Skip to main content
Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:34 AM PST
by Joan McCarterFollow
Add keywords that describe this diary.
Separate multiple keywords with commas.
- Search For Tags
- Browse For Tags
More Tagging tips:
A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?
Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.
If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office.
CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.
Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.
Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary:
Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House.
If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state
Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries
that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.
You must be a member of a group to use this feature.
"The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church
by Joan McCarter on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:34:58 AM PST
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey ////\\\\ "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois
by rovertheoctopus on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:36:37 AM PST
by Joan McCarter on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:42:25 AM PST
[ Parent ]
to find good news these days, that is how obvious it is that things should change
"The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin
by merrywidow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:24:16 AM PST
Wasn't New Mexico one of those states where a County Clerk started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples during the San Francisco Same Sex Weddings back in 2004?
An HR from a member of the RKBA is like an F rating from the NRA
---We Shall Overcome (12/3/13)---
by earlybird on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:38:42 AM PST
Las Cruces started doing it in August this year. His action brought the issue to a head in the state.
I never liked you and I always will.
by Ray Blake on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:03:19 AM PST
and hundreds have wed since the Dona Ana county clerk took unilateral action to break the longjam this August. As of today, all of them are fully and finally recongnized in their home state.
We were the 50th same-sex wedding of 2013! Only our third time to the altar in the last 17 years ....
"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller
by lgmcp on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:45:16 AM PST
I'm an especially proud UNM alumni.
by BocaBlue on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:39:30 AM PST
I've never been to NM but I hear Santa Fe is lovely.....
by dgphila on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:40:56 AM PST
Beautiful state. Now even better!
by Joan McCarter on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:42:56 AM PST
so gorgeous. My mother, however, went there in the early 1970s. I do love the southwest, though, so it's on my radar.
by rovertheoctopus on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:43:29 AM PST
Truly gorgeous and enchanting. A favorite of mine. Yay equality!!
by bythesea on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:55:06 AM PST
as you drive across. Albuquerque is not as known for being artsy as Santa Fe but it has a ton of artists and some of the nicest folks you are likely to meet.
I expect a voter petition to undo this ruling but have hopes that it will fail as did the anti-abortion proposition in Albuquerque
by pcta on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:00:37 PM PST
a constitutional amendment via the ballot is set very high in NM and therefore extremely unlikely to actually happen.
by bythesea on Fri Dec 20, 2013 at 08:23:08 AM PST
Sunny Santa Fe would be nice.
Too Folk For You.
by TooFolkGR on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:56:11 AM PST
straight through Arizona maybe except for gas and pit stops.
But sure not to take gas in AZ from a local business. Only from a company owned store.
And NM makes fine sandwiches and food that can be packed.
And then you can arrive in CA refreshed!
"Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertarian picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertarian Paradise of West Dakota!"
by unclebucky on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:24:53 AM PST
Last time I brought him up to date (MN, RI, NJ and HI), he said, "Wow, it's hard to keep up!"
Congratulations, New Mexico!
Guns don't kill people but there's always one there at the time of death.
by john07801 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:42:45 AM PST
LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!
by dinotrac on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17:50 AM PST
We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book. Follow @PortiaMcGonagal
by Vita Brevis on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:42:55 AM PST
Republished to Kossacks for Marriage Equality.
Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:43:07 AM PST
We're getting there. Oregon is next! :-)
by terrya on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:43:46 AM PST
...just got more enchanting!
If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.
by Bensdad on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:43:49 AM PST
It won't be long before the SCOTUS can't punt on the "full faith and credit issue" and has to rule on marriage equality nationwide.
There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:43:53 AM PST
Of Americans living in state with full marriage equality. That's a lot of people who could potentially become less than married just from moving the next state over.
by MRobDC on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:55:26 AM PST
The Prop 8 case was unique, because the state had granted marriage licenses before suspending the right, and the case went before the very liberal 9th circuit. Right now cases in VA, PA and NC are ongoing, because each of these states is unlikely to repeal its ban anytime soon. That said, they will be tried before judges far more conservative than the 9th circuit, and for the Supreme Court to rule on it, there would need to be a split in the circuits or any favorable decision for that matter.
by bananapouch1 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:59:01 PM PST
jpmassar. I love it when the grassroots is ahead of the front page. ;)
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:45:39 AM PST
heads explode in red, green and white !
by eeff on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:45:57 AM PST
I predict, will come from a state senator from the oil/gas town of Farmington named Bill Sharer, who has opposed marriage equality on the grounds that it interferes with procreation. Of course the US Supreme Court already shot that lame idea down.
"And, once again, the forces of niceness and goodness have triumphed over the forces of evil and rottenness." --Maxwell Smart
by emobile on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:31:38 AM PST
heterosexual couples who are childless (either through choice or medical circumstances) and their marriages have not been declared null and void, I think the procreation issue is moot at best.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:41:18 PM PST
Courtesy the NYT, gotta love this:
“Procreation,” said Justice Edward L. Chavez, who wrote the court’s opinion, “has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying.”
by emobile on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:05:06 PM PST
Check out the full decision. All 5 justices concurred with the decision.
Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior. -Julian Assange-
by ChadmanFL on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:47:54 AM PST
Moments like this always make me tear up a little. It gives me hope for our country, and a small amount of faith back.
Here's to dragging the rest of the country into this century!
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu
by dawgflyer13 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:47:56 AM PST
by ChadmanFL on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:48:02 AM PST
this would be happening so quickly in this country.
That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10
by concernedamerican on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:48:39 AM PST
though it doesn't go into effect until June. Technically speaking, I think NM is #18.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:49:06 AM PST
It's getting hard to keep track. Although if New Mexico allows marriages to begin before Illinois does, I think we might have to give "16" to New Mexico.
Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.
by earicicle on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:54:44 AM PST
count. They are not a state, but they count. IF you include DC, I think it's 18:
same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government. As of December 2013, sixteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington), the District of Columbia, eight counties in New Mexico
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:58:01 AM PST
is more than semantics; it denies DC citizens a whole host of rights, including representation in Congress for taxation. In fact, I'm rather shocked that DC citizens were able to have enough control over their own destiny to enact marriage equality within the District.
Here is a link to Marriage Equality's map, not yet updated with today's news from New Mexico. NM becomes the 17th state, plus the District of Columbia, to enact full marriage equality.
Five other non-state level US jurisdictions--US territories--also lack marriage equality: Guam, N. Marianas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands.
by earicicle on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:19:57 AM PST
Immediate effect. If I read correctly, the marriages already registered are legal retroactively, so maybe we're 13th!
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
Two steps to the right of Trotsky.
by jvance on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:58:48 AM PST
1. California, 2.Connecticut, 3.Delaware, 4.Hawaii, 5.Iowa, 6.Maine, 7.Maryland, 8.Massachusetts, 9.Minnesota, 10.New Hampshire, 11.New Jersey, 12.New Mexico,13. New York, 14.Rhode Island, 15.Vermont and 16.Washington), 17.the District of Columbia, 19. New Mexico and in June, Illinois makes 20, or 19 states plus the District of Columbia.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:01:32 AM PST
to go to new york to get married--still, same sex marriage is recognized there.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:02:45 AM PST
The state withdrew its appeal of the order requiring them to allow it.
One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman
by AUBoy2007 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:12:13 AM PST
They still have a ban on same-sex marriage (for now) but courts have ordered that the state recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states when calculating benefits.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:44:45 PM PST
It makes 19 including the DC.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:08:37 AM PST
by AUBoy2007 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:13:08 AM PST
I think it stands, with IL, at 18.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:13:55 AM PST
Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:52:03 AM PST
does not go into effect until June (appropriate month!) it has been passed and signed into law, so I would say it's number 18.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:55:16 AM PST
um... I think I was not counting DC in my previous list ♥
oh well. 18 is the number of LIFE
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:58:50 AM PST
one by one.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:04:22 AM PST
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:22:13 AM PST
They're still just at civil union level. Maybe soon, though.
"Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"
by TLS66 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:31:56 AM PST
the 15 on my heavily scribbled over list is next to Hawaii, not Colorado.
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:58:57 PM PST
is not a marriage-equality state, and it has a mini-DOMA (a constitutional ban) so the legislature cannot act on marriage equality. There is a case filed in district court that could get the ball rolling on equality, but that will take a few years. Still, it is probably quicker and more certain than trying to amend the Colorado constitution.
Same-sex marriages entered into in a state that permits same-sex marriages are converted to a Colorado civil union. For almost all purposes, other than income tax purposes, a civil union is treated as a spouse under the civil union statute.
However, the Department of Revenue recently issued a regulation that requires that everyone must file state income tax returns the same as their federal return, so civil union partners who are spouses for federal tax purposes are treated as spouses for state tax purposes.
"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins
by Old Left Good Left on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:43:27 PM PST
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:59:55 PM PST
Love is in the air! Congrats, New Mexico!
by earicicle on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:52:49 AM PST
one by one, they are falling. I never thought this would happen. I wonder how many states will it take before the Supreme Court can't ignore it anymore.
by fcvaguy on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:53:36 AM PST
but if the right lawsuit makes it up the judicial ladder they could be forced earlier.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:46:35 PM PST
is that several of those couples appear to be middle-aged or older (I'm middle aged and they seem older than I am!). These couples have been waiting their whole lives to be recognized as first class citizens.
What a tremendous joy.
This equality genie is out of the bottle now, a healthy mix of the people voting on it (like Maine) or the legislatures voting on it (like Illinois) or the judiciary deciding (like in Massachusetts, New Mexico and others). Any civil rights movement can be slowed, but cannot be stopped, because in the end, justice will flow down like a river.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:53:41 AM PST
have lasted longer than any of Newt Gingrich's marriages, that's for sure.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:49:41 PM PST
living in states or districts with marriage equality than without? Some of the largest states now have it.
Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!
by Ian S on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:56:03 AM PST
And assuming it's passed in Oregon next year, it's about 40% (based on 2010 census numbers)
by MRobDC on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:03:56 AM PST
Is that we've gotten all of the low and medium hanging fruit.
by MRobDC on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:57:14 AM PST
for various rights will force this to the SCOTUS no matter how backward AL a MI are......and TX and SC and and and
someone in a red state will sue for lack of 14th amendment rights of equal justice and its all over
by merrywidow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:27:25 AM PST
Oregon, and Wisconsin, though they have enshrined discrimination in their state constitutions, are reasonable states and I think movements to repeal their one man and one woman laws are quite possible. While nothing is happening in Pennsylvania now, I think we'll see it legalized there one way or another within three years.
by TLS66 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:35:58 AM PST
We have teabaggers controlling the legislature, governorship, and supreme court. There's probably majority public support for equality but it'll be hard to unwind the damage done by the 2005 constitutional amendment.
by skrekk on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:02:41 PM PST
by MRobDC on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:08:47 PM PST
There are 4 states left where the legislature/Governor can grant Marriage Equality (like Hawaii and Illinois did). Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Wyoming. Of those, only West Virginia has a Dem Governor and Legislature, but WV polls pretty low in Marriage Equality, so I just can't see it brought up. (See below for longer comments)
by naraht on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:11:22 PM PST
effort. Though it's blood-red, much of its conservatism of the libertarianish "don't tread on me" variety with a strong live-and-let-live attitude. Also, it's got the cheapest media markets in the country.
A marriage-equality bill was introduced in the legislature earlier this year; it died in committee, along with a civil-union bill. The legislature is currently adjourned until January 2015, which is enough time to do a decent education/awareness campaign.
Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn
by ebohlman on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:38:01 PM PST
in the moniker "The Equality State".
by TLS66 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:41:19 PM PST
The Dems have 4 seats out of 30 in the Senate and 8 of 60 in the House. So you'd need almost half the Republican Caucus to change the law. Outside New England, I don't know of any place you could find that type of suport...
And they don't meet at all in Even years? Wow... That's Citizen Legislators.
by naraht on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 05:42:26 PM PST
but it is inexorable.
Congratulations, New Mexico! And congratulations to all of our LGBT brothers and sisters.
"Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes
by raptavio on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:00:29 AM PST
consider for retirement.
"Where some see a system for encouraging discussion . . . others see an echo chamber of bad grammar, unchecked stupidity, and constructive interference . . . " -- Ars Technica
by Rikon Snow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:01:25 AM PST
the 21st century. But since we (not me) added an amendment to our constitution a few years back (man and woman only yukkka), that seems unlikely.
And now all 3 branches are controlled by pugs, along with our supreme court, the chances are zippo.
by morninmist on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:02:12 AM PST
Rick Santorum will be viewed, even by people who tend to agree with him on other issues, as nothing more than Governor Wallace in a sweater-vest.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07:27 AM PST
by merrywidow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:11 AM PST
not all by himself but beginning with DADT and not enforcing DOMA it is all falling down, the institutional bigotry.
by merrywidow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:12:24 AM PST
What he did was NOT defend DOMA in court.
And yes, after four years as President agreeing with the bigots that me and my partner of 25 years are somehow deservedly less than other citizens, he 'evolved' into a human being on this issue.
by GreatLakeSailor on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:44:00 PM PST
the 21st century has been waiting.
by The Sheeping of America on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:13:51 AM PST
this. "Destination States" like that have already seen it. We've seen it here in Maine, where our nickname is "Vacationland": it may as well be "Same Sex Marriageland" for the increase in revenues to traditional and non-traditional marriage venues here. Massachusetts saw the same, and if you'll recall, Mitt Romney once said, when Governor, that he didn't want Massachusetts turning into the "Las Vegas of gay marriage". Well, he sure lost on that one.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17:04 AM PST
has not already joined the list.
Vegas weddings are hysterical...
And they could camp it up and bring in tons of money to the economy...
Get with the program Nevada
Radical Activist Homosexual Agenda: 1. Equality 2. See #1
by skip945 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:22:36 AM PST
from an economic standpoint.
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:23:52 AM PST
by merrywidow on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:28:21 AM PST
I'd probably lean towards Reno -- a bit less glitz and it's not far from Lake Tahoe for a honeymoon.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:57:37 PM PST
but it's a slow one needing another vote then to the ballot in 2015 or 16 IIRC.
by bythesea on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:17:54 PM PST
Sevcik v. Sandoval, that will shortly be argued before the Ninth Circuit (it was held up a few months because of a parallel case from HI which is now on the verge of being dismissed as moot. The district court decision was unfavorable, relying on Baker v. Nelson; that decision is under fire in the PA case and possibly others.
by ebohlman on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:43:24 PM PST
Wonder how many states "came out" this year?
It's been 9 years since Massachusetts got the ball rolling, but it seems to be gaining momemtum in the last year or two.
by dinotrac on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:16:23 AM PST
that New Mexico will become once "teh gays" have complete run of the place. Just look what happened to all the other states that allowed it.
At least that's what Fox News told me.
You can lead a Republican to knowledge but no matter how hard you try, you just can't make them think.
by FisherOfRolando on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17:04 AM PST
Proud of my former state which still has a huge place in my heart and soul!
curious portal - to a world of paintings, lyric-poems, art writing, and graphic and web design
by asterkitty on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:19:03 AM PST
back in New Mexico, who died before he could see this day.
So many people worked so hard for this, in so many different ways. Hats off to all of them, and head bowed.
Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"
by Bob Love on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:19:17 AM PST
Why do I get the feeling he knew before we did.
by Cousin Vinny on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:51:22 PM PST
by unclebucky on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:22:30 AM PST
I'm looking at you now Oregon. You let New Freakin' Mexico beat you to equality?
by Shadowmuffin on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:26:17 AM PST
over the border to get married in New Mexico, then suing for Texas to recognize their marriages. Don't forget, sodomy laws got struck down nation-wide based on Lawrence v. Texas.
That will be fun, and Texas if FULL of well organized LGBT communities. Hell, the mayor of Houston is a lesbian!
by commonmass on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:27:21 AM PST
especially with the recent SSA rulings on benefits for same-sex spouses; since that ruling doesn't apply in states where marriage equality is not on the books, that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55:45 PM PST
will PA get its act together?
Ted Cruz (R-Tx) America's Prick
by jackandjill on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:28:51 AM PST
supports a current bill to provide anti-discrimination protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations. So at least they're moving into the late 90s/early 00s.
Marriage in PA will likely be the result of court decisions.
by ebohlman on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:48:23 PM PST
Reading the opinion now.
by librarisingnsf on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:34:00 AM PST
Looks to me like there is a very high correlation between:
1. States with marriage equality and
2. States with Medicaid expansion.
Am I right?
Seems like a lot of people might want to move to those places. . . .assuming there are jobs.
by rugbymom on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 11:41:13 AM PST
guard. Was this expected or thought to be a possibility?. Congratulations from Wash. State!
by Ewashstate on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:19:07 PM PST
and common wisdom was that it would be a done deal.
by Cali Scribe on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:53:54 PM PST
by Ewashstate on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:57:17 PM PST
Glad to see it. Let's get Texas now!
by 1toughlady on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 12:49:15 PM PST
The 64 licenses issued in Sandoval County by Victoria Dunlap in February 2004 are valid. They were never overturned.
We're Number One!
Eat my shorts, Massachusetts!
by jvance on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:09:16 PM PST
Phil Robertson is NOT happy, happy, happy
by RAJensen on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 01:52:52 PM PST
As of right now (the NM decision is immediate), there are 16 states (+DC + 8 tribes) with Marriage Equality. 10 in the east (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, & DE ), 2 in the Midwest (IA & MN) and 4 in the west (NM, CA, WA & HI). Illinois will make 17 in June (if not sooner).
This leaves the following states with only a law limiting Marriages performed in the state to opposite sex couples: PA, WV, IN, & WY.
In Pennsylvania, we are definitely playing Offense, with the Governor and the Legislature Red we are going through the Courts. (but with a very unpopular governor, we'll see where we are in 2014.)
West Virginia has been pretty quiet. While the legislature and the Governor are Democrats, Marriage Equality polls pretty poorly, so that's probably for the best.
Indiana we are playing Defense, the Legislature passed a Constitutional Amendment banning pretty much everything, but they have to pass it again before it goes to the voters. The Republican Legislature leadership have to decide whether to go all in and try to pass the same again to put it to the voters in 2014, try to pass something watered down (which they'd have to pass again in the next session) or just let it die. (This will probably be the next significant news out of a state legislature)
Wyoming has been pretty quiet as well. Definitely Republican, but with a Libertarian Streak and a requirement that to put an amendment on the books, you need 2/3 of both houses.
Oregon, Colorado and Nevada have Civil Unions, Wisconsin has limited recognition and Oregon is now recognizing out of state marriage.
by naraht on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:07:47 PM PST
by ebohlman on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:53:35 PM PST
And the sad thing is I live in Maryland.
by naraht on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 05:35:40 PM PST
making same gender marriage legal, I have been wondering what prevents every State in the U.S.A. from simply recognizing the wording in the Constitution that clearly states: Article IV, Section 1: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
The absolutely outrageous and ridiculous nonsense defining "marriage" according to superstitious ignorance and/or arrogantly stubborn stupidity, or both, (religious beliefs) is clearly un-Constitutional, under the simple language of the First Amendment thereto. Thus, the action of the State of Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage in and for every other State in the Union.
And, perhaps, now is the time to flood the Courts - in those States which refuse to acknowledge, and abide by the terms of, the Constitution - with sufficient lawsuits seeking to overturn the asininities of those people of superstitious ignorance and arrogantly stubborn stupidity who would keep America locked up in their hate-mongering.
Marriage is - and was for millennia, despite claims to the contrary by religious nuts and loose screws - a CIVIL and SECULAR matter, as are any and all contractual actions in our Nation. Let's take a leaf from the Teabagheads, and TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY from the claque of today's reactionary, regressive, and racist politicians.
CONGRATULATIONS, NEW MEXICO!
by The Old Grouch on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:25:05 PM PST
Whenever another state legalizes gay marriage, it is always nice to see NOM's repsonse to it.
by bananapouch1 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 02:53:47 PM PST
its nice to have you aboard.
by PC on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:36:25 PM PST
decision was that the NMSC decided that equal protection claims involving the LGBT community will henceforth be decided on intermediate scrutiny: the burden of proof will be on the state or local governmental unit to show that a discriminatory law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
New Mexico becomes the second state to require heightened scrutiny in LGBT equal protection claims (California requires strict scrutiny, in which the burden of proof is on the government to show that a discriminatory law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest).
by ebohlman on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:02:20 PM PST
I can't see an anti-gay law or rule that would pass muster under intermediate/heightened scrutiny but fail under strict scrutiny.
Actually, the reason why the Supreme Court didn't go to heightened scrutiny is because they didn't need to. They made it clear that there was no rational basis for anti-gay laws as a whole. Basically the only secular rationale for these anti-gay laws were "animus" (or in other words hatred, bigotry, and homophobia), and that is not a rational basis for justifying any law.
by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:15:55 PM PST
by you on soon
Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.
Donate to support Daily Kos.
© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC