BREAKING: Maine legalizes same-sex marriage

[Faeelin]

Adding in DC and NY is very tenuous, I must say; if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.

Come back in a year. I think both states will have passed their own marriage laws, although the NY dems may implode first.

[DontSayBanana]

...if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.

Huhwhat? They recognize the marriages, they just don't issue them. Counting them would be tricky because not every couple that would be eligible to travel to have the marriage issued will necessarily do it, but there are definitely those that will. Not counting them would be more spin than counting them.

[Capetan Mihali]

Toss in Oregon, the population of Washignton DC, and New York State, which recognizes out of state marriages.

Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey =  8,682,661
Oregon = 3,790,060
Washington DC = 591,833
New York = 19,490,297
Total = 84,990,973

USA = 304,059,724

Up to 28% now.  Only 16,362,268 more people needed to hit 1/3.

Then eat shit and die. 

No thanks.  And dude, I just took your states and did math.  Adding in DC and NY is very tenuous, I must say; if you can't get married in the state, I don't think it should count.

+ 3.5 million for Connecticut. 

[Jacob]

Eh. It's a nice idea, and should happen. But the current White House is reluctant to touch anything dealing with gay rights.

My understanding is that Obama isn't up to expending political capital on making it happen, but if House and Senate Democrats put something together would the White House oppose it?  I doubt it.

[ulmont]

Huhwhat? They recognize the marriages, they just don't issue them.

Just not issuing the marriages is a big deal.  If a state won't issue a marriage license (or a civil union license, or whatnot) to a same-sex couple, it doesn't have same-sex marriage (or civil unions).

I mean, applying it to the oft-analogized miscegenation laws, you wouldn't have said in the 1960s that a state that recognized a white-black marriage from out of state, but wouldn't issue a marriage license to a white-black couple, really allowed interracial marriages?

[ulmont]

+ 3.5 million for Connecticut. 

Doesn't count until Faelin puts it on his list.   

[ulmont]

Come back in a year. I think both states will have passed their own marriage laws, although the NY dems may implode first.

Very probably.

[DontSayBanana]

Just not issuing the marriages is a big deal.  If a state won't issue a marriage license (or a civil union license, or whatnot) to a same-sex couple, it doesn't have same-sex marriage (or civil unions).

I mean, applying it to the oft-analogized miscegenation laws, you wouldn't have said in the 1960s that a state that recognized a white-black marriage from out of state, but wouldn't issue a marriage license to a white-black couple, really allowed interracial marriages?

Actually, I probably would. The marriages are almost a secondary issue, and spousal rights are the primary. If both partners are entitled to spousal rights in a state, then I would put it down as "allowed," yes.

My tests:
1) Does the state have a mechanism by which the marriage license can be obtained?
2) Does the state recognize spousal rights for partners in a same-sex marriage?

Forcing a couple to travel out of state to obtain the marriage is just further red tape if the state intends to recognize the marriage anyway, so it counts.

[katmai]

Caliga, why do you keep stealing Martinus thunder/wind?

Because he's gonna ditch Prin and finally come out duh

[DontSayBanana]

Because he's gonna ditch Prin and finally come out duh

Cal breaking Marti's wind? That's bizarre, even for Languish (except for Syt).

[Faeelin]

Eh. It's a nice idea, and should happen. But the current White House is reluctant to touch anything dealing with gay rights.

My understanding is that Obama isn't up to expending political capital on making it happen, but if House and Senate Democrats put something together would the White House oppose it?  I doubt it.

But why would they be bothered to do that? After all, Congress isn't going to move on something less controversial like DADT either.

[Jacob]

But why would they be bothered to do that? After all, Congress isn't going to move on something less controversial like DADT either.

I don't know, but that's what the article says they're doing.  Or at least considering.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't know, but that's what the article says they're doing.  Or at least considering.

I get the vibe that DC is not so much keeping away from it as taking time to build up a solid stance. I have a gut feeling that before this ends, the USSC is going to be forced to hear a case on this as a gender equality issue in a form where once one partner is established, the marriage can be denied for the other partner being the "wrong" gender.

[merithyn]

Maine = 1,316,456 (2008 Census estimate)
New Hampshire = 1,315,809
Iowa = 3,002,555
Massachusetts = 6,497,967
California = 36,756,666
Washington = 6,549,224
New Jersey =  8,682,661
Total = 64,121,338

USA = 304,059,724

So no.  Unless you count 1/5 as "approaching 1/3."

Fixed for accuracy.

Still at only 21% of the population of the nation, but still. Give credit where credit is due.

[Strix]

I wonder what the divorce rate is for gay marriage?