Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Voronwë the Faithful]

30 sounds right to me, plus DC.

It is ironic, but not surprising to me, that same sex marriage is now legal every place in Colorado except Boulder. Fortunately, that won't last very long.

I do continue to maintain that should the Sixth Circuit uphold the ban before it (as appears somewhat likely based on the oral argument in August), and the SCOTUS affirms agrees to review that decision, and ultimately affirms it, it would call into question the legality of same sex marriage in all of the states in which it became legal as a result of a ruling that such a ban violates the U.S. constitution, since there would then be a decision from the high court to the contrary. I think the likelihood of that happening is fairly small under the current composition of the court, since I can not see Justice Kennedy ruling in that way after his previous writings on the subject culminating in Windsor, but if it is delayed long enough, it is possible that we could see Justice Ginsburg or someone else replaced with a conservative (if the GOP somehow wins the presidency in 2016) before the case is decided, in which case all bets or off.

[nerdanel]

I'm not sure exactly how we want to count today: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/de ... tates.html

It looks like we're officially at twenty-four + DC (so, twenty-five for purposes of this thread), with the new additions being IN, OK, UT, VA, and WI, all of which had lower courts rule that SSM was to be legalized. But the other states that are supposed to get marriage soon due to the rulings of their circuit courts are CO, KS, NC, SC, WV, and WY. I am not sure whether these states will require gay couples to go through the formality of suing to be married and requiring courts to issue decisions striking down any bans, in which case it could take 12-18 months for these states to get marriage. I'm inclined to keep the count at 25 because I don't believe that marriages will immediately start in the second group of states. Does anyone know otherwise?

[tinwë]

I'm reading that it could happen by the end of the week in NC:

North Carolina has several legal challenges to the state’s marriage bans already before the courts. All had been put on hold while judges here awaited a Supreme Court decision on the so-called “Bostic case” in Virginia.

Now that the court will let the Virginia case stand, attorneys for the groups challenging the North Carolina bans are scrambling to get motions before judges on Monday to knock down the laws here.

“The Supreme Court’s decision means that the freedom to marry for same-sex couples must be recognized here in North Carolina without delay,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Carolina.

The ACLU has several cases in front of U.S. District Judge William Osteen over marriage issues, including the constitutionality of the state bans as well as state laws that limit adoption rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Nor does North Carolina recognize marriages performed in other states where they are legal.

Brook said the ACLU will file a motion with Osteen on Monday asking for an immediate declaration that marriage be open to all.

“Every day that gay and lesbian couples in North Carolina are denied the ability to marry the person they love places their families and children in legal and financial jeopardy,” Brook said. “The time has come to end this unfair treatment once and for all and to let our American values of freedom and equality apply to all couples.”

How quickly Osteen will rule on the ACLU motion is not yet publicly known, but Brook said he expects a ruling by the end of the week.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/1 ... rylink=cpy

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/1 ... DMEgxaOqmE

[nerdanel]

Very cool, tinwë. Also, assuming the Ninth Circuit rules as expected in the currently pending challenge, that would add MT, ID, AZ, NV, and AK to the mix - another five-state haul. It is nothing short of incredible that we're now considering legalization in fistfuls of states at one time!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And I have feeling, despite Judge Sutton's contradictory statements, that in the end he is going to vote to overturn the ban in the Sixth Circuit case, which would add another haul of states. If that happens though the issue likely won't reach the SCOTUS for a while, if ever.

Nel, do you agree that should the issue reach the high court with a stronger conservative majority than it currently has it could cause chaos?

Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[River]

Marriages are supposed to be starting immediately in all Colorado counties per the Colorado AG. Boulder County is just a special snowflake. No word on how long it will take for our clerk to get ungrounded and let out of her room but I'm pretty sure the timeframe is weeks, not months. In the meantime, Boulder County couples have the option of going to Broomfield, Jefferson, Grand, Gilpin, Weld, or Larimer counties for their licenses. Not that they are limited to only those, but those are the ones that bound Boulder County and thus limit the commute. Getting married in Grand or Gilpin County would've been prettier a week ago when the aspens were in peak color but there's still some gold to be found at lower elevations. That said, it would certainly be nice if Boulder County couples could get married here.

Not sure yet what will happen to Colorado court cases. Given what our AG just did I'm wondering if the state is going to just throw in the towel on this one. Be a savings to the tax payers if they do.

In other words, don't let the Boulder County clerk keep Colorado off the list. We're one county out of 64.

[narya]

Here's an article with a map. They are predicting 30 soon.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[River]

All counties, including yesterday's special snowflakes, in Colorado are issuing same-sex marriage licenses today.

Guess that means Colorado officially belongs on the list.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, be ready for radical social change. Not.

A friend and I were talking about her (gay) son's career and romantic life, and it felt great to be able to ask, "Do you think they'll get married before the next big move?" To me it all feels like an adjustment that rights things, corrects an injustice. I know my friend is glad that legal marriage is now open to her son and his partner, whatever they decide to do.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I heard today that the GOP candidate for the Senate from your state has a testimonial from one of the plaintiffs in the case that resulted in marriage equality in Oregon touting her support of same sex marriage rights. That's how far things have moved in the past decade.

[River]

I think legalizing pot produced a more radical change in Colorado than legalizing gay marriage ever could. But then again, I live in a very LGBTQ-positive corner of the state where you're more likely to get into an argument about whether or not it's a good idea to go gluten-free than allow same-sex marriage. I'm sure there are plenty of Coloradans who are flipping their lids about the downfall of traditional values and marriage and society and family and blah blah blah blah blah. I'm just as sure that in days to come we'll be seeing various individuals and groups announcing they won't perform/welcome/support same-sex weddings. And then there will be lawsuits or just public shaming and these types that feel the need to publicly announce their lack of tolerance will then howl and play the victim about the lack of tolerance for their lack of tolerance. Meanwhile, other cogs in the wedding-industrial complex will almost certainly be thinking "MOAR $$$$!!!"

[Dave_LF]

I heard today that the GOP candidate for the Senate from your state has a testimonial from one of the plaintiffs in the case that resulted in marriage equality in Oregon touting her support of same sex marriage rights. That's how far things have moved in the past decade.

The GOP leadership is actually trying pretty hard to get its social conservative candidates to stop talking about gay marriage because they recognize it as a losing issue that will only become worse as time marches on. Not only do younger generations support it more than older ones, but each individual generation also supports it more now than it did a decade ago. Where was I just reading about that?

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, it's true that the GOP senate candidate has a commercial featuring one of the plaintiffs.

It's not going to help her much, given her other well-known positions and some personal baggage, and the fact that Oregon's getting bluer by the week.

Same-sex marriage slipped into our lives without any fuss that I could see. I've been enjoying reading the marriages in Vital Statistics and seeing the number of older same-sex couples who are finally getting full legal recognition for committed relationships that may be decades old and have produced several children. But there are younger couples, too—they get to start out in life together now.

[nerdanel]

I'm holding off on updating the state count because it is so ridiculously in flux that it's going to be hard to state it accurately over the next several days/weeks, so I've fudged the title, bearing in mind the many requests for alliterative allure in future thread titles. I see that we added two states today (ID/NV), courtesy of the Ninth Circuit/Judge Reinhardt: http://sfist.com/2014/10/07/ninth_circu ... own_ga.php

These two were not included in the prior projection of 30, so the projection is now 32.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Won't that also result in reversing the bans in the other three 9th Circuit states that haven't previously been overturned, bringing the total to 35?

ETA: I like the new title!

Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[Primula Baggins]

Wouldn't it first be necessary for the Supreme Court to decline to hear an appeal of the decision?

ETA: I like the new title, too!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just as a matter of speculation (I haven't looked at any news reports or anything else) I would think that the losing states in that case would see the writing on the wall and not bother to seek review by the SCOTUS, since the justices have made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to review decisions ruling that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. If they don't seek review, the decision would become binding on all states in the Circuit once the decision becomes final (which I think is in 30 days, although nel can certainly correct me if wrong).

[Primula Baggins]

Well, we'll see then. With elections coming up, I find it hard to believe that some Republican state official somewhere wouldn't see an advantage in picking up the banner.

[Primula Baggins]

Tomorrow's XKCD:



Rollover text:

People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.

One difference is time and culture marching on, but I suspect another is that most people in the 1960s didn't have the experience of suddenly discovering that people they knew well and cared about had actually been nonwhite for all those years.

[nerdanel]

One difference is time and culture marching on, but I suspect another is that most people in the 1960s didn't have the experience of suddenly discovering that people they knew well and cared about had actually been nonwhite for all those years.

A more cynical take on this is that the public face of the gay rights movement has been disproportionately white, male, and much of the time white and male - which has served the movement very, very well in popularizing and humanizing its cause. In large part due to the socioeconomic advantages and professional standing that the white, male, and white male demographics within the gay community enjoy, the gay rights movement has attracted a landslide of corporate support that has further advanced its objectives. (As one illustration, I used to belong to the Human Rights Campaign's Federal Club, which with their Federal Club Council, is their circle of high-end donors who make substantial contributions and receive invitations to exclusive Federal Club-only events with other high donors. If they had an event with 100 individuals, approximately 85-90 of those would be white gay men, 10 of the remainder would be white OR male (i.e. gay men of color or white lesbian women, more of the former than the latter), and only the meager remainder would be women of color. Between gender, ethnicity, and age, I stood out like a very sore thumb. I think it's fair to say that at most or all of the events I attended, I was the only (then) lesbian-identified woman of color in my 20s present.)

Let's be real: if the dominant public face of the gay rights movement was gender nonconforming women of color and of moderate means, does one single person think that the battle for marriage equality would have moved so far and so fast?