Marriage Amendment vote discussion - retry

[lilithu]

Seven states voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage yesterday: Tennessee, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Only Arizona ousted a similar bill.

Comments?

So I'm told that what was wanted was a discussion of the election results and not a debate on the morality of marriage inequality. OK, I'm game.

FGS says 7 states voted to ban same-sex marriages on tuesday with only one state rejecting that idea. The implication seems to be that the majority of Americans are against marriage equality.

I say let's look at the results:

In 2004 11 states voted against marriage equality and the margins were rather large. The closest vote was Oregon who passed an amendment, 57 to 43. Many of the percentages of 'yes' votes were in the 75% range.

Arkansas 75/25
Georgia 76/24
Kentucky 75/25
Michigan 59/41
Mississippi 86/14
Montana 67/33
North Dakota 73/27
Ohio 62/38
Oklahoma 76/24
Oregon 57/43
Utah 66/34

(from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/)

Now let's look at 2006. 8 states put up marriage amendments for vote, down 3 from two years ago. And unlike in 2004 not all of them passed. Arizona rejected the ban, 49/51. And while South Dakota passed it the vote was close, 52/48. Asside from South Carolina and Tennessee, the margins of victory overall were much closer than two years ago.

Arizona 49/51
Colorado 56/44
Idaho 63/37
South Carolina 78/22
South Dakota 52/48
Tennessee 81/19
Virginia 57/43
Wisconsin 59/41

(from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/ballot.measures/)

Massachusetts and New Jersey have legalized marriage equality. I would venture to guess that those states which would most favor banning same-sex marriages have already done so. That leaves 29 states. Fewer states had this issue on their ballots this time around and the margins of victory were on average smaller, and in one case the amendment failed.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what direction the momentum is going? What will it look like in 2008?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

... I would venture to guess that those states which would most favor banning same-sex marriages have already done so...

I concur with your guess.

I realize that most of the force behind these amendements comes from the 'Religious Right' and Republicans who were trying to 'rally the base', but their passage in states that otherwise voted Democrat such as Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin, IMHO, demonstrates that support for SSM is not widespread enough to come from the US population at large.

It is possible we might see a few states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2008, but not many mainly for the reasons in the OP.

 

[Bishka]

It is possible we might see a few states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2008, but not many mainly for the reasons in the OP.

Defintley agree with that one, and I'm almost positive Idaho will be one of them.

 

[lilithu]

but their passage in states that otherwise voted Democrat such as Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin, IMHO, demonstrates that support for SSM is not widespread enough to come from the US population at large.

I think that there is a lot of confusion on the issue, as many have alluded to in other threads.

At the moment the polls show that the majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex civil unions. Americans want there to be equality. But the numbers in favor drop precipitously if you ask about marriage. A lot of straight Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage because for them it holds religious significance. Some on the far religious right are taking advantage of that disparity by marketing a ban on gay marriage while writing the amendment to ban both marriage and civil unions.

I think if it were up to mainstream Americans same sex civil unions would be legal across the country today. But I think that the far religious right wants to keep the civil union issue tied to the marriage issue in the hopes of preventing both. And on the other side, I think that queer rights activists are reluctant to settle for legal same-sex civil unions while marriage is still available to heter couples. And I agree with that. We've already shown in this country that "separate but equal" isn't really equal.

Honestly, and I've said this many times, I think the best solution is to make civil unions available to all and to take marriage out of the civil arena altogether. Then marriage can remain whatever a religion says it should be within each religion, while we have true equality in the civil arena. BUT, I don't think it's going to happen that way because there are those who refuse to compromise in the hopes that they can gain all. As a result, I think it's going to take a lot longer, with a lot of grief, and the end result is that marriage will be legal for all couples.

If those who want to protect the "sanctity" of "traditional" marriage really saw which way the wind is blowing they would be smart to compromise NOW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/10/30/GR2006103000036.html

 

[Green Gaia]

You're right. The gap is closing. We do have cause to hope.

 

[Booko]

At the moment the polls show that the majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex civil unions. Americans want there to be equality. But the numbers in favor drop precipitously if you ask about marriage. A lot of straight Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage because for them it holds religious significance.

Excellent point, lilithu!

I'd also like to point out that acceptance of same-sex marriage or civil union also is much higher in younger groups, but the whippersnappers don't show up to vote like us old farts do.

When they too rise to old-fartdom and turn out at the polls, I expect things will change pretty quickly.

Honestly, and I've said this many times, I think the best solution is to make civil unions available to all and to take marriage out of the civil arena altogether.

I would be all for this. I view marriage in the civil sense as a type of contract between people, and it should be treated as pretty much any other thing in contract law. Gender isn't involved in other issues of contract law.

Since children may be involved and the state has an interest in protecting them, then civil union "contracts" will necessarily take that into account. Since same-sex couples have children also, I can't for the life of me understand why *their* kids should have fewer protections than mine do. It not like kids get to choose their parents!

But marriage in a religious sense is another matter, and frankly since before I was an atheist even, I couldn't understand why a gov't should have any interesting in "religious sacraments."

 

[lilithu]

You're right. The gap is closing. We do have cause to hope.

The gap is closing because of the hard and patient work of people like you. So thank you once again.

 

[lilithu]

I'd also like to point out that acceptance of same-sex marriage or civil union also is much higher in younger groups, but the whippersnappers don't show up to vote like us old farts do.

When they too rise to old-fartdom and turn out at the polls, I expect things will change pretty quickly.

I don't think it will take as long as waiting til old-fartdom.

The youth rocked the vote this election! :clap2: They're still under-represented percentage wise but came out in record numbers with a trend towards greater engagement each election. You're right; that is another factor to take into consideration. As more and more youth come out to vote they are mostly going to vote against these amendments.

Here are some stats I found in a blog (http://spidel.net/blog/?p=904). As far as I can tell these numbers bear up in mainstream media.

10 million young people, 18-29, voted in the 2006 elections. This is an increase of 2 million young people from the 2002 elections. This number will rise once absentee ballots, provisional ballots and other precincts give their final numbers.

24% of young people voted in the 2006 election cycle, which is a 4% increase over 2002. This number is also preliminary number and will increase once final numbers are in.

18-29 year olds voted Democratic by a 22 point margin, the next best age groups was an 8 point advantage, continuing a trend from 2004 (18-29 year olds voted 60% Democrats and 38% Republicans versus older populations voted 51% Democrat and 47% Republican).

The share of the votes cast by young people (18-29) according to exit polls is up by 2 points, to 13%. This means young voters shattered turnout records. 2006 was a higher turnout election overall, and young people are actually a smaller portion of the population than in 2002, so increasing the share of the overall vote means the 2004 youth vote trend continues.

Young people went into the election voting for Democrats with a 2 to 1 margin and the majority of them identifying as Democrats for the first time in years.

 

[Fluffy]

It could be argued that the reason why this second group of states took longer is because they encountered more difficulty in successfully pursuing that particular course of action due to the less extreme views in their populace. This would then explain why the vote was much closer.

It doesn't follow that the original states, if they were to hold a second vote, would now vote along closer lines. Therefore it does not follow that this second group of states represent a shift in attitude across America (or even a shift in those states) since 2004.

 

[lilithu]

It could be argued that the reason why this second group of states took longer is because they encountered more difficulty in successfully pursuing that particular course of action due to the less extreme views in their populace. This would then explain why the vote was much closer.

It doesn't follow that the original states, if they were to hold a second vote, would now vote along closer lines. Therefore it does not follow that this second group of states represent a shift in attitude across America (or even a shift in those states) since 2004.

I'm not saying that the first group of states would now vote along closer lines (tho some of them might). I'm saying that the states that were most against marriage equality have already voted. At the same time, I do think that there is a greater and greater awareness of the issue of equality. Poll numbers back that up. So I think the two factors combined mean that it will be harder and harder in subsequent elections to get such amendments passed.

I'm saying that if FGS and others think the election results show that momentum is going their way, I think they are mistaken.

 

[Pah]

It could be argued that the reason why this second group of states took longer is because they encountered more difficulty in successfully pursuing that particular course of action due to the less extreme views in their populace. This would then explain why the vote was much closer.

It doesn't follow that the original states, if they were to hold a second vote, would now vote along closer lines. Therefore it does not follow that this second group of states represent a shift in attitude across America (or even a shift in those states) since 2004.

"Shift" might be the wrong word in my mind. "Shifting" is what I see happeneing

 

[Buttercup]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what direction the momentum is going? What will it look like in 2008?

My guess is that same sex marriage issue will rally and gain momentum in 2008. It's inevitable. It's not fair to discriminate based on religion....which is what the marriage laws are based on in the first place. It's always been "God" supposedly who says marriage is between a man and a woman.

The laws will change. I will vote for change. Unfortunately,....more patience and work is still ahead.