11 States ban gay marriage

[Dr. Tom 0]

Eleven States Ban Gay Marriage

 

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

 

In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

 

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas (search), Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon — the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

 

"This issue does not deeply divide America," said conservative activist Gary Bauer (search). "The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart." 

 

Gay rights leaders were dismayed by the results but declared that their struggle for marriage equality would continue unabated.

 

"Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions."

 

In Georgia, Ohio and Mississippi, gay-rights activists were considering court challenges of the newly approved amendments. But supporters of the bans were jubilant.

 

"I've said all along that this crossed party lines, color lines and socio-economic lines," said Sadie Fields of the Georgia Christian Coalition. "The people in this state realized that we're talking about the future of our country here."

 

Conservatives had expected for weeks that the amendments would prevail in at least 10 of the states, thus demonstrating widespread public disapproval of the Massachusetts court ruling a year ago that legalized gay marriage there. National and local gay-rights groups campaigned vigorously in Oregon, where polls had showed a close race, but they failed to prevent a sweep.

 

None of the 11 states allow gay marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 2,900 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice.

 

"It feels like a death," said Kelly Burke, 35, of the amendment's passage in Oregon. She is a stay-at-home mother who began receiving health care coverage for the first time after she wed electrician Dolores Doyle, her lesbian partner of 15 years, in Portland last March. 

 

The amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah call for a ban on civil unions as well.

 

The Ohio measure, considered the broadest of the 11 because it barred any legal status that "intends to approximate marriage," gathered equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.

 

In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others — Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon — the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions. 

 

Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states. 

 

Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the grounds that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court challenge in Georgia involves a similar argument. 

 

Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states such as Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137424,00.html

 

This is what I want to see. Not necessarily this result, but the states deciding on the issue for themselves. The federal government shouldn't need to get involved here, and states should decide on the issue of gay marriage based on the 10th Amendment. I hope these areas enact civil unions, but regardless of the results, it's good that individual states are taking the initiative to decide on a hot-button issue for themselves.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I give it about a week in Ohio before some judge overrules it.

[teke184 0]

The Louisiana ban passed last month was overturned by a judge in record time. (It took about a week and a half)

[Guest Cerebus]

Isn't part of the state constitution? That would be impossible without going to the SCOTUS isn't it?

[Guest Loss]

The only hope at this point is judges overruling all of the amendments. Of course, I strongly disagree that this should be a states rights issue, as no state does or should have the right to not acknowledge heterosexual marriage. This is not something voters should have any say over, considering that it only affects about 5-10% of the populace, if that.

[teke184 0]

Isn't part of the state constitution? That would be impossible without going to the SCOTUS isn't it?

A judge can overrule it but the state can appeal it to a higher court.

 

 

I think that the Louisiana ban is on its way to a portion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

They'll get a ruling by a portion of the Third Circuit, appeal it to get a hearing by the full court, then send it to the USSC.

 

 

By then, 5 years will have passed and this probably won't be a huge issue anymore. (Gay marriage wasn't an issue until early this year and support for it may flame out, no pun intended, before a ruling is issued)

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

[teke184 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Fun fact-

 

The first gay marriage in Canada fell apart in record time but they are legally still together because the country never anticipated a gay divorce.

[MARTYEWR 0]

The only hope at this point is judges overruling all of the amendments. Of course, I strongly disagree that this should be a states rights issue, as no state does or should have the right to not acknowledge heterosexual marriage. This is not something voters should have any say over, considering that it only affects about 5-10% of the populace, if that.

In all fairness, Loss, while I don't like the results either, we do have a similar system here in Canada (as I pointed out to you at SNKT), where the provinces decide on it and it IS working up here. I think only a couple provinces and territories don't have legalized same sex marriage in fact.

 

I'm also guessing each ban will be overruled.

[MARTYEWR 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Fun fact-

 

The first gay marriage in Canada fell apart in record time but they are legally still together because the country never anticipated a gay divorce.

Okay, when I said in the post above that "it's working", I meant "everything but the lack of a divorce law".

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I hope these areas enact civil unions, but regardless of the results, it's good that individual states are taking the initiative to decide on a hot-button issue for themselves.

Except that 8 of these kill civil unions as well.

 

I agree with Loss 100% here. In 11 states yesterday, the American public proved to be even more bigoted than I had imagined. The majority should not have any say in restricting the rights of a minority and I hope someone overrules the amendments sooner rather than later.

[Guest Loss]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Precisely. I have a question. If you are not gay and it does not affect you, then why do you care? Name one way legalizing gay marriage will affect your life.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Precisely. I have a question. If you are not gay and it does not affect you, then why do you care? Name one way legalizing gay marriage will affect your life.

It won't affect me, personally, but just as an ideal, I cling to the fact that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what I've always known and it's what I believe to be true. If gay couples want to have the benefits they want that come with being a couple, they should have them. But I just don't want to call it a marriage.

[CanadianChris 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Fun fact-

 

The first gay marriage in Canada fell apart in record time but they are legally still together because the country never anticipated a gay divorce.

Okay, when I said in the post above that "it's working", I meant "everything but the lack of a divorce law".

That was so three months ago. Gay couples started being granted divorces back in September.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Tom, Constitutionally speaking, you could apply the 14th Amendment and it's Equal Protection Clause as a point that would cause these amendments to be overturned. That's if, of course, it gets to the Supreme Court. I mean, the 14th Amendment essentially required the states to answer to the Constitution's Amendments (before hand, the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the states).

 

So essentially, the jurisdiction is there for the Supreme Court. It just depends upon how they'll vote on the issue. Fun, isn't it?

 

--Ryan

...who says, if you're not gay, why do you care?...

[The Czech Republic 0]

--Ryan

...who says, if you're not gay, why do you care?...

What are you, the liberal MikeSC?

[CanadianChris 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Precisely. I have a question. If you are not gay and it does not affect you, then why do you care? Name one way legalizing gay marriage will affect your life.

It won't affect me, personally, but just as an ideal, I cling to the fact that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what I've always known and it's what I believe to be true. If gay couples want to have the benefits they want that come with being a couple, they should have them. But I just don't want to call it a marriage.

What about the people in the eight states that banned civil unions as well as marriage, then?

[teke184 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Precisely. I have a question. If you are not gay and it does not affect you, then why do you care? Name one way legalizing gay marriage will affect your life.

If gay marriage is legalized, it will affect tax law and benefits paid by state agencies if nothing else.

 

 

Married people have to file taxes differently from single people and legalizing gay marriage would mess around with the rules in place to ensure that married people either file a joint return or file as "Married filing separately".

 

That would affect the amount of taxes collected by the Feds and the states, so that directly impacts everyone.

 

 

As for benefits, that could get very costly to companies and state agencies. Most benefits packages are set up so that a large population of single individuals (typically males) have to pay the burden of those with families.

 

If 10% of that single population becomes a married couple, it eats away at the margins set up to ensure all benefits are paid for.

[Guest Loss]

It won't affect me, personally, but just as an ideal, I cling to the fact that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what I've always known and it's what I believe to be true. If gay couples want to have the benefits they want that come with being a couple, they should have them. But I just don't want to call it a marriage.

In theory, this seems okay, but there is a historical precedent that proves that "separate but equal" doesn't work. Marriage is a religious institution, no doubt. So why do the states even recognize it at all?

 

On a lighter note, I saw Margaret Cho do stand-up Saturday and she suggested that we force heterosexuals to plan their own weddings and do their own hair and floral arrangements. She does have a point.

 

[The Czech Republic 0]

You present a better point than I can, Loss. I'm just clinging to tradition here.

[Guest Loss]

Married people have to file taxes differently from single people and legalizing gay marriage would mess around with the rules in place to ensure that married people either file a joint return or file as "Married filing separately".

 

That would affect the amount of taxes collected by the Feds and the states, so that directly impacts everyone.

 

 

As for benefits, that could get very costly to companies and state agencies. Most benefits packages are set up so that a large population of single individuals (typically males) have to pay the burden of those with families.

 

If 10% of that single population becomes a married couple, it eats away at the margins set up to ensure all benefits are paid for.

Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways. Not that I disagree with Bush eliminating the marriage penalty, but those statements wouldn't have applied had he not.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Marriage penalty has gotta go. [ignorant slob mode]Isn't marriage ENOUGH of a penalty? Bah-zing![/ism]

 

Death tax ought to go, too.

[MARTYEWR 0]

I'm glad that it turned out this way. I'm a mainline Protestant, and I just don't think this is the way it ought to be. Civil unions, fine by me, just keep it in the city clerk's office and don't call it a marriage. The argument that "oh yeah, like you STRAIGHT people don't ruin the sanctity of marriage? psyeah right! hah!" is tiring. I'm sure gays are just as capable of screwing up marriages as heterosexuals are.

Fun fact-

 

The first gay marriage in Canada fell apart in record time but they are legally still together because the country never anticipated a gay divorce.

Okay, when I said in the post above that "it's working", I meant "everything but the lack of a divorce law".

That was so three months ago. Gay couples started being granted divorces back in September.

I meant at the time of the first "divorce", Chris. Apologies for the confusion.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

It's what I've always known and it's what I believe to be true.

 

Ah. That sounds more along the lines of someone who's too stubborn to be open-minded about something just becuase it may cause them to change an opinion they've held for a long time.

 

I agree with Loss. This affects very few people and the majority shouldn't have the say in it. If any heterosexual people truly believe that they should have a say in it because it affects them in any way, I must get ready to apply the "bigot" label to them.

 

I'm a straight guy, but I'm completely against the ideals that marriage is just between a man and a woman. Just because your precious bibles say something doesn't mean it has to be that way. I'm so tired of people using religion as a front for their true prejudice. I'm truly amazed that people think that two men or two women joining together in a marriage would somehow poison society as we know it.

 

Why in a country where we're all supposedly created equal, there are people who are blatantly denied equal rights because of something they honestly don't have control over, is beyond me.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

What are you, the liberal MikeSC?

 

Nah. I'm far less condescending. Besides, I've been doing that tag for almost 6 months now, so I don't see why it's just being noticed now.

 

To answer Loss' question: Marriage is used as the defining legal term due to well, there being a majority of Christians in this country, and well, that's just what the hell it's called. Not much else of a reason, me thinks. But because the foundation of the word is rooted in religion, there will always be that argument from the Christian right. Not to say that it isn't a good point, but because it is rooted in religion, it makes it that much more difficult to challenge.

 

But again, if the Supreme Court will rule using the 14th Amendment's EPC and previous rulings on separate-but-equal, I think that America will probably wind up having their state amendments overruled.

 

And remember: 49 out of 50 states had anti-abortion laws on the book at the time of Roe v. Wade. I'm not comparing abortion to gay marriage; just looking at how many states had laws overturned due to a Supreme Court ruling.

 

--Ryan

...nothing like a Political Communication and Law minor...

[teke184 0]

It's not heterosexuals attempting to brand a pink triangle onto homosexuals...

 

It's more of an expression of rage at the courts for using their decisions to legislate from the bench.

 

 

If the Massachussets Supreme Court hadn't decided that the state had to allow gay marriages within X number of days, we wouldn't have seen the civil disobedience in Oregon, California, New York, and other states that saw gay marriages that were later annulled.

[Guest Loss]

It's more of an expression of rage at the courts for using their decisions to legislate from the bench.

I don't know that personal opinion is factoring at all into the judges' decisions. Denying a group of people rights is unconstitutional. I'm expecting all the amendments to eventually be overturned, if only because this is the first amendment ever that strips rights from citizens instead of granting them more.

 

And the more I think about those numbers Teke provided, the more I question the significance of them. With freedom comes responsibility. Freedom isn't a matter of convenience, it's a matter of identity, and if there are consequences to freedom, then it's the responsibility of those who are free to gladly take the burden.

 

I'd like to remind everyone that just as there are heterosexuals in every facet of life, there were gays killed on 9/11. There are gays serving in Iraq. There are gays losing their jobs overseas. If we're willing and able to make the same sacrifices as everyone else, shouldn't we also get the same opportunity to share in the benefits of democracy?

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Here's my one hang up with legalizing gay marriage. I am concerned that gay couples will start sueing churches who are not willing to marry them. While I think homosexuals should have the right to do what they want to do, I also think the churches need to have the right to believe what they want to believe.

[Guest Loss]

Here's my one hang up with legalizing gay marriage. I am concerned that gay couples will start sueing churches who are not willing to marry them. While I think homosexuals should have the right to do what they want to do, I also think the churches need to have the right to believe what they want to believe.

I don't think this is a realistic concern. Many churches refuse to do marriages for a variety of reasons, the most popular of which is previous divorce. In fact, the general consensus within the gay community is that no church should be required to marry a gay couple that chooses not to do so.

 

If lawsuits could happen in such a situation, heterosexual couples might have already tried suing churches. It's just not plausible.

[teke184 0]

Here's my one hang up with legalizing gay marriage. I am concerned that gay couples will start sueing churches who are not willing to marry them. While I think homosexuals should have the right to do what they want to do, I also think the churches need to have the right to believe what they want to believe.

I don't think this is a realistic concern. Many churches refuse to do marriages for a variety of reasons, the most popular of which is previous divorce. In fact, the general consensus within the gay community is that no church should be required to marry a gay couple that chooses not to do so.

 

If lawsuits could happen in such a situation, heterosexual couples might have already tried suing churches. It's just not plausible.

Heterosexual couples don't have special interests looking out for them.

 

 

While 95-99% of homosexual couples would probably be sane, I'm sure there's a lunatic fringe that would insist on going to the most conservative churches they can find and insist that they do some kind of outrageous ceremony there, threatening to sue if their rights are abridged.