equality blooms with spring - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-04-2009, 10:12 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Only if you look at court rulings. When the people speak, same-sex marriage is 0 for 30 something. Not that matters of course.


do people get to vote on your marriage?

anyway, it's an interesting question, because the more we have gay marriage, the more the Christians get used to the idea, and the old white men start to die:


Quote:
Will Iowans Uphold Gay Marriage?
by Nate Silver @ 7:18 PM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is protected under that state's constitution.

As in California, there will of course be an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. In Iowa, however, the hurdle to amending the constitution is fairly high: it will have to be approved by two consecutive sessions of the state legislature and then by a majority of the voters. Most likely, this means that Iowans won't vote on the issue until 2012.

This is good news for defenders of marriage equity, because while you might know it from Proposition 8's victory last year, voter initiatives to ban gay marriage are becoming harder and harder to pass every year.

I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii, which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state's constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive.

It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.

Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.

So what does this mean for Iowa? The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote. By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail.

Below are the dates when the model predicts that each of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban. Asterisks indicate states which had previously passed amendments to ban gay marriage.

2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*

2010
California*
Hawaii
Montana*
New Jersey
Colorado*

2011
Wyoming
Delaware
Idaho*
Arizona*

2012
Wisconsin*
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Illinois

2013
Michigan*
Minnesota
Iowa
Ohio*
Utah*
Florida*

2014
New Mexico
North Dakota*
Nebraska*
South Dakota*

2015
Indiana
Virginia*
West Virginia
Kansas*

2016
Missouri*

2018
Texas*

2019
North Carolina
Louisiana*
Georgia*

2020
Kentucky*

2021
South Carolina*
Oklahoma*

2022
Tennessee*
Arkansas*

2023
Alabama*

2024
Mississippi*

The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they'd previously passed.

By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.

It is entirely possible, of course, that past trends will not be predictive of future results. There could be a backlash against gay marriage, somewhat as there was a backlash against drug legalization in the 1980s. Alternatively, there could be a paradigmatic shift in favor of permitting gay marriage, which might make these projections too conservative.

Overall, however, marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-04-2009, 10:45 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Only if you look at court rulings.
Of course this shouldn't matter at all.

Not like you live in a common law system or anything like that.

Whenever you hear people screaming about judicial activism, you can bet that it's the result they have an issue with. But that's okay, they did this in the 60s too when the women and the blacks came for their slice of the pie. We see now how relevant and loving that attitude was.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-04-2009, 11:00 AM   #33
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Someday, Irvine, the Constitution will apply to you as well as me.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-04-2009, 02:54 PM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
The good thing about having a constitution is that the wolves don't always get to decide whether they want to eat the sheep or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
The good thing about having a constitution is that the wolves don't always get to decide whether they want to eat the sheep or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
The good thing about having a constitution is that the wolves don't always get to decide whether they want to eat the sheep or not.
...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-04-2009, 05:45 PM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 06:06 PM
This is great news. Like many other people, I would imagine, when I heard, my exact words were "that's awesome! Wait...did you say Iowa?"
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 04-04-2009, 07:49 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,700
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Iowa was one of the first to lift the ban on interracial marriage as well...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-04-2009, 08:16 PM   #37
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:06 PM
And they apparently integrated their schools 100 years before the judicial activism of Brown V. Board.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-05-2009, 01:53 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:06 PM
This is a joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy on today’s Supreme Court decision:

Quote:
“Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

“The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

“When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

“Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

“Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

“Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.”
I also read an interesting comment on California versus the Midwest...heh.

Quote:
On another note, I have to note how many comments I’ve seen all over every news outlet and blog that has covered this story wherein Californians (and presumably east-coasters) react dismissively with a lot of cyncicism, or else condescendingly are amazed that a “midwestern” or “heartland” state would grant equal rights before their home states. For those who don’t follow politics and civil rights too closely, and think of the entire middle of the country as a monolithic expanse of Walmarts, cornfields and megachurches, you need to inform yourselves. Iowa is part of a block of upper midwestern states (along Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois - sometimes but not usually Michigan) that tend to vote and legislate progressively and are often on the forefront of the expansion of liberties, as the speaker’s coments on Iowa’s history. It is these states that have given America such progressive heroes as Abraham Lincoln, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Russ Feingold, Tammy Baldwin and Barack Obama. On the other hand, California has given the country Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dornan and Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

I love California, and visit there often, but I think Californians have actually started to believe the wingnuts’ criticism of “ultra-liberal” California, when in fact, this just refers to San Francisco and Berkley. You would think that the Prop 8 vote would’ve been a wake-up call.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-05-2009, 01:55 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Contrast the above with Obama's response, unfortunately:

Quote:
“The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law.”
How underwhelming, as expected. Perhaps he should've said nothing at all.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-05-2009, 02:18 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:06 PM
2012 is just around the corner, (and 2010 midterms are in play, now.)

and he won't lose any blue states

it is the purple - leaning blue, like Virginia and a few others that must be considered,

States Rights argument sounds odd, even weak,
I remember how it was used during the Civil Rights days.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-05-2009, 02:42 PM   #41
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
On the other hand, California has given the country Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dornan and Randy “Duke” Cunningham.


Dornan was from my district. I've been apologizing for it ever since.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-06-2009, 10:59 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:06 PM
INDY, i have a serious question.

do you see the "gay rights movement" (for lack of a better term) as something that comes from the sexual revolution of the 1960s or of the civil rights movement of the 1960s?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-06-2009, 11:26 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 06:06 PM
I don't understand how anyone can see gay rights as being anything other than civil rights
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-06-2009, 01:36 PM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:06 PM
i just thought this was interesting.


YouTube - Gay Bashing at a Sports Bar: What Do You Do?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-06-2009, 02:00 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:06 PM
I watched that on T V

the public seems to be evolving, slowly.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com