Youre on.
Yep
Civil Unions count as legal recognition of a relationship status. Marriages do as well, but there is also a religious aspect to marriage. Thus, it depends who is asking your question.
I think you overestimate the power of bigotry in the American people, and undermine their willingness to go along. I’m sure a lot of people said exactly the same thing about Loving v. Virginia, or Brown v. Board of Education.
Hell, Eisenhower sent troops to parts of the country to enforce school integration, and there wasn’t any such landslide in Congress.
Meanwhile, here in San Diego, this weekend’s Pride Parade will feature U.S. servicemen and women in uniform; first time ever. Will this lead to the President’s impeachment? Or just more grumbling from the usual hate-radio hosts?
That’ll be news to my parents, who were married by a Justice of the Peace in a ceremony that did not mention God in any way, shape, or form.
Even if DOMA is repealed/struck down by the courts the federal government probally isn’t going to recognize civil unions; there’s a whole lot of federal laws & regulations mentioned the
Going state by state is going to take forever. I think Mississippi (of course) had slavery on its books well into the 1990’s but the federal amendment superseded that. To make gay marriage legal in the US will require another amendment, or maybe an amendment to an amendment, and I don’t see that happening for 40-50 years.
Given the last 30 or so years of the Reagan Revolution and the rise of religious evangelicals in politics, I think it’ll take an equal time, if not longer, for them to fade, if they fade at all. 40-50 is being generous. As things stand now, I can’t see 3/4th of the states and 2/3rds of Congress standing together for anything
Not seeing why they would do that.
How could they constrain it to CA? It’s being challenged on federal grounds, not state grounds.
I don’t think that this SCOTUS wants another Roe v. Wade mandating SSM nationwide. As older people die off, younger people will start legalizing it. I predict that maybe 30 years from now, about 36 or 37 states will have legalized it, and THEN the Court will have a Loving II case striking down the rest of the anti-SSM laws.
For a map of the states that will still ban SSM at the time, look at the pre-Loving map. I’ll bet it will be almost identical.
Going state by state to make it illegal only took about 10 years to get all the laws passed. If public sentiment changes (and it appears to be doing so rapidly), there’s no reason the state laws couldn’t be repealed as quickly.
Keeping nullified laws on the books isn’t really comparable to this. The only reason for Mississippi to take slavery laws off its books is for PR. Regardless of the state law, there’s no slavery. Getting rid of a law that has an active effect on a bunch of people is very different.
I believe that if current trends continue, the population even in conservative states will be majority pro-SSM in less than 20 years. I’d be surprised if we made it 40 years with any states still outlawing it. My best guess is that it will be legal in every US state in 20 years or less.
The same way the Circuit Court did. They ruled that it was unconstitutional (paraphrasing) because it took away rights that had been granted. That doesn’t apply to most other states, since most of them managed to enact laws against SSM before any state body actually granted such rights.
Ooh, I know this one. The argument is that SSM was legal in California and Prop. 8 took it away, so the decision to strike down Prop. 8 wouldn’t apply to places where SSM was never legal.
And they’ll also start legalizing gay marriage 
Way too optimistic. Not only will some states not legalize it; quite a few states have changed their constitutions to expressly forbid it. Five years is nowhere near enough time for popular opinion to change quickly enough to amend all those constitutions in the next five years.
I guess it’s conceivable that SCOTUS could legalize it everywhere in the US in one broad sweep, but that seems very unlikely in the near future. I think gay marriage will be a patchwork thing on the state level for the next two decades.
Here are the latest data on acceptance / approval:
FWIW, California was the first to legalize inter-racial marriage in 1948 and it was declared legal in all states in 1967, 19 years later. If we apply the same timeline to gay marriage, Vermont was the first in 1999 which means we should expect to see complete legalization in 2018 or roughly in line with the 5 year predication.
Of course, inter-racial and gay marriage are not the same thing but the estimate is not out of line.
It will be interesting if such a case is ever revisited.
As we know, Baker v. Nelson is a strong precedent against it, but we also know stare decisis is not law, just pattern. Also a little known case I have in my notes creates another blow for SSM?
Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934)
Loughran v. Loughran
No. 565
Argued March 7, 1934
Decided April 30, 1934
292 U.S. 216
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
- Marriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute, will, if valid by the law of the State where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction. P. 292 U. S. 223.
This was a FFC case, but as we know, many states have outlawed SSM.
Q for you, since you are in law school. Ever come across language that an AMENDMENT is also a STATUTE, for public policy purposes. I have seen it somewhere?
No more than 4.
I don’t know the history on anti-miscegenation laws, but this map seems to disagree with a lot of your assertions. That map seems to indicate that there were 9 states that never had anti-miscegenation laws at all, and a handful of others that had theirs overturned in the 1800’s.
Not correct. Pennsylvania was the first-- in 1780. However, there were a number of states that never had anti-miscegenation laws. And many northern states repealed theirs in the 19th century.
Missouri is the only state on that map in bright yellow, that existed in 1860, which was NOT part of the CSA. The rest of the yellow state were part of the CSA, NO non-yellow state was part of the CSA. That map is unsurprising.
I disagree that interracial marriage progress is really very useful as a predictor. I agree with an earlier estimate of 25 years or so. I think it’ll take 20 years just to get a SCOTUS even willing to consider ruling on gay marriage like the SCOTUS did on Loving, and another 5 years before you actually have such a ruling. In that time I suspect around 30 states will have legalized it at a State level.
The only way gay marriage would be nationally legal within 5 years would be SCOTUS decision, but based on ages of current justices and past positions I just don’t think you’ll have a SCOTUS lined up to rule such a way within 5 years time.
Plus, interracial marriage really is different. Gay marriage is essentially a totally new thing, historically marriage was an important cultural / social thing that often times had to happen for various reasons. Aside from a few eccentric rich people who had the means to basically ignore societal obligations and expectations (people like perhaps Frederick the Great or such), virtually all gay people historically ended up in heterosexual marriages and had families.
Interracial marriage has a long history in America with some of the earliest American colonists taking native wives. It was a lot more common in the Spanish colonies than the English/British colonies, but we still had a decent amount of it happening here. That is really only to be expected when you have ships coming over with far more males than females, those guys have to find someone to marry–because again, historically the option of not marrying wasn’t something often exercised.
Outside of White-Native American partnerships, White-Black marriages were also common enough that no one would act like they had never thought of the idea all the way back to the 18th century in America. Sure, it was socially scandalous but especially in frontier settlements people could often marry whoever they wanted and keep the fuck to themselves enough that it wasn’t a huge problem.
In some ways anti-miscegenation laws were a reactionary sort of thing intended to halt a practice in its tracks, because under most State laws prior to passing miscegenation laws marriage law didn’t really get written to be racially specific, the original lawmakers most of the times just didn’t consider that aspect of it. Anti-miscegenation laws started popping up as the matter began to be viewed as a “problem.” It’s at least somewhat suspected part of the reason for Virginia’s early anti-miscegenation laws was the wealthy class’s response to Bacon’s Rebellion, as many of the rebels were indentured servants or former indentured servants and many of them were practicing interracial marriage between white and black.
It’s also worth noting even some Southern states later exempted White-Native marriage from anti-miscegenation laws, so there wasn’t truly a philosophical opposition to any mixing of the races, but most specifically between whites and blacks.
Is that the question being put before the SCOTUS?