Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

12 States That Will Probably Legalize Gay Marriage in 2013-2014

The article is from four months ago, but is still interesting...

"Twelve more states are adopting same-gender civil marriage in 2013-2014. Moreover, they're doing it 13 times faster than in 1990, when three same-gender couples first sought civil marriage licenses in Hawaii. The first wave of 10 states took 22 years (1990-2012). But the second wave — 12 more states — is finishing in just two years (2013-2014). What used to average over 26 months per state is now averaging just eight weeks each.

Over the last two decades, support for same-gender civil marriage grew rapidly, from only 12% in 1988 to 53% in 2012 — with similar results across 53 legislatures (50 states, the federal District, the Puerto Rico territory, and Congress), and overwhelmingly favorable progress with 42 lawsuits in state and federal courts.

Among America's many voter types, there are only five demographic groups left where opponents of equality still show up: less educated Caucasians (56%), the over-65 crowd (58%), Republicans (69%), evangelical Protestant Caucasians (73%), and Tea Partyists (nearly 100%). Those five are the only opponent hideouts left; every other demographic group measured in a major national poll now supports same-gender marriage."

Lots more at the link...

by Anonymousreply 1906/28/2013

This article is already old. Minnesota already did pass gay marriage -- giving Michelle Bachman one more reason not to run for reelection; and with the Supreme Court decision on Porop 8, California has gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 106/28/2013

Yeah, I stated right at the top it was four months old.

So there's still ten more possible in the next 18 months.

by Anonymousreply 206/28/2013

By 2014 I can see Illinois, Oregon, and Hawaii legalizing gay marriage.

Maybe New Jersey and New Mexico, although they both have Republican governors who will fight it to the death.

by Anonymousreply 306/28/2013

Colorado? That's James Dobson's back yard!

....Well, if so, I guess they will have more available electricity on the Colorado public grid, as Dobson will have to stop trying to "cure homosexuality" in that state.

by Anonymousreply 406/28/2013

Not a single Southern state, sadly. You'd think that Georgia, with Atlanta being the Gay Mecca of the South, would be the first, but, no...

Republicants and ignorant Church Ministers locked in a state constitutional ban that will have to be struck down. That will take at least a decade to strike down.

Sherman didn't get the job done.

by Anonymousreply 506/28/2013

I guess I need to get out of shithole Missouri.

by Anonymousreply 606/28/2013

Hey, OP - thanks. I appreciate your posting this. (ignore any snarks)

by Anonymousreply 706/28/2013

New Mexico? No way. Not with the cunt they have in office.

by Anonymousreply 806/28/2013

New Mexico will get it by a court ruling. That cunt Suzanna Martinez won't be able to stop it.

by Anonymousreply 906/28/2013

If I recall correctly regarding New Mexico - gay marriage in theory should/could already be happening. Their marriage laws are already gender neutral - the problems rests with the physical forms state "husband" and "wife" - or something to this fact. But this is ONLY the forms and NOT the law. There is also no legal definitions or other statutes that state marriage is only between a male and a female. I will see if I can find the official status of the state and post it again here.

by Anonymousreply 1006/28/2013

Actually, here is an article from the past couple of days:

NM high court asked to legalize gay marriage By BARRY MASSEY Associated Press Posted: 06/27/2013 12:33:29 PM MDT

SANTA FE, N.M.—New Mexico's highest court was asked Thursday by a same-sex couple in Santa Fe to decide whether gay marriage is legal in the state. If the court decides the case, it could resolve a politically difficult issue that has stalled in the Legislature. A proposed constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage died in the Democratic-controlled Legislature earlier this year. Lawmakers in the past also have rejected proposals to allow domestic partnerships that would give same-sex couples many of the legal protections and benefits of married couples.

Lawyers for two Santa Fe men, Alexander Hanna and Yon Hudson, asked the Supreme Court to order the Santa Fe County clerk to issue them a marriage license.

The court didn't immediately decide whether it will consider the case.

The couple had filed a lawsuit in district court earlier this month after being denied a marriage license.

One of their attorneys, state Rep. Brian Egolf, of Santa Fe, said the case was being withdrawn from the district court and shifted to the Supreme Court to try to get a speedy decision on the same-sex marriage issue.

Egolf said his clients don't want to wait years for the case to go through the state or federal court systems.

"We're trying to find them the quickest way to get them a marriage license," said Egolf, who sponsored the gay marriage constitutional amendment in this year's legislative session.

The lawsuit contends that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the New Mexico Constitution, including its Equal Rights Amendment prohibiting gender-based discrimination and provisions that guarantee due process and equal protection under the law. Egolf said the case is based on state—not federal—constitutional rights.

New Mexico adopted its Equal Rights Amendment in 1976, and there is no similar provision in the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit said New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment provides greater legal safeguards than the equal protection clause in the federal Constitution.

The lawsuit said "the fact that marriage licenses are being denied to males who want to marry males and females who want to marry females makes the sex of the applicants the determining factor."

"The ERA does nothing if it does not prohibit the state from making the equal application of laws contingent upon one's sex," the lawsuit said.

There is no provision in state law that specifically authorizes or prohibits same-sex marriage, according to the lawsuit.

However, Attorney General Gary King released a legal analysis earlier this month that concluded gay marriage isn't allowed in New Mexico because the marriage laws have "multiple gender-specific references" and the laws date to the 1860s, which makes it unlikely that the Territorial Legislature contemplated same-sex couples being married.

But King's office also said a prohibition on same-sex marriage might violate the equal protection clause of the New Mexico Constitution.

State law contains a model marriage license with sections for a male and female applicant. The lawsuit said that is "merely intended as a guide" for county clerks and doesn't establish any requirements for obtaining a marriage license. State law specifically prohibits marriages between close relatives and with a minor.

The Supreme Court typically decides cases being appealed after a ruling by a lower court. However, the justices have the power to hear some cases that are filed directly with them, and the lawsuit said the gay marriage issue presents a "fundamental constitutional question of great public importance" that should be resolved by the high court.


by Anonymousreply 1106/28/2013

someone needs to throw that cunt Suzanna Martinez into a grease fire.

by Anonymousreply 1206/28/2013

And from wiki:

Sandoval County marriages, 2004

On February 20, 2004, at the time of the widely publicized same-sex weddings in San Francisco, Sandoval County clerk Victoria Dunlap, a married Republican with two children,[9] began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, claiming legal justification for her action because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender. Dunlap called the county attorney for input after receiving an inquiry about same-sex ceremonies: "This has nothing to do with politics or morals. If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it . . . This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."[10]

The Sandoval County courthouse was quickly thronged by same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses as the story was broadcast nationwide by the news media.[11] The number of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples was reported by various news sources as 64, 66, 67, or 68, but a suit filed against Dunlap in July by the attorney general states 66 licenses were issued, and further states that by March 23, 64 of the couples had married "as evidenced by the return and filing of licenses and Certificates of Marriage."[12] The same number of 66 licenses issued is stated in Dunlap's own motion filed with the Supreme Court of New Mexico.[13] News reports stated that 26 couples had been married on the courthouse steps on February 20 by two local ministers who showed up to conduct the ceremonies.[14]

By the end of the day, however, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law",[15][13] and the Sandoval County Clerk's office stopped issuing them the same day.

A district court judge later issued a restraining order against Dunlap, prohibiting her from issuing any further licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap then filed a motion with the New Mexico Supreme Court for permission to continue issuing the licenses, but on July 8, 2004, the court rejected the motion. The restraining order was never lifted,[16] and Dunlap, whose term ended on January 1, 2005, was heavily criticized for her actions by the local Republican Party and by county and state officials.[17][11][16]

The validity of the same-sex marriages licensed in 2004 is uncertain. In 2010, a New Mexico court approved a divorce for one of the marriages. On August 9, 2010, State District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that the marriage license issued to one same-sex couple in 2004 was valid and subject to divorce proceedings, but she not otherwise address the legal status of same-sex marriage in the state.[18][19][20]

by Anonymousreply 1306/28/2013

Anyone know what's up in Florida? Other than it being a shithole?

by Anonymousreply 1406/28/2013

R9 The cunt can just veto it like that fat fuck Christie did in NJ.

by Anonymousreply 1506/28/2013

How exactly could she veto a decision passed on by the courts, R15???

by Anonymousreply 1606/28/2013

If they want it to pass in NV, proponents will have to change their way of thinking from the last failed campaign. NV is all about $$$ and what will help the casinos and the economy. More jobs = more votes. Ads should not focus on fairness or morality or equality; only on additional income to the state. The more money NV believe will come to the state with passage, the more votes.

Also, NV hate governmental interference, as most public employees get their jobs because they know the right people, and not because of competence, hard work, or even knowledge. Passage cannot equal more government on any level.

Advocates need to focus on these 2 crucial points, if they want anything to pass.

By the way, there are now special credits to those who film in NV. Guess why? NV Gov was convinced it would bring more money and positive publicity to NV. Money talks.

by Anonymousreply 1706/28/2013

Adding to [10] my partner and I married in Toronto back in 2003. It had only been a few weeks after the court ruling, so the Ontario marriage application and license form still had "bride" and "groom" info sections. Since my partner always leaves filling out our forms to me because "I do it better than he does" I chose groom for me. My sweetheart got to be the blushing bride. But it did not change the process and it all went very smoothly - wonderful day.

by Anonymousreply 1806/28/2013

"with Atlanta being the Gay Mecca of the South"

We intend to give you a run for your money.

In all seriousness, though, I really hope New Mexico legalizes soon.

by Anonymousreply 1906/28/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!