You err.
I am not calling for restraint – to the contrary, I favor same-sex marriage and I call on each and every state to enact it into law.
You imply that states like Iowa have somehow erred or subverted the role of government and also that same-sex marriage exists purely on the goodwill of the majority of straights and not because it is as legitimate a right as heterosexual marriage.
As to the final holdouts, my guesses:
Texas
Mississippi
Alabama
Utah
Not exactly, no. I say that there are a variety of reasons to prefer legislative enactment to judicial enactment of any substantive change to the law. It’s obvious that exercise of the judicial role does not ‘subvert’ government; it’s a part of government. But in our system, where sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, major changes should come from the people via their elected representatives.
And ALL rights guaranteed by law exist as a result of the goodwill of the majority. That’s exactly what government “of the people” means.
I think Texas may end up surprising us. Not soon, but sooner than the others on that list. They aren’t all deep Bible Belt, the conservatism has a Libertarian slant, there are more big cities, and they have a lot of people who move in and out.
Dangerosa- Texas wan’t on my original list. (I remembered it as I was typing)
Should act as opposed to what? Judges doing it? The voters in a direct ballot initiative?
As opposed to judges doing it. The voters in a direct ballot initiative are certainly a fine way of getting SSM, too.
I live in Massachusetts.
Quite frankly, I doubt any of these legislative same-sex marriage wins would have happened if the SJC hadn’t ruled in favor in same-sex marriage in Massachusetts first. These things don’t happen completely independently.
Do you guys have to do this in this thread?
And dare I detect a thinly disguised homage to Scalia?
I don’t think it will be “a” state. There’s going to be a point where there’s enough support in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing same-sex marriage as a right, and 38 state legislatures to ratify it.
I was a little surprised when Mexico allowed them - you would think that a strongly Catholic country like that would be against it. Then again, Pope Francis doesn’t exactly consider same-sex marriage an excommunicable offense the way abortion is.
I’ll go with “all at once, when SCOTUS rules on a full-faith-and-credit case”. We’d be there already if Kennedy hadn’t shied away from declaring gays a suspect class.
They didn’t do that for interracial marriage. Why would they for SSM?
Why is it “fine” if voters do it directly vs. judges? I’m assuming you don’t mean its fine legally since both are legal. Please define “fine”. Do you mean preferable? If so, then preferable to whom? Or do you mean something else?
Can a discussion about the preferability of one form of change versus another go in a different thread?
And ironically Hawai’i was the first state to pass one of those constitutional amendments, except instead of directly banning SSM like in other states it gave the legislature the power to ban SSM. Which is why HI doesn’t have to amend it’s constitution again.
Depends on if Texas is still a State by the time the other 49 have SSM 
You know what. Two hundred years ago slavery sucked. But you know what would’ve sucked worse? Having some judge telling people in that state that slavery was illegal. That really would’ve sucked.
Well, except for the slaves of course.