Incorrect. Only 3 states have bans older than 10 years, and those are in 1998 and 2000. The rest are 10 years or less. Some in '06, some in '08, even one as recently as 2012. A decade (or less) is not ancient history.
Slight hijack, I wonder if the Log Cabin Republicans have experienced an erosion of membership as the gay marriage issue has become more prominent in the approx 10 yrs?
Ten were passed in 2004 (10 years ago), plus the 3 you mention. The majority of the rest were 2005 or 2006. So it is ancient history when you are considering social changes in this day and age. There has been about a 30-40 point net change. You can’t take laws passed in 2004 regarding gay marriage and try to apply them to 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/03/gay-marriage-trend2.jpg
Nonsense. 10 years isn’t even half a generation.
Plus, almost half were passed less than 10 years ago. You consider 2008 and 2012 ancient history?
I’m not sure how we got on this subject, but there has been a large public opinion change in the last 10 years. And the fact that one state (NC) passed a ban in 2012 doesn’t affect the fact that the vast majority of the bans were in 2004-2006.
There were not many passed after 2006. There were 2 in 2008, one in 2012. But the vast majority were 2004-2006 which again is a different time culturally. It doesn’t mean it was 100% against back then, now 100% in favor. but a 10 point net change can mean the difference between a law passing and not passing.
I concede there may be some cultral change. But not even close to the extent you insist it is. Court decisions reversing these bans and polls are not the sme as what happens at the ballot box. I theorize that if the same referendums were held today, with the same people voting, almost every state would pass the bans again.
The large majority of those bans passed overwelmingly with 60%+, many 70%+, some even in the upper 80’s. A move of 10-20% would not have changed the outcome. And with numbers like that it’s a sure thing that democratic voters also voted for them.
If you look at statewide elections, starting around 2007 the tide shifted and almost all efforts after then have failed.
People either can’t get the initiatives on the ballot anymore, or they get voted down.
Gay marriage went from something that was consistently easy to ban up until about 2006, after 2007 the opposite started happening.
2012 was the first year (I think) that voters started en masse supporting SSM or opposing constitutional amendments. I think at least 4 efforts passed on the state level (NC did ban it though). But a 4-1 ratio in 2012 shows that the tides are changing.
However those 4 states are all fairly blue. Maine, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota.
Almost all that failed were blocked by the legislatures which is not the same as it losing at the ballot box.
Colorado passed a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2006, but in early 2013 easily passed a civil union measure in the legislature with some Republican support. There has been no attempts to repeal that law and if the 2006 amendment vote were to taken today, it would have no chance of passing.
I thought this was an interesting news item today:
Nevada GOP Drops Opposition to Gay Marriage, Abortion
Yeah, I boggled a bit, too.
Maybe they’re finally starting to figure out that losing issues are losing issues no matter how you message them.
ON gay marriage, I agree. On abortion, it makes little sense. A country that is 50-50 on abortion should have a party in a two party system that is anti-abortion. If there’s no party filling that demand, then a third party will, which will end up hurting the more conservative party even more.
I guess Nevada might have different views on abortion, given how laissez-faire the place is in general. If there’s any state where libertarians could take over the GOP, it’s that one.
The only outlier there is the gubernatorial election. The electoral college votes go to the candidate who gets an absolute majority. Democratic candidates for the state legislature probably received more votes in absolute terms than Republicans but didn’t get an majority of seats because of the way districts are drawn. The same is true on a national level: Democrats received more than 50% of the national congressional vote, but hold less than 47% of the seats in the House.
BobLibDem predicts a defeat for Walker this November.
I predict a victory.
I have a funny feeling that the new thread I start in November to remind readership of this set of predictions will be called “unseemly,” because I’m gloating. Right? The general reaction of the membership will be embarrassed throat-clearing and a desire to quickly change the subject.
Care to float a little money on the outcome, BoblibDem?
If you post it in GD, yeah. Nothing wrong with gloating in the Pit where it belongs though.
What little gambling I do is with either the state lottery or one of our casinos. So while I will happily bet one “I Told You So”, I won’t bet actual money.
With regard to gay marriage referenda, I think the tide has turned so rapidly on this issue that Republicans can no longer count on a gay marriage ballot proposal to help them. What helped so much in the middle of the previous decade will not fly today, in my estimation. So a gay marriage ban voted on in say 2010 may well be ancient history, given the rapid shift of public opinion.
But it’s a significant outlier. Walker, a very conservative Republican, was elected just 2 short years after Wisconsin went for Obama, and then he survived a recall election (receiving more votes than he did in 2010) in the same year Wisconsin went for Obama again.
Also, the U.S. Senate race in 2010 is also an outlier. While it hasn’t gone for a Republican POTUS in 30 years, in every other manner Wisconsin is a swing state and hard to figure out sometimes.
I predict victory also. Not because I want Walker to win, but because there is every indication that he will. I’m stunned at the ridiculously weak candidate the Democrats are throwing at him.
Don’t be too sure. Unions hate his guts. He’s misreading the results of the recall election and right now he’s like the hare in the famous race against the tortoise.
A majority of the two party vote. They actually only won 48% of the overall vote.
Plus it’s a useless talking point. Majorities don’t change hands based on a 1 percentage point win. In 2006, the Democrats needed an 8 point margin to take the House. In 2010, the GOP won by 6.8 points. In 1994, the GOP won by 7.1 points.
Nate Silver could better explain why large margins are necessary, but the House does not change hands on slim wins, especially when the Democrats failed to get a majority of the overall vote.
What Steny Hoyer should be asking is why Democratic House candidates underperformed Senate candidates and Obama so badly.