Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont: 2 States in 1 Week
I will apologize in advance for this being a short blog post, but my head is swimming with happiness right now.
Only 2 weeks ago, Massachusetts and Connecticut were the only states that recognized gay marriage as legal. Now, in the span of just 5 days, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, and Vermont overturned their Republican Governor's veto on the gay marriage bill which had previously been passed by the Vermont legislature by an overwhelming margin.
It has taken decades to reverse legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians, even in the most liberal states in America. And now, the number of states where gay marriage is now legal has DOUBLED IN JUST 5 DAYS.
Did the world I live in just turn upside-down?
That's like if a bat-boy was called up as a pinch hitter, and then he hits 2 grand slams in the same night. It would be like if you were in a small-town garage band, playing at a local bar to a crowd of maybe 20 people, and then being asked to tour with Radiohead the next day. It's like hitting the lottery jackpot.....twice in a row.
Or, maybe this wasn't impossible. Nate Silver predicts that by 2012, half of all the states will vote against a marriage ban. His model was nearly perfect in predicting California's vote share in favor of Prop 8, so I'm inclined to think he could very well be right.
Nonetheless, the thought that 2 states would overturn a marriage ban in such a short period of time.....I don't know any other way to say it, but it was unthinkable for me. I guess that's what happens when you pessimistically prepare for the worst each time a gay marriage bill comes to the floor for a vote, or gets passed to the courts to decide.
Either way, yes....the world turned upside-down. And I like it that way.
I read somewhere that the public views on gay marriage are changing by 2% a year. But some judges and some legislators have clearly reached a tipping point - and more!
April 7, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You read that in Nate Silver's column (link above). What's that say about great minds? :)
April 7, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right! Sorry I skimmed so fast I missed that you had put that in there. But it bears repeating. And yes, it's fascinating how some minds work alike!
This is such heartening news! I'm glad you posted on it.
Lots of good news blogs this week. Makes me happy. And hopeful!
April 7, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and the Obama statement that he thinks marriage should be left to the states means that it will continue to be ignored on the federal level. Which leaves out thousands of people who live with non-American partners, who will be denied any marriage-derived benefits on the federal level, including taxes, visitation rights, travel restrictions and discrimination protections.
Thanks, mr president for more of the same.
April 7, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I obviously disagree with the President on his stance on gay marriage, I wouldn't completely lose hope about the federal government changing its position in the next couple of election cycles. If Nate Silver is right (and he might very well be wrong), then half of all states will strike down the marriage ban by 2012, and most of them will strike it down by 2016.
Food for thought. I don't expect there will be any Constitutional amendments coming any time soon that legalizes gay marriage....but for what it's worth, Iowa and Vermont are a great next step.
April 7, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
",,,I wouldn't completely lose hope about the federal government changing its position..."
meaning when the individual states do all the job for the government.
For the cop-out president, I have a question - how many people will not be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital until then? and how many people will be forced to leave the country because immigration status? etc etc etc
April 7, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another win for same-sex marriage!
It's really on the march today: The D.C. Council just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
POLITICO - BEN SMITH - APRIL 7, 2009
April 7, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is needed is not a Constitutional Amendment -- and working for one would probably set the idea back. (I do expect a Constitutional decision in a few years the equivalent of Loving but that will only come after there is enough experience with gay marriage in enough states -- and after the membership of the Court changes.)
What we should be working for, federally, are two goals, repealing DOMA -- very likely and soon -- and the more complicated one of extending the 'full faith and credence' provision in the Constitution explicitly to the area of marriage.
(I am aware that this would have been controversial at one time, with a wild, crazy-quilt of laws in various states. There's the classic case of the writer, Craig Rice, whose marital history was so complex that in several states she was considered to have been divorced more times than she was married. But laws have become much more uniform over time, and -- while hoping someone corrects me if I'm wrong -- I believe that the only thing that would be controversial about such a law would be the question of same-sex marriage.)
Those are the first steps needed, and I think Obama is right to leave the question to the states with those provisos. Why bring it into the national arena where it can only be a distraction.
April 7, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink