Skip to main content

View Diary: VT Gov vetoes Marriage Equality (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The more states (8+ / 0-)

    that legalize same-sex marriage, the more pressure
    there will be on Congress and the Administration
    to get rid of DADT and DOMA.

    Imagine if (and when), New York, New Jersey, and
    California, along with most of New England and Iowa,
    comprising something like 25% of the nation, have
    legalized same-sex marriage.  Congressional action
    won't happen overnight, but it will happen at that point.  

    And as more and more state Supreme Courts rule that the equal protection clause demands equal marriage rights, there will be more and more pressure on (and precedent for them to rely on) the US Supreme Court
    once a suit is finally filed.

    •  Bullshit...... (0+ / 0-)

      The Iowa case is unsettled - the legislature will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional ammendment in 2010.  If it is defeated, it could be before the voters in 2013 asking voters to approve gay mariage.  

      As stated above, Vermont is no sure bet.  Dems are unsure if they have the vots in the House to overide Douglas' veto.

      Prop 8 lost in California and the betting is that the Supreme Court is not going to over reject Prop 8 and put gay marriage back on the books.

      In New Hampshire, the Governor is remaing quiet as to what he would do if the present bill hits his desk.  

      New York and New Jersey are not far enough along in the process to know what will happen, especially with the governors race this year in New Jersey, where Corzine looks like he is having problems, or the race in New York in 2010.

      So that leaves, CT and MA with gay marriage laws in place - not even close to 25% of the states.

      And part of the problem is the debate in each state does not fous on the disparity in benefits for gay versus straight couples.  Since the states can't offer federal benefits, this issue of fariness is never mentioned - but I think it could be a winning issue on the federal level.  

      All the hard work and millions of dollars spent and little to show for it - and we will keep wasting money and volunteer chasing a dream with little chance of turning it into reality.

      •  Re: New Jersey (5+ / 0-)

        Gay rights laws regarding marriage equality (or the rights that come with marriage-minus-the-word) tend to get passed during a lame duck session of the NJ state legislature.  So the chances of Corzine signing a marriage equality bill won't be diminished should he not win reelection; if anything they'll be slightly strengthened; and I don't think Christie (should he be elected --shudder--) will want to make his first big fight about undoing marriage equality, proving himself to be that much of a social conservative and ruin his "moderate" image as someone who is all about fighting corruption and fighting for the common man.  It's the state senate where we will have a hard time finding the votes to accompany passage (a "flipper" of Vermont... heh, I thought you might appreciate that a bit), but that body is not up for reelection this November, so if we have the votes now, we'll have them after November as well, and this kind of thing fizzles as an issue after not too long in much of the Northeast, at this point.  If a bill passes in the lame duck, and makes it onto Corzine's desk in December or January while he's still in the Gov mansion, he will sign it (as he's stated repeatedly, and again quite recently).  Then hardly anyone will care enough to seek punitive measures against the legislators who voted in favor come 2011.

      •  All Due Respect, But You Are Dead Wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg, Predictor

        The Iowa case is unsettled - the legislature will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional ammendment[sic] in 2010.  If it is defeated, it could be before the voters in 2013 asking voters to approve gay mariage.  

        The current Iowa legislature is 32-18 Dem in the Senate, and a good majority in the House.

        For the committee charged with debating amendments, Mary Mascher (D-77) is the chair.  I know her personally, and my mother works with her on a regular basis in education legislation (another committee she chairs).

        I heard Mary Mascher in person on Friday, promise that no amendment on marriage equality would see the House floor while she is chair.  It is doubtful she will relinquish that position by 2019, barring retirement, and a progressive Dem will chair that committee until the end of 2010, no matter what happens.

        The amendment legislation has to pass consecutive general assemblies word-for-word to be sent to the people of Iowa.  In the scant chance that Iowa Democrats will relinquish majorities in both the House and Senate in next year's elections (which is likely already in live girl/dead boy territory), the earliest the people will vote is 2013, but that would require two legislative votes after 2010.  And amending the Iowa Constitution requires both the legislative and democratic passage to become law.

        By 2013, Iowans will be even more in favor of maintaining equal rights, as the economic and social benefits become apparent, and right-wing "bogeymen" are dismissed by experience.  And a state constitutional amendment before the voters today would as likely as not fail.

        "If the horse you are riding has died, beating it will not make it go any faster."—h/t to teacherken

        by MooseHB on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:00:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site