Has Tide Turned for Same Sex Marriage?
Election Day 2008 appeared to deliver a serious blow to gay marriage advocates when California passed Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage. Now, five months later, momentum is clearly with gay rights advocates.
Yesterday (May 6), Maine became the latest state to approve gay marriage when Gov. John Baldacci signed legislation. Same sex marriage is legal in Maine, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts. New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York may be next to pass similar legislation. Californians are expected to have another chance to vote on the issue in 2010.
Recent polls also show opinion moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. A CBS News-New York Times poll released on April 27 showed 42 percent surveyed believe gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, 25 percent supported civil unions, and only 28 percent said there should be no recognition at all. Then, an ABC News-Washington Post poll released April 30 showed 49 percent surveyed believe same-sex marriages should be legal, and 46 percent said illegal.
The Los Angeles Times talked to advocates from both sides:
“There is no doubt we are witnessing an enormous and unprecedented sea change in both public opinion and momentum on the issue of marriage equality,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “I believe the electorate nationally and in California is in a different place when it comes to marriage equality than it was six months ago.”
Frank Schubert, who ran the Yes on 8 campaign in California, said the decisions in New England and Iowa gave same-sex marriage activists a boost. But Schubert said the battle is far from over: Voters in Iowa and Maine might overturn those decisions. And helping to persuade them might be none other than Schubert himself, who is advising a national group on how to copy California’s defeat of same-sex marriage.
Has support and legal precedent for same sex marriage reached a critical mass? Will more and more states make it legal? Or are we seeing a surge for one side in the debate that will be offset by increased energy from opponents of same sex marriage?
Loading ...
A borring topic. not at all welcomed.
what about Pakistan about 200 nuclear bonbs are about to fall into the hands of the taliban, who have by the way, surrounded the capital and are about 50 miles away!!!
And you want to talk about a non issue!!!
Then why are you using your time to read the post and leave two comments?
I don’t understand why this is important to anyone other than the two people getting married. Why do people feel the necessity to impose their perspectives on life to others. Live your life the way in which you want and afford others the same liberty.
What many people don’t seem to understand is that the man/woman marriage is the most basic element of society. The man/woman marriage is not only “religious” but it is the most natural since neither man/man nor woman/woman can produce offspring. Human beings began grouping together eons in the past to protect this union: man-woman-children. This is the very basis of our civilization. Men were hunter gatherers and women were nurtures and care givers. Our western civilization (and most others in the world) formed laws to protect this basic building block of society. These are our marriage laws. Any attack on marriage between a man and a woman is, therefore, an attack on the very basis of our society, and we must reject it or risk losing everything.
Right on! And I look forward to the day where we forbid infertile heterosexual couples from marrying. Clearly, since they can’t produce offspring, they don’t deserve it either!
Please don’t forget to add elderly people to your list of those not allowed to marry. As Walt so cogently notes, since they also cannot have children, we as a society “risk losing everything” if we allow them to marry. Sorry, widowed granny,but I agree with Walt..your second marriage is unnatural and represents an attack on the very basis of society.
Is it possible to handle more than one issue at a time, both with priority for a vast majority of people.
Before this summer ends the TALIBAN will have control of pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Do any of you think that there will be a LIMITED nuclear exchange in that area? IF SO WHEN?
Rather shocked that we cannot debate more than one topic at a time. There are many worthwhile topics to discuss and gain viewpoints on and this just happens to be one of them. We should have learned by now that you cannot put on the blinders and focus on only one or two items with the wish that all of the others will either solve themselves or just go away.
Secondly, it is also mildly surprising that comments still abound about resticting rights under the Constitution. The same comments I would bet were made against the blacks, Irish, Asians and other cultures that dared to break the status quo. Such as with abortion and other issues that have a moral or religious basis with some citizens the gay marriage issues finds itself in the same category. The Constitution does not mention limiting the rights of people on any precept and thus gay marriage falls into this protected segment. Should someone based upon their moral beliefs lead thier lives a certain way, then fine. But dont go telling others how to live their life.