrace that and don’t even bother lying about it. Democrats deny it and lie, pretending that their party is not a right wing party moving right. Pointing out the truth of that is hardly going too far or being too radical.

  3. Paul says:

    It was OK to be socially liberal as a Republican 20-30 years ago. And even if those judges wouldn’t have voted for us 20-30 years ago, they are intelligent men who actually know what reality is. I’m sure if you asked those justices, they’d be ashamed of their party right now. They’re “sane” Republicans that are no longer politically viable today. I’m not saying you’re absolutely wrong, I’m just saying you go too far.

  4. Paul says:

    hahahahahahaha. I’m not going to convince you. Ever. But I will say, that you call us evil when we don’t influence your life at all. We call you evil when you try to force us to live against our nature. Only one of us wins in that situation, and we have the moral high ground.

  5. Bill_Perdue says:

    Wrong. Obama is responsible for continued massive long term unemployment. Clinton is responsible for the current depression with his signatures on NAFTA and the deregulation bills of 1999 and 2000. He is also responsible for DOMA and DADT.

    Republicans are hard cops. Democrats are soft cops and Republicans in drag.

  6. Bill_Perdue says:

    Deeply religious people are not sane people.

  7. Nathanael says:

    Yeah, and I’d worry about that in South Carolina or even Nevada, but the would-be theocrats and fans of the Dark Ages simply do not have anything close to a majority in the Northeast. It’s over in New Jersey.

  8. Jeff_Selbst says:

    “Democrat-imposed”? That’s a weird rewriting of history. Clinton did sign it, but it was hardly his initiative. The Republicans own it.

  9. jomicur says:

    Home schooled, were you?

  10. Moderator4 says:

    Punctuation is your friend. Learn to use it.

  11. ziggyman911 says:

    u just don’t get it freedom of lust to the house of bondage comes crashing down blind leading the blind while evil is called good and good evil Obama will not save u in that day the supreme superman court will not save u form the judgments to come nothing u are doing is any new thing but what u are doing is bring a nation to destruction the same has history has showed but this is what the leaders want crime is at a all time high and will continue to climb along with drug abuse same sex marriage will continue it will only get worse has the days goes forward this is nothing new at all when lust is complete it brought fourth sin and sin will bring fourth death to this great nation this is a shame and not a victory it is sin out of control but not for long the earth its self has its own way and heaven will not look away very long repent the watchman can warn but only u can change

  12. ziggyman911 says:

    Things are changing but not for the good u may have your victory now but it will be short lived at a great cost to all. u seem to forget that no matter what the law of the land says it does not make it right but they will give account for the evil they spread woe be to the nation that calls evil good and good evil woe be to that nation lot warned his son in laws but they made fun of lot until the fire took there life your fun is now but will be short lived so all who disagree are a bigot any Christian who disagrees is a enemy of all gays no matter what gender but all that we can do is take a stand against any sin no matter what it is and hold to our faith for it is greater than gold u cannot say u were not warned and everything that we are seeing today was spoken of by GOD him self and not one word has failed or will fail only the blind lead the blind but they both fall in the pit they them self have dug

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    You don’t care about the truth, which is why you makes such a loyal Democrat and or Republican in spite of the facts.

    Too bad, because you won’t be interested in this: Bill Clinton reportedly told John Kerry to throw gays under the bus during 2004 election. What is he telling Hillary, and is she listening? by John Aravosis “The Kerry Edwards 2004 campaign says Bill Clinton tried to throw gays under the bus. Bill Clinton’s office says it’s not true. Who do we believe? And what does this mean for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run?

    As Pam Spaulding noted last week, Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum claims in his new book that during the 2004 elections, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, i.e., the anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution that would have banned gay marriage and vitiated scores of other rights that gay couples may have, including health insurance, inheritance, child custody, parenting, and more. Shrum reports that Kerry refused to endorse the amendment.”

    No one should vote for any Democrat or Republican. They’re the enemy and as long as a Democrat occupies the WH, they’re the main enemy.

  14. Bill_Perdue says:

    Wrong again. I’m not cynical at all. What separates me from Stonewall Democrats and LCR Republicans is the principle articulated by Eugene V. Debs “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.”

    The federal Supremes have a Republican majority. The California Supremes who made the initial marriage equality ruling and who later overturned Prop 8 after it was passed (with the aid of Obama) were Republicans. The Chief Justice was appointed by Reagan and he voted our way both times. The same situation was true in Massachusetts. There the court, the Supreme Judicial Court that ruled for marriage equality had a majority of Republicans. Iowa was the only case I know of where the court initiated marriage equality and had a majority of Democrats.

    There is no false equivalency. Democrats who gave us DADT and DOMA and who refuse to pass ENDA. sign a ENDA EO or repeal DOMA are the enemy. So are Republicans.

  15. Asher Frost says:

    Mom, Dad, and creepy uncle who works for the church. NOM’s ideal family.

  16. Paul says:

    You’re right, my mistake with DOMA, but it was due to liberal Justices that DOMA was overturned, and Democrats appoint those justices. DADT was defeated by Democrats, and every hope we have of getting ENDA passed is in Democrats’ hands. My main beef is that you’re making a false equivalency here. Democrats aren’t perfect, but they aren’t the enemy. Republicans despise us. Democrats have to be careful about vote-getting (despicable, but reality), and the tide has turned such that being pro-gay is a win. I used to be as cynical as you, believe me, even left the Democratic Party. But things are changing.

  17. Paul says:

    I don’t care about your quotes, Bill Clinton is not a bigot and his political calculations, while cowardly, don’t prove he is. Democrats overturned DADT and DOMA, and while their political calculations in the past have been cowardly, they’re not the enemy, nor are most of them bigots. More currently, Obama has always been an ally, but was a coward. He no longer is. You need to move into the 21st century with the rest of us…You know, *whisper* I hear from a lot of my Republican relatives that Democrats used to be racists, so blacks should vote for Republicans. *end whisper*

  18. Bill_Perdue says:

    Prove what I said was wrong. Prove my quotes were wrong. Prove – oh well, never mind.

  19. Bill_Perdue says:

    DOMA was not repealed – it was stuck down by the federal Supremes under intense pressure by the LGBT communities and the international community.

    We’re talking about two diametrically opposed ways to viewing history here.

    One is the history of accommodating to the needs of Democrats and Republicans and one is the history of fighting by the LGBT communities for marriage equality, ENDA or a CRA, and the repeal of the Democrats DOMA and it’s Republican state copies.

  20. BeccaM says:

    I agree on the counting chickens part, and the fact the homophobes never seem to give up even when they’ve lost. However, judging from the statements from the NJ supreme court, particularly their refusal to order a stay, losing the case was also a done-deal. Personally right now, I’m thinking Christie just wants it to go away as quickly as possible. Dropping the challenge is one way to do that. Dragging it out for months and then losing in a very public way before the NJ Supreme Court would achieve the opposite.

  21. Paul says:


  22. BeccaM says:

    Exactly — in 2006, the NJ Supes ordered the legislature to come up with a marriage equality solution.

    Rather than passing full-on marriage equality, they passed civil unions. Which, as we’ve seen, isn’t equal at all. Now, with DOMA gone at the federal level, but the feds not recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships, the inequality of New Jersey’s civil unions is all the more self-evident.

  23. Paul says:

    History being what it is, the repeal of DOMA was a Democrat-led and passed initiative, with help from a few sane Republicans. I understand not wanting to be taken for granted by a party, but you’ve got to admit reality.

  24. karmanot says:

    Bill Clinton was, is and will forever be a pandering, opportunistic assh**le.

  25. Bill_Perdue says:

    Bill Clinton says he made a tactical mistake.

    He, Obama. the Clintons and the Democrats refuse to apologize.

    Who cares what the tea party does. Like the Democrats and other Republicans, they’re the enemy.

  26. Naja pallida says:

    I don’t count anything as over with these people, their entire platform is to re-litigate settled law, and roll back civilization as we know it.

  27. neroden says:

    The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruling is pretty hardcore; if you read it, it leaves no opening to deny marriage rights, and it’s rooted in a 2006 ruling which the executive and legislative branches have been failing to obey. Christie can try to fight at that court, but he’ll lose. And because the ruling is grounded in the state constitution, he can’t appeal to the federal courts. It’s over in New Jersey.

  28. JCNow says:

    Bill Clinton now admits he was wrong. When will the tea party admit the same?

  29. BeccaM says:

    I replied before you edited your comment to include the clause leading up to the colon. It originally began with “Marriage Equality USA already does this work…”

    There was just the statement — and the unavoidable implication being that I’d wasted my time. I get now that that wasn’t your intent, but that’s how it read to me when I first saw your remarks.

    It was not my intent to attack you. But I’m hoping you understand the irritation resulting from being told one’s work is redundant and unnecessary.

  30. Thom Watson says:

    Wow, no, I think your blogging is excellent. I was just telling you that a lot of this specific aggregation already is being done anyway and you could use it as a basis for your particular and more in-depth analysis, saving yourself some time on the research side. I never expected to be attacked for trying to help. Wow.

  31. Bill_Perdue says:

    It’s not Clintons or the Democrats in the sense that they wrote it. They do however, own it just like they own NAFTA, gutting welfare and the deregulation bills and other Republican initiatives including gutting Social Security and Medicare.

    Clinton is a bigot who not only championed and signed DOMA but boasted about it in this ad he placed with redneck christian radio stations: “Protecting religious freedom. It’s the foundation of our nation.When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners’ tithing money, the government was stopped cold because President Clinton overturned the government’s policy and protected us. It’s not the only time he’s defended our values…President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the inability to have another child.The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and school uniforms to teach our children discipline.President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it. Paid for by Clinton/Gore 96

    CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder said: “One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton’s sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio. Clinton was willing to say the word “gay” in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.”…

    They could have passed ENDA and repealed DOMA when they had commanding leads in both houses but refused to do so because they, like the Republicans, are infested with bigots and bigot panderers. Counting on Democrats like Clinton, Obama and the rest is like being in that cult that dances with rattlers. You never know when you’ll get bitten.

    Democrats are the enemy and so are Republicans.

  32. BeccaM says:

    So are you telling me I shouldn’t bother blogging? Gee, thanks.

  33. Thom Watson says:


    I appreciate the hard work you put into this, but I can make it easier for you in the future: Marriage Equality USA already does this work of tracking ballot initiatives, lawsuits, legislation, and polling on a daily basis (and has been doing so for over a year), and also makes a weekly summary available on both our web site and our news blog.

    Latest weekly update:

    Ongoing daily tracking:
    Top-level links (drill down for individual categories) at

  34. BeccaM says:

    I absolutely hold responsible those Democrats in Congress who voted for DOMA, and later for them and (now former) President Bill Clinton speaking out in favor of it. Cowards, all of ’em.

    But I’m sorry: I’m going to put the top blame on the party that had majority control of both houses of Congress in 1996: The Republicans.

    From that point on, the Republicans kept endorsing DOMA in their party platform — in 1996 and in 2000, and soon upped the ante with their proposed Constitutional amendment in 2004.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats — even as far back as 1996 — seemed to sense they’d f*cked up. But, being the cowards they usually are, they just tried to pretend the issue didn’t exist. By time we got to 2008, the Dems were calling openly for repeal…while the Republicans were amping up their demands for the amendment.

    So yeah — a ConservaDem from Mississippi introduced the first Federal marriage amendment in 2002. The jerk was trying to burnish his conservative creds for his deep Red state. The next nine times the same bill would be introduced in the House, it was always from a GOP sponsor.

    When exactly were the Dems supposed to repeal DOMA? From 1996 on they didn’t have control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, not until 2008 to 2010. At which point the Senate Republicans were blowing all the former filibuster records out of the water.

    The evil of deliberately chosen anti-gay bigotry and the cowardice of political homophobia aren’t the same thing.

  35. Naja pallida says:

    I wouldn’t count my chickens on that just yet. Remember, he’s up for re-election in a few short weeks, and a court fight in itself is bad press, and losing that fight would be even worse press. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see it come up again right after the election. Seeing that the polling says he’s pretty much assured a win.

  36. jomicur says:

    Precisely. I’m expecting that PA will have marriage equality, as a result of at least one of these suits, within 2 years. Most of my activist friends here agree.

  37. BeccaM says:

    Thanks. And yes, a while.

  38. Bill_Perdue says:

    oops, I missed a picture.

  39. Bill_Perdue says:

    Federal DOMA is a Democrat imposed attack on marriage. That includes Bill Clintons DOMA in 1996 and the first federal marriage amendment, introduced by Ronnie Shows, Democrat, Mississippi in 2002. And it includes Obama’s sabotage of the fight against Prop 8 in 2008.

    State DOMAs are largely the work of Bush2 and Karl Rove, who is now rich with $6.6 millions made from the antigay industry.

    I’m glad to see that marriage equality (the inclusive term) is advancing. Under intense pressure the California Supremes threw out Prop 8 and the federal Supremes invalidated part of Bill Clintons DOMA. Those advances are due solely to the efforts of our LGBT communities and without the help of either party of bigots and bigot panderers who best efforts on our part consist of lying rebranding to get votes and continuations. They’ve blocked marriage equality by pigheadedly refusing to repeal DOMA since 1996 and by refusing to repeal the remainder of DOMA.

    There are still 31 states that ban same-sex marriages in their own versions of Bill Clintons DOMA. It will take all the courage and tenacity of our communities to knock down those state DOMAs and the rest of the federal DOMA.

  40. nicho says:

    The Supreme Court, although it only officially rules on the question before it, made it quite clear that it considered laws like DOMA as unconstitutional. No justice at the state level wants to be the one who sends up to SCOTUS a decision that has a 99.999 percent chance of being overturned. That is not a good career move.

  41. jomicur says:

    PA: I believe there are (or will be shortly) THREE challenges to the state’s DOMA. Two are certain, and are making their way through the courts–1) Mr. Hanes and Montgomery County’s suit; and 2) an ACLU suit. A few weeks ago thee was an item in the news about a third suit, filed by the couples who were issued licenses by Montgomery County and were subsequently married. (John Fetterman, the mayor of the Pittsburgh suburb Braddock, performed a number of these weddings.) Since that initial news blurb I haven’t been able to find further news on that third suit, but I’m assuming that if it hasn’t already been filed, it will be in the near future.

  42. kmcdevitt says:

    In a very unusual move, the Supreme Court in New Mexico has scheduled an hour for each side to present their oral arguments on Wednesday. I hear that it’s one half-hour each for the statutory review, and one half-hour each for the constitutional challenge. Normally, each side gets only 20 minutes, total, to present its case. I think this is a good sign.

  43. Monoceros Forth says:

    The Republican party and some others bet the house on stopping marriage equality. The LDS thought they could use the marriage issue and Mitt Romney’s presidency to promote themselves as a mainstream religion. Didn’t turn out that way, did it? I don’t think it will be very long before an elder suddenly claims to have had a revelation.

    You might be right, but I conjecture that while a few religious figures might soften their hard-line stance and move toward a more accepting attitude, the core and center of the religious right is going to become even more extreme and more hateful, hammered into defiant solidarity by every defeat. Just look at how insane the extremists have gotten in the political sphere.

  44. cole3244 says:

    hey conservatives, the future is surrounding you and your past is becoming less relevantt by the day, be afraid cons be very afraid.

  45. emjayay says:

    I think it’s supposed to be a husband and wife and four childen, a couple of whom are teenage size. Of course that’s a slightly above average number of children for 1957 and about double the average today.

  46. nicho says:

    Breaking: Christie has dropped his appeal. It’s over,

  47. StraightGrandmother says:

    Good article.
    Nice round up of all the States.
    Bet this took a while to research & write.

  48. MyrddinWilt says:

    This is getting into the end game, pretty soon the only non equality states will be the rump of Red State America. One particularly important development is that civil unions have become a bridge to full equality rather than being a permanent alternative. From a purely tactical standpoint, any win is a win.

    The Republican party and some others bet the house on stopping marriage equality. The LDS thought they could use the marriage issue and Mitt Romney’s presidency to promote themselves as a mainstream religion. Didn’t turn out that way, did it? I don’t think it will be very long before an elder suddenly claims to have had a revelation.

    This is not just a win for LGBT, it is a win for the Progressive movement against the reactionaries. The only reason the Republicans have power at all is that the establishment believes the GOP economic policy is inevitable. That belief is broken if they are visibly losing a fight they picked promoting bigotry.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS