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.
4.03.2009
Will Iowans Uphold Gay Marriage?
@ 7:18 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
305 comments
I can't possibly imagine that Utah wouldn't be the one of the last, if not THE last, state to finally allow gay marriage. They may not have a high level of "evangelicals," assuming Mormons aren't counted in this lot, but that particular Christian sect is extremely gung-ho about denying gays the right to marry.
This is why, 2 and a half months after the election, 538 is still the first site I look at every day.
Gay marriage everywhere (except Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana, in other words the progressive states) is just a matter of time.
"Overall, however, marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true."
Thank god!
Did you consider taking into account what effect gay marriage actually BEING LEGAL has on the people of that state? Has acceptance of SSM grown more rapidly since it was legalized in 2004 than it would have otherwise? If so that could have a significant impact on the Iowa vote in 2012 because it would have been legal for years by then (not a brief five month window as in Cali).
Whoops meant to say:
Has acceptance of SSM grown more rapidly **in MA** since it was legalized in 2004 than it would have otherwise?
Well, once again Alabama is saved from the ignominy of "most backwards state" by the folks in Mississippi...
Also: "...while you might know it from Proposition 8's victory last year..."
Shouldn't that be "while you might not know it"?
IDK. I think the whole broke back mountain thing is gaining traction which would move OK up a few spots.
The probability of a referendum on SSM in 2012 might not be that high.
Per MSNBC:
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30027685 (near the end of the article).
Question? If the legislature doesn't act this year and next (as the above quotes indicate), but first acts in 2011 and passes legislation, then passes it again in the 2012 session, would it go to the voters in November 2012, or is there a 'time-out' period (similar to Massachusetts, where a specified period of time passes prior to it going to the voters) that must elapse before the question can be placed before the voters? If there is, and it is of sufficient length, even if the legislature crumbles to fundie and neo-CON pressure, the voters might not see the referendum until 2014, which by Nate's calculation would indicate that the referendum would be defeated.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Nate,
I'm not entirely sure from the way you describe it, but do your state projections account for projected demographic shifts in the states in question?
If not, the clock could conceivably accelerate quite a bit, at least in some states. For example, the proportion of white evangelicals will drop quite a bit here in Texas if you account for growth in Latino population. (This, obviously, comes into play in a LOT of states.)
Along the same lines, I recall reading that the religiosity of the population has slowly but steadily declined over time -- not sure how closely that would correlate with the "religion is important part of daily lives" variable, but it certainly could have an effect.
Finally, though your current model wouldn't have enough examples to test it, you would almost certainly have to account for a "contagion effect." Models for the spread of everything from democracy to local health policies has been shown to be heavily influenced by the number of other such cases in the system (and/or the physical closeness of those cases).
Altogether, I'd say the model could see at least a few years trimmed off the back end.
I love it. Great post.
The model very clearly needs to factor in the number of mormons in a state. Otherwise the Utah number is going to be waaaaaaaaay off
Nate, does your model count Mormons as "evangelicals," or otherwise adjust for them?
"Gay marriage everywhere (except Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana, in other words the progressive states) is just a matter of time."
If you think Kansas comes before Louisiana, you're a fool. And BTW, not all southern states are the same. Especially the ones who host the Mardi Gras and don't actually have that many evangelicals at all.
The state to watch is Colorado. Focus on the Family and the Air Force Academy are both located there, so it will be interesting to see how they react to efforts by CO equality organizers.
Nate, thanks for another great post! Let's hope what you project turns out to be true!
But I can't help but think of what happens those who get married. If Iowa decides to go the Gay Marriage Ban route, which I hope they are more sensible, it wouldn't happen until 2012 and possibly later. What are our courts going to do with scores of married people being basically divorced. I can't help but wonder if as time goes on another factor is that the chances are that someone will know someone in a gay marriage and realize that simply being exisiting they are not destroying the fabric of the universe.
BTW, I couldn't help but notice that DC wasn't in your list. What's up with that? Is it because Congressmen from other parts of the country think that makes them entitled to tell the District how to live.
Nate,
Can you post regression detail and fit information?
I'd love to see a covariance matrix
Did you have a way of accounting for the change that having equal rights (or closer to equal rights) in a state for same sex couples affects attitudes?
I would be surprised if Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut didn't see their level of support for same sex marriage accelerate after the shock of Civil Unions/Gay Marriage being approved in those states wore off.
Great post, great way to look at the issue.
I do agree with the comments that the Mormon vote should be weighted closer to the evangelical vote, therefore Utah, Idaho and Wyoming projection years should be delayed substantially.
I live in Idaho and I can't ever see the eastern half of the state ever buying into a libertarian view on gay marriage. They certainly didn't on the constitutional amendment in 2006.
OT:
Murphy picked up another 198 more votes.
I mention Nate's analysis in my (newest) post on this matter: http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-marriagetoday-is-progress.html
I'm cconfident it will stand. Both houses have strong democrat majoritys. Republicans would have to take both houses to pass the amendment twice, and that wont happen for at least 2 years. And i doubt iowans will switch the power over to them over this one issue, even if they are upset.
It might effect the governers race though.
What happened to New York?
Nate-
Methods question: Seems to me that "importance of religion in daily life" and "% of white evangelicals" have potential for multicollinearity. I trust that you wouldn't have included both in the final model if they actually were, given that you excluded other variables ostensibly due to multicollinearity. so were variables (2) and (3) collinear or not? if not, i wonder why...seeing as how they seem to be tapping the same "religiosity" construct.
what a joke?
you put in white evangelicals but forget to mention minorities that was responsible for prop 8 passing in CA
if there is a factor for white evangelical why not for black churches or catholic churches
minorities weren't responsible for Prop 8- elderly were. California has a large percentage of elderly voters, and they pushed it over the edge. Similarly this is why the Florida ban passed with a supermajority. The older generation still remembers when it was /illegal/ to be homosexual, let alone to allow gay marriage, and thus tend to be overwhelmingly conservative culturally ont he issue. The "Blacks overwhelmingly voted" result touted by the media was based on incorrect exit poll methodology- blacks actually voted at about the same rate as any other group in the state- about 56% against if I remember correctly.
max-
Nate said that he tested for race and it didn't show a strong enough relationship to be predictive of past data. Now the minotiry vote for prop 8 could be accounted for by question 2 in Cali but not in another state where minorities might be significantly less religious. Question 3 means that above and beyond any other religious participation someone might have (regularly practicing Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan) being white and evangelical predicts opposition to gay marriage. Thus racial minorities of faith are as likely to oppose same sex marriage as members of religion that aren't the Christian Taliban but being a minority in and of itself doesn't matter.
Nate: I am working on an article analyzing the gay marriage debate for my next book, and I would very much like to cite your post here. It is quite good, and you acknowledge (appropriately) how difficult it is to predict trends. Here is my request: There are enough of us out here who understand regression analysis that we would like to see the numbers (significance levels, R-squared, etc.). Can you provide such info to us in a footnote or extra link?
I think what will put the final nail in the refusal to accept gay marriage will be the courts, not the ballot box.
All the breakthroughs that have come in the US have been through the courts. It is a basic violation of equal treatment under law to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, just as separate-but-equal was for blacks. If left up to the voters, blacks would still have no rights--same will be true of SSM. The wheels of justice grind very slowly, particularly because justice isn't always the aim of our system.
Awesome work, Nate. Could you please do the same thing for drug/marijuana legalization?
I feel compelled to salute Nate the New Yorker tonight with a heartfelt GO GREEN, GO WHITE!
I think I'm going to go ahead and bet you that these results would vary based on whether or not an entire election cycle was spent on the issue. Gay marriage wasn't really on anybody's radar until '04, and I'm sure that if the same hatred was fomented in '12 we'd see 2011's big winner (Idaho) fall out of line with this model.
wv: querr. Seriously?
Here's my lock of the week: Wingnuts, FReeptards and Christian fundies will become nuttier by the end of it.
It will be interesting to think about this over the weekend. My curious mind wonders how the mentioned demographics participate and ultimately influence the issue. I'm looking forward at doing a little reverse engineering here. Thank you for sharing once again your numbers with us Nate.
I'm against it, but I agree that it's pretty much inevitable.
And surprisingly I'm not evangelical, not Christian, and not religious. Work that through your brain. I dare you.
Sorry if this has already been brought up — I'm too tired to read through the comments — but is a gay marriage ban more likely to gain a higher percentage of the vote if a state has already legalized same-sex marriage (as was the case in California as opposed to, say, Alabama)? Some same-sex marriage opponents might think that a constitutional ban is inappropriate, but faced with the reality of same-sex couples being allowed to marry, they might tend to vote against it.
Haven't done the math, just my gut talking here.
As an Iowa attorney, I'd just like to clarify that a constituional amendment requires passage by noth houses of the legislature in consecutive general assemblies, which last two years each. The constitution requires an intervening general election between the two votes. So, if Democrats can stall the measure this year (easily done) and next year (not so easy, but possible), then the 2011-12 and 2013-14 general assemblies would need to pass any amendment.
The wild card is that the constitution also requires that every 10 years (2010 is next up) the question of calling a constitutional convention be placed on the ballot. That option might offer a quicker approach to getting an amendment on the ballot.
Juvanya-
So why, exactly, are you against it then? (Not trying to be snarky; I'm actually curious.)
Hey Nate,
What is your confidence on your "year gay marriage ban fails" calculation?
Specifically, can you give a 95% confidence interval on NJ and MD?
Patrick Benitez, Princeton, NJ
@bio
No problem. I sort of slightly follow a nameless, unestablished religion I invented that is based on how nature works. Essentially, in this case homosexuality is a mutation and ideally would wipe itself out (somehow it hasn't). My belief is that gay marriage prevents it from happening.
Now you may note that I just said my religion. The thing is, I don't really follow my own philosophy, with a few exceptions (I refrain from medication unless in dire need). It's all theoretical. If a gay marriage ban were on my desk as governor, I would sign it (or let it pass on its own). If it came up for vote, I would vote for it.
However, I would not campaign for it. I don't really care THAT much if it were legalized. I certainly know gay people. I certainly am friendly with them. I am revolted by men kissing, but...I am revolted by anyone kissing in public tbh.
When it comes down to it, my solution is that the government (if it really has to provide a legal union between two persons) should just provide civil unions for all and you can call it what you want. And as long as gays don't flaunt themselves I don't really care. (I don't really want heteros flaunting themselves either).
That may not make no sense, but I have my cruel theories and philosophies that I generally do not apply in the real world.
But I'm still opposed to gay marriage. ;)
Let me reference the premise of 538 by saying that I'm just a statistic. The one in a million who has a seemingly bizarre, irreconcilable viewpoint.
Grange95...
THanks for the straight skinny on Iowa's constitutional process.
NY-20... You know, I'm having trouble finding those 198 Murphy votes supposedly found today as a result of machine or tabulation error. I read it here--but none of the other news outlets are reporting it.
And surprisingly I'm not evangelical, not Christian, and not religious.
I'm not surprised.I've met plenty of homophobes who are not evangelical,Christian or religious.
@ Pragmatus
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/murphy-picks-up-198-votes-as-county-fixes-errors.php#more
Constitutions are designed to PROTECT our rights. Once we start using them to limit other people's rights (using them to stop gays marrying) it is a very slippery slope.
Now, lets here it for IOWA! Iowa put Barrack Obama on track to win in the first primary, Iowa now puts gay marriage on track to win. Iowa - there is truly something to be said for those old tough white farmers isn't there?
Is there anyone here who thinks that 4 unelected judges imposing an agenda on an entire state is pretty fucked up? And the citizens of Iowa, majority of whom support traditional marriage, cannot act for years? How messed up is that? Repubs better to be ready to use this as an issue...otherwise this could be the domino to bring down the others. Nobody can disregard this as just a liberal blue state thing like MA, CT and CA.
Four unelected judges are not imposing an agenda, they are reading the constitution of the state and imposing it's plain language. Equal protection means equal protection for everyone. Remember, judges are the ones who acted during the civil rights movement.
juvanya: So you're just a bigot without the religious dogma to justify your backward thinking?
John: One reason courts exist is to protect the minority from the tryany of the majority. That's basic Civics 101, but I guess I can't expect Republithugs to wrap their shriveled, hate-addled brains around the idea of constitutional rights and protections for minorities.
When it comes to “majority rule” we have to remember what we learned from Nazi Germany: "Heute ich. . . morgen du" (Today me. . . tomorrow you).
Is there anyone here who thinks that 4 unelected judges imposing an agenda on an entire state is pretty fucked up?
What agenda is being imposed on people? No one is being forced to do anything.
Traditional marriage is still supported.A man and a woman can still marry each other.No change there.
No one is being deprived of anything.But now,people who were deprived or no longer so.Similar to women's suffrage!
Opus-I don't like the word homophobe. I'm not scared of gay people. I merely think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Joe-I explained that although I think this way, I will accept whatever happens and I still function perfectly well around gays. Semi-bigot or theoretical bigot might work.
Although we tend to switch who we support for pres back and forth, I'd call Iowa a solid moderate blue. 5 out of 7 congressman are Dem's (one house repub in the district that borders the dakota's, and one senator who only wins because he's a decades old fav.) Our governor has been a dem for a close to two decades and both houses have solid dem majorities.
I really don't see this costing the Democrats too many seats in the next election. Some maybe, but the party is doing a lot of popular things right now. We will soon be energy independent on renewables, and are working on a state health plan right now. Our education system is also one of the best in the nation. A large number of people are gonna be upset, but in the end since this wasn't a product of legislation i doubt it will cost them much.
One interesting point - if there is a gay marriage constitutional ban passed, that does not mean the judges STILL will find the equal protection clause of the state constitution over-rides it. If you have two opposing statements in the same legal document, there is no guarantee one will out over the other.
Equal protection under the law means equal protection under the law. You can't have one law applied to one group one way and another a different way - it is fundamental to the functioning of the republic.
juvanya: I must give you credit for admitting your "semi"-bigoted status. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward a cure. I imagine that if this was 1968 you'd be saying "Some of my best friends are Negros, but I don't think they should marry white folks."
Iowans are thinking and practical people, if explained as a constitutional issue most Iowans will actually think it through and make the right decision. They will also take the time to understand the reason for the law. Go Iowa!
Remember when in the election people were saying, Hillary's people, that there was no way Obama could win in Iowa because he was black? This is the same thing - you need to be from there to understand how they will react. They are not uneducated knee-jerk southerners like Boehner.
juvanya said...
Let me reference the premise of 538 by saying that I'm just a statistic. The one in a million who has a seemingly bizarre, irreconcilable viewpoint.
People using extremely poorly thought out, psuedo-scientific, paper-thin rationalizations to dress up their bigotry is sadly far less rare than you think it is. :(
Dwight,
Why not just come out and say it to the nut-case who calls her/him/itself 'juvanya'?
"A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Since you admit you are a bigot, you are a bigot."
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Is Sarah Palin's sister-in-law robbing her? The only home near the Wasilla Sports Complex is Palin's (because it was illegally built with the public funds that built the complex) - and some house near the complex is being robbed by someone's sister?
Hmmmmmm
http://wonkette.com/407534/new-to-us-palin-relative-diana-arrested-for-constantly-trying-to-rob-some-guy
I'm not sure who the "four unelected judges" are supposed to be. The Iowa Supreme Court has seven justices, not four, and while they are initially appointed by elected officials, they are kept on the bench by retention elections.
And the agenda of equal protection is not something that the judges invented. It is part of the constitution of the state. Thre is nothing problematic with judges applying the constitution; indeed, their doing so is the heart of a constitutional system.
7 justices...and the vote was unanimous...
This is some really, really good work. I'd like to know, re the other factors rendered insignificant by considering religiousity - race, education... - are they insignificant jointly, or only individually?
@Jack, I don't think there is enough data to provide a statistically significant sample as to whether a state legislature having prior voted to legalize same-sex marriage affects voters inclinations. However it would be an interesting variable. Aside from California, I don't think many state legislature chambers have voluntarily voted to legalize SSM. (MA & CT were in response to court orders, right?) Though I suppose VT and NH are now adding to CA.
@John Not only was the Iowa decision decided by 7 Justices -rather than 4- in a unanimous decision, 2 of the 7 Justices were appointed by Republican Governors. (Assuming Wiki is correct Iowa had Republican Governors from 1969 to 1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Iowa)
@Games, I agree that the issue of population shifts is an important factor. I wonder if Nate considered this element.
Does anyone know which states are currently considering amendments? If I'm not mistaken resolutions have been introduced in NC, MN, & WV.
Great statistical analysis Nate. It would be interesting to see similar posts in the future on other common ballot initiatives.
Joe Benevides - you demonstrate the obvious truth nowadays one can see on dailykos or the other liberal freak sites that the true closed-minded are the left. Look, it's obvious all you liberal assholes got weggies and swirlies in school, and you never got laid, etc., but seriously - your weird passive aggression is scary. Someone is like Hitler because they don't support gay marriage? We have other assholes on here who want conservatives beheaded. Liberals are the true fascists, and nothing demonstrates that better than when SEVEN, ok, SEVEN unelected judges institute a brand-new definition of marriage after thousands of years or the one that worked. There is a slippery slope here - first gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows. "Oh, polygamy, great! Multiple wives for me." Well, not really. Multiple wives for the rich and powerful. Probably NO wife for you. Enjoy.
Whether the judges were appointed by Republicans is irrelevant. See Justices Stevens and Souter. I was always one of the people who was against a const. amendment on federalism grounds, but I have to reconsider. We're not dealing with liberal outposts in New England anymore. If Iowa can fall, anywhere can fall. Including my state of Pennsylvania.
John-
They are elected through retention elections...the judges will face the electorate, and I bet it is no big deal for them.
As for your delusions and paranoia, it is the right that is calling Obama a fascist and completely losing their minds.
Constitutions protect the individual from the government, they should never be used to take away natural rights from individuals.
John, just out of curiosity, why do you care if gays can marry? How will effect you?
Couple thoughts:
1) I tend to agree with the couple of other posters who suggest that status quo bias, especially after four years, would have a significant effect on voting. Especially if people have had time to get comfortable with the status quo, it seems to me unlikely that they would embrace change.
2) I'm pro-gay marriage, and darn proud of my home state, but I'm very wary of trying to make sweeping changes via the courts. The courts are generally a bad way to go about enacting a social agenda. Look at Roe v. Wade--I'd argue that the abortion debate is more vehement in this country, and abortion rights more threatened, than if Roe had never been decided, or if it had been left for the states.
Of course, I also don't think that civil marriage, with its concomitant benefits, is a _right_ for anyone, straight or gay. So that may color my view here.
@ John:
Polygamy is one of the _most_ traditional forms of marriage! See Solomon, David, Mohammed, etc. Polygamy would be a glorious return to our great traditions of old.
Or do _you_ get to decide which traditions are good and which aren't?
(My earlier post asked why the hostility--then I scrolled back and saw that you were attacked first. My apologies. It's pretty foolish, though, to paint all liberals (or conservatives) with the same brush.)
John: Attacking people as freaks and assholes for being liberals, and then calling them closed-minded seems like a self-defeating argument to me. Regardless, ad hominem attacks are pretty pointless when trying to get your point across, assuming you have one.
Matt-
Forgive John, he has the new illness "Obama derangement syndrome"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20888_Page2.html
I agree with AJKamper on this (that the courts, in general, are a bad place to make sweeping changes). The poisonous atmosphere of the abortion debate is at least partially informed by outrage at the courts interpreting the constitution rather... loosely. Whether or not you agree with abortion (I am pro-choice), Roe v. Wade is a crappy legal decision.
I also think that government shouldn't be granting marriages to ANY couples, so on this, I am with juvanya. IMO, governments should grant civil unions to homosexual and heterosexual couples, not marriages. To me, this seems a fair compromise--marriages remain religious institutions, while civil unions become the norm, and discrimination in benefits becomes much more difficult (states that have heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions may be able to justify, somehow, providing unequal benefits, which smacks of unconstitutionality to me).
As for drug legalization (someone mentioned it earlier): is there is a sufficient track record of drug legalization ballot measures to run a regression with any historical data to back it up? My intuition on that is no.
I completely disagree. The abortion debate was not a huge deal at the time the ruling came down, it became a big deal when Reagan decided to inject religion back into politics.
So, I guess the courts are supposed to decide based on polls or politicians and not on the evidence and the law? Ya, I think that is the court system in Cuba...
Brad:
If you like, I could bore the hell out of you by describing to you the difference between minimalist, majoritarian, fundamentalist and perfectionist Justices.
But the short answer is that, since the way the law is interpreted is obviously to some extent in the eye of the beholder, the safest thing to do is to make small changes. For example, the Iowa Court should have simply said that the Iowa legislature needs to figure out how to provide equal marriage benefits to both gays and straights, and let them figure it out. Not only are such arguments less likely to fire up radicals, but they're also tougher to overturn, while almost every pro-choice advocate in America lives in fear of overturning Roe.
(And Steven's right--it's a horrible decision to boot, and probably should be overturned--and I'm pro-choice!)
@AJKamper said:
"Polygamy is one of the _most_ traditional forms of marriage! See Solomon, David, Mohammed, etc. Polygamy would be a glorious return to our great traditions of old."
Anyone who is for gay marriage must also be for polygamy. Right?
AJKamper-
No need to bore, I am an attorney. You are dead wrong based on any standard. I guess since the original constitution said women could not vote, the first step should have been to give them half a vote. Since the original constitution said blacks were only 3/5 of a person in the original Constitution, Lincoln should have fought the Civil War to make them 3/4 of a person.
Get over yourself, equal protection is equal protection and it can't be parsed or ignored because your small brain can't manage how little impact this will have on the world. Did California getting smaote down by your God when they allowed it? LOL!
juvanya -
Your beliefs betray a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
A 'mutation' is not any trait that appears to be disadvantageous to reproductive fitness. And natural selection has no direction - there is no right or wrong way to evolve. It's meaningless to look at current traits which might have a genetic component and speculate as to whether they 'should' be selected out, according to our vague notions of ideal fitness.
All sorts of animals engage in homosexual activity. It's not hard to construct theories as to why this behaviour prospers: for instance, that it cements social bonds that are indirectly advantageous to fitness.
Our joint-closest relatives, bonobo chimps, have frequent homosexual couplings, including the engaging practice of two males hanging upside down from a branch and 'swordfighting' with their erect cocks. Good luck waiting for that behaviour to be cast out by prudish Natural Selection. It hasn't for the last couple of million years. Nor has it in humans, who are actually just a hairless chimp with bad posture.
From a foreigner's perspective, I have to agree with AJKamper that it's generally a bad idea to attempt to solve highly-contested and socially divisive conflicts between incommensurable values, such as occur in the abortion 'debate', entirely litigiously and in terms of fundamental rights.
In the US, you've managed to turn abortion into an immensely divisive and basically insoluble issue that actually threatens to breach the peace.
The best analysis of this I've seen is in the work of the philospher John Gray, especially Two Faces of Liberalism.
Boing-
Lets face it we share the homeobox genes that determine the basics of how we are built with fruit flies and we are damn near exact duplicates of every mammal. Lets compromise, we are talking dogs.
Boing-
Go read the history, abortion was not particularly divisive until long after Roe v Wade when Reagan injected religion back into politics. We can thank Reagan and his minions like Cheney and Rove for using religion to promote divisiveness in this country. Luckily, as Nate's analysis shows as do many other sources - America is becoming a less religious place, thank god.
The issue isn't who brought religion into the equation or when. If the law had been framed through the legislature, with all its necessary bargaining and compromise to competing interests and sensitivity to future shifts in society's centre of gravity, then you might have a situation similar to that in many European countries, where there is a general consensus even though hardly anyone's 100% happy with the exact legislation.
Instead you did it through the courts, couched it in terms of fundamental human rights, alienated half the country, and have seen what used to be a second-tier social issue explode to the extent that it has a major impact in elections.
Boing-
That is what we did for Civil Rights as well, so maybe it isn't such a bad idea. Go read how tortured that logic is - they had to use the in that battle:
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/key-civil-rights-cases.html
Abortion would be just a divisive no matter how it was modified IMO, as the repubs have chosen it as a prime wedge issue to rile up idiots like GROG and John. They then screw these idiots through the tax code, and give them nothing.
Go read this case, and then tell me how in the world we can deny gays the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
Is it fair to assume that anyone who is for gay marriage is also for polygamy?
AJ
Sunstein's categories of justices are interesting but not necessarily correct. In fact, he has a hard time placing several current and former justices.
I, for one, like justices who are bold when the times call for it. Like the Warren Court.
Sunstein is also an AR crazy, so what he says needs to be taken with rock salt.
How is this, it is from the Supreme Court in Loving in Virginia in 1967:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "
Well, John, who doesn't know how many people are on the Iowa Supreme Court, and doesn't know whether they face election, still feels right depicting the justices as "liberals" because of... what? Some deep knowledge and careful tracking of their decisions? Or does the word "liberal" mean "anyone who ever made a single decision that I didn't like"?
The justices made a ruling based on the evidence and arguments presented to them in court and on the Iowa constitution. I doubt John has the knowledge to evaluate the decision based on those aspects. But nonetheless, he assumes their political leanings based on the result...
ignoring the debate, a question about the model...
the average US life expectancy in the US is 74.37M 80.05F. Assuming close enough to a 50-50 split (2000 census was 50.9%F) That puts the US average at 77.21. You enter the electorate at 18 and leave at about 78. Therefore, your in the electorate about 60 years. so somewhere around 1.67% of the electorate rotates every year, or a little over 3% turnover every House cycle.
I wonder how much of this 2% can solely be attributed to the removal of elderly voters and the introduction of younger voters. I would take a shot that 2 of 3 new young voters are much stronger supporters of gay rights then the elderly is a reasonable (testable?) assumption.
In that case, I would be curious to see how the model changes if the average state life expectancy was introduced as a variable in adjusting that 2%
This is another quote from Lovingv Virginia, the case over-turned by the Supreme Court said this about inter-racial marriage:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
That kind of backward thinking sounds just like the anti-gay marriage of today.
and... it's been taken.
http://www.godhatesiowa.com
Mike in Maryland said...
Dwight,
Why not just come out and say it to the nut-case who calls her/him/itself 'juvanya'?
I guess I was being more subtle than I thought? :) It is just so weird, Juvanya thinking they are this unique little snowflake. When "stain" would be more appropriate. The thing about SSM is going to somehow interfere with the otherwise natural course of evolution in stopping homosexuality from disappearing. Truly bizarre and illogical on so many levels.
For a data point, the legislature of Vermont is enacting same-sex marriage. Of course, the governor is going to veto it. (And several no-voters have pledged to change their vote to override a veto because of that -- it's close enough that these folks could make a difference in overriding. So not only a majority, but nearly a 2/3rds majority.)
@CBGB
That's a great way of looking at the change, and I agree that it's probably a major driving factor.
That said, I don't think there's enough variance in state life expectancy to make that a significant explanatory factor. That, and there's inter-state migration and suchnot...
@GROG
Uh, no. I'm for gay marriage, but pretty lukewarm-to-opposed on polygamy. The former seems like a case of equalizing rights across sex/gender categories.
On the other hand, polygamy almost always seems to end up being functionally polygyny, almost never polyandry, and has a pretty "good" correlation with societies that aren't much for the whole "rights of women" thing. So I'm loathe to go there. Not that you'd see me counter-protesting if other people wanted it enough.
Great news about Iowa!
@juvanya:
How do you justify the idea that homosexuality is a "mutation"?
That is not a scientific stance, it is an emotional stance you are trying to justify with scientific jargon.
If homosexuality were a mutation, it would have a clear genetic alteration that would be easy to find. It does not. There is no scientific justification for claiming this.
But, for the purpose of argument, suppose it were a genetic mutation. White, lightly haired skin is a mutation as well. As has been documented several times with genetic testing, two blacks can have a child that appears to have Caucasian skin, due to this mutation which occurs less than once in ten million births. Should such children be legally prevented from marrying? For that matter, it is pretty clear that Caucasians in general are a mutated form of dark-skinned African ancestors, should Caucasians be prohibited from legal marriage? How about albinos, caused by another mutation? How about people with red hair; another specific mutation?
I suppose now you will resort to the argument that these mutations are "accepted" and thus gain immunity from being outlawed.
Let's see, what's the next argument? Gays cannot reproduce?
Well, Lesbians can, and have, but shall we outlaw the marriage of all sterile men? Or all sterile women? I know a woman that had her ovaries removed to treat pre-cancerous lesions, before she ever had children. Years later, she married, and her husband was fully informed of her sterility. Still, channeling you, sounds like an abomination, doesn't it? A marriage that cannot produce offspring?
Your bigotry is not based in science, it is based in emotion. As Boing pointed out, it is not based in evolutionary science, or any kind of science.
Homosexuality is almost certainly rooted in embryological development; but ultimately it doesn't make any difference how it arises: There is no demonstrable harm in it to anybody outside the homosexual relationship and how adults enjoy each other is simply not your concern.
Outlawing gay marriage is outlawing the ability of adult humans to create a legal commitment to each other. Such legal commitments are driven by their emotions. Common marriage is how people legally contract to put their lives, futures and assets in the hands of somebody they trust because of love. There is no alternative to it; and it doesn't "lead" to anything. There are a plethora of laws that concern marriage that would not apply to civil unions; the very fact that they are called different things makes them different contracts. Pragmatically, it is never going to happen that the country stops calling it marriage, so the only route to equal treatment of all people is to allow gays to marry.
What you would do is legislate the emotional lives of others, and that is equivalent to legislating religion, or worship of a leader. It is both scientifically and morally corrupt.
Do not try to dress up your irrational disgust and stupid hatred in the jargon of science and evolution; it is an insult to real scientists.
For all those who think the courts have no business making decisions as to who has what rights, I will remind you again--
There would be no civil rights for non-whites in this country if it were left to the electorate to decide.
Restrictive anti-immigration policies common in earlier eras would still be in place, if it were left to the electorate to decide.
Women would not have the right to vote, if it were left to the electorate (i.e. men) to decide.
Gay people would still be subjected to public harassment and ridicule by police if it were left up to the electorate to decide.
There's a reason we have a checks and balances system, and that is to insure that the excesses of any one branch can be curtailed by the other two. The executive and legislative will always pander to and ass-kiss those whom it perceives hold sway amongst the electorate--it is therefore essential that there be a non-elected arm of the government that (usually) holds principles of law above those of political expediency.
And I agree that it was Reagan who soiled the political waters with religiosity, a deep sin we're still all paying for.
wv grinsh: A drunken grinch.
One last thought--I predict, as I have since 1980 when he was elected, that Ronald Reagan will be remembered eventually as the worst president of the 20th Century.
wv ovellobs: Tennis using embryos.
Lots of good comments here. Many have written the things I intended to write, so I thank you for saving me the trouble! :)
Checks and Balances......this is why it is the duty and obligation of the courts (state and federal) to overturn laws passed by legislatures and the people directly when they are illegal. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all those bans on interracial marriage in the Loving case. It did not matter that these were passed by the people and their state legislatures. Those laws were illegal and HAD to be overturned.
The "marriage is for reproduction and raising children" is another flawed argument. In addition to the fine examples made by Tony C., how about the marriage between two elderly people? My dad is 78 and his ladyfriend is about the same age. Should they be prevented from marrying because raising children would have no part of their marriage? My ladyfriend is sterile and I don't want children anyway. Should we be prevented from marrying?
I am an atheist, so any time someone says a law should be passed (or not be passed) because it "goes against god" or "the bible says so" I seethe in anger. How dare someone try to impose their religious values on others using the power and force of the government.
The "slippery slope" argument is another bogus one. Nobody is born with a genetic trait to be sexually attracted to and marry multiple people, or marry animals. But some people are genetically born to be attracted to the same sex, and therefore want to marry someone of the same sex.
As more states allow SSM, the likelihood of a successful challenge to the illegal federal DOMA law will rise, taking that bad law down.
(P.S. I am not the same poster as the "Dave" who has posted many times. I am the Dave who has posted only one time due to various problems being able to post.)
BREAKING TROLL ALERT!!!
Sarah Palin's Candidacy Advances as Obama Stumbles Big Time at his Post-NATO Presser
-"--You won't want to miss his!!"
Pete Kent
Pete has been reading the insane Gateway Pundit again. Here is Politico's report on the press conference (Obama kicked ass):
"Obama's Nato summit press conference in Strasbourg, France:
Obama announces that NATO allies have committed 3,000 troops and an additional 2,000 advisers, trainers and civilian advisers in Afghanistan, calling it “a strong down payment on the future of our mission in Afghanistan, and the mission of NATO.”
First question is, didn't you come up short both at the G-20 and here, and get less than you wanted? Obama insists he got what he wanted at NATO, even though it amounts to only 3,000 troops compared to the 21,000 new troops the United States has committed.
"The first thing we wanted was consensus and unity around a refocused approach to Afghanistan. . .We came here expecting consensus and we’re gratified to [see] that consensus.
"This was not a pledging conference, and yet we already received the kinds of commitments that historically you don’t see at a conference like this. What was pledged here today was significant."
He lists the commitments: 3,000 troops from allies and partners, 300 new military trainers, 70 training teams, $100M down payment on efforts to rebuild the Afghan National Army.
And POTUS says that yes, he believes in the concept of “American exceptionalism”—just as he’s sure the British believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism. America, he says, shouldn’t shy away from being proud of its role in the world, and in Europe, while still recognizing that the U.S. can’t do everything alone. (10:56 a.m.)"
@Pragmatus:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a constitutional amendment give women the right to vote? Didn't the Johnson administration legislate the basis of the modern immigration structure into existence?
I think that public opinion can and does evolve, mature, etc. The culture usually leads the way on this, and the public eventually catches up. Just because one generation enacts strict immigration restrictions does not mean that the country is doomed to them forever.
I done made a map of the things what Nate said
@Chachy: THAT is a VERY nifty map!
Thanks for the great post Nate. Have you done an analysis yet of Massachusetts and their overall acceptance of gay marriage since it became legal there in 2004? It would be a really interesting to see an analysis of the number regarding the acceptance of gay marriage in Massachusetts since 2004, namely did their acceptance increase at a faster rate than the 2% nationally. I would love to see what those numbers and if it could alter Iowa's overall opinion of gay marriage in 2012 (i.e. instead of a 50/50 split does it become something like 54/46 in favor of gay marriage).
Dave -
Nobody is born with a genetic trait to be sexually attracted to and marry multiple people
I'm wholly in favour of gay people being allowed to marry, and probably against allowing polygamy, but nevertheless the above is rubbish.
No-one is born with a genetic trait to marry anyone - marriage is a cultural development that came much too late to affect the evolution of desires.
Pretty much everyone, on the other hand, is genetically disposed to be attracted to multiple partners. Not only is this predicted by evolutionary theory, but it's so apparent in human behaviour and reporting of emotions as to be beyond debate, surely.
@John I'm left a little confused when marriage is discussed as existing in its current form for "thousands of years."
Aside from the obvious point that the term didn't arise until the 14th Century, if I'm not mistaken marriage has changed quite a bit throughout history. Encyclopedia Britannica notes that, "Until the late 20th century, marriage was rarely a matter of free choice."
Should we go back to arranged marriages? Indeed for many years betrothals involved women as young as 14 or even 12 being sent to marry much older men, where they were considered property or chattels. (From an article regarding Mary the mother of Jesus, "Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months... marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to the bridegroom" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm)
I doubt there would be broad consensus for sending 12 to 14 year old girls off to be wed to men in the 30s, without any choice by the girl.
Maybe some changes are for the better? Just as marriage in its present form has evolved such that two consenting adults, presumably in love, choose freely and fully to marry the person of their choice.
@CGBG Excellent point. I think someone noted senior citizens early in a point regarding the super majority achieved in Florida in 2008. Florida, of course, having the 2nd highest median age in the country, according to the 2000 Census (http://tinyurl.com/dgowee) Pennsylvania rings in at 4th.
@Mark It's okay godhatesshrimp.com too, but that hasn't put Red Lobster out of business, despite shellfish being an abomination.
@Steven http://www.mpp.org/library/2008-ballot-initiatives.html In 2008 the country passed 9 out of 10 marijuana related ballot initiatives. I imagine over the years there would be enough data points for Nate to cook up something with his secret sauce formulas, particularly if we ask very nicely and say please a lot.
Also, GO STATE!
Obama’s Feminist Vulnerability
Sarah Palin took a giant strep forward in her curiously quixotic quest for the Presidency today when the current incumbent made a gigantic stumble.
at his,
At his European Press Confidence today following the Saturday Session of the NATO Summit at which he obtained a commitment of 5,000 additional troops for Afghanistan from the Europeans, he was asked a tough but fair question by Fox News Major Garrett.
Garrett asked the President whether he would condition further aid to Afghanistan on the government acing to nullify a law it recently passed that makes it permissible for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife along with other surrender of personal rights by wives and daughters, in other words when offered the opportunity to choose between the rights of women generally or stand with their Muslim oppressors, the President sided with the Mullahs and in favor of Sharia law and contrary to the Natural Law.
His instinctual bias in siding with authoritarian religion as an expedient in defeating Al Qaeda (one of whose goals is the subjugation of women) was a shockingly blunt exposure of his point of view on such matters as to be certain to offend both the left and the right.
And therein steps Sarah Palin.
Feminist leaders cannot be feeling anything less than outrage that Obama failed express any sort of moral indignation at the notion that the rights of women can be subverted to that of their husbands and fathers (without any corresponding burden on husbands). Those on the right will not fail to observe yet another suggestion of a pro-Islamic tilt in Obama’s still obscure makeup.
Obama’s defenders might suggest that he was merely correcting those tired old excesses of the Bush administration, but one can wonder, Has the official pendulum actually swung that far? Certainly not so far that on its return it should knock over in the process fundamental principals of Natural Law that support the equality, if not the exaltation of women!
Pope John Paul II dedicated much of his formal writing to subjects that bear upon human relations. He did this, as any good pastor would do, to teach us about our humanity and thereby the source of our morality. The Pontiff wrote movingly on the subject of the dignity of women, bridging to his primal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. There can be no doubt that John Paul was himself a feminist, and that the Catholic Church is rooted in feminism, just as “true” feminism (to be contrasted with “movement” feminism) dictates opposition to abortion, which the Church sees as the central moral issue of our day.
In many ways Palin is the avatar of the anti-abortion movement. In her flawed, but seemingly effortless way, she shepherds her family through the shoals of modern day morality, an example that is compelling, if noting else.
That is her power.
Like Obama, Sarah Palin commands attention.
Palin is herself an undeniable feminist icon. Read Camille Paglia for a left wing supporter’s slant. Quite unique, not the Phyllis Shaffley or Anita Bryant type; much more comely and fecund than Katrina Vandenheuval, Ariana Huffington, Maureen Dowd, Rachel Maddow (Yikes!), or the always chic, but totally irrelevant, Tina Brown.
She has an authentic character and seems flawless in her flawed way. Imagine: She is the mother of a mongoloid child of questionable parentage whom she most palpably loves to death. She is the mother of another young mother, much like she was, this daughter an unwed mother, she and the baby’s father now split. Her son has been deployed to Afghanistan. She has two other daughters of school age. Her over-grown kid, daredevil of a husband anchors the brood while she is off being governor of Alaska.
It’s all so messy and all so real. It is handled seemingly in stride. They pick at Sarah Palin most thoroughly but no one seems to be able to deflate the notion that this is a close and loving family that rolls with its punches and survived a most dreadful personal period on the world stage and continues to withstand negative and malevolent scrutiny like no other figure in the history of modern American politics.
Despite her summer and fall of travail, the humiliation of the Katie interview and the bravura performance at her VP Debate with Biden, she has come through the post-election season with millions of her fan base in tact and as fervent as ever. Obama is yet still the bigger rock star, his blazing light pointing the way, teaching us not so much about policy and our better interests, but about how to communicate it all..
Palin has much less guile, she is yet more unguarded than Obama. That’s her authenticity and what she risks should she become too programmed, too fussed over. She represents an almost post-feminist sensibility of the successful woman who succeeded without compromise to her essentially dignity as a woman. She would understand that the Natural Law trumps even the Sharia Law, the former being imprinted on us by God (our conscience) to guide us in life, and the latter a variant moral code that seeks to impose obedience to the will of God as an end itself rather than as a bridge to a higher and better way.
Perhaps Obama believes that Islam accepts that among women, wisdom is better imposed than imbibed (that being the Islamic view of genetics – as it certainly appears that they wish to order their societies along such predilections). Obama, I suppose could be given the benefit of the doubt and be said to be affirming religious tolerance. How noble!
So, in the name of religious tolerance or defeating AL Qaeda (whose ideology includes the subjugation of women), the President decided to tolerate the subjugation of women, acting contrary to the best interest of women and girls in the Arab world and in denigration of women everywhere. Failure to recognize the righteousness of this, I suppose, would be “arrogance”.
It leaves me to wonder if in response to Major Garrett’s question whether Obama didn’t create an opening for the Republican party, as he ripped a new cleavage with the feminists, some still smarting over the dissing of Hillary Clinton during the campaign and watchful for signs of any ill-treatment of her.
This is a void tailor made for Sarah Palin to step her snowshoe into.
As things crumble and people feel put upon, as hypocrisy and sea changes substitute for policy direction, Palin may present a straight-forward if quirky alternative to the obscure and equally quirky Obama, the Muslin lover.
(Romney – Palin ’12)
Go Iowa! My home state is becoming as progressive as California! Don't forget we deserve a lot of credit for getting Obama's campaign off the ground.
WV: fismsh - What you get when you buy a fish sandwich at McDonalds.
Windbaggery, is it an inborn trait?
There's an article today on investment mentality -- risk acceptance -- being inborn. That I can believe, just like sexual orientation is inborn.
this is a great victory for conservatives/republican who believe in less government and greater individual freedom.
oops another example of how conservative/republican rhetoric and stands on the issue are 180 degrees out of sink.
"sync" or "synch" not sink.
Reagan won't be remembered as the worst. At the very least, he will be remembered for his role in bringing down Communism in Eastern Europe and Russia.
I don't know if your model is accurate, but I assume it's a good approximation. We know that young people are much more accepting of gay marriage than their grandparents. Even people in their 40s and 50s are split pretty close on the issue. It's the elder folks who are still behind the times.
So I have no doubt that the measure would fail in most states within the next 10-15 years.
Being a resident of Washington and now Oregon, I think your assessment is right about both those states. Both states are among the least religious in the nation and population centers are around Portland and Seattle, heavily liberal areas. 2/3 of Washington live in the Puget Sound area, and it's quite progressive. The more conservative eastern half couldn't counter that, and Spokane isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism, it's more 50/50.
Lol Pete Kent,
I'll have to read this news story from a different source as what you wrote is poorly written.
At any rate, why would you want Palin to be president. Surely there are more competent conservatives who would uphold your principles without subjecting America to sub Bush stupidity (and I didn't even think that was possible before we learned about her).
She can be charismatic, and would be better served as a party fundraiser than a national candidate. Her views are too extreme and often non-sensical. She is despised by the intellectual wing of the conservative party because she is seen as a demagogue. Women don't identify with Sarah Palin. The only people who like here are white men religious women.
The Science Behind Sexual Attraction
@Boing, Dave:
There is some science behind sexual attraction that is suggestive of what causes homosexuality; although it is far from a closed case.
We begin with brain organization, which has been studied in children and adults for decades through cases of accidental injury and injury by stroke. It can now also be studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which can cause temporary stroke-like symptoms.
When I say "gays" I mean self-identified adult homosexuals, both males and females, and "straights" means self-identified heterosexual males and females.
When straight males have strokes, they tend to lose brain function in distinct abilities; like the ability to perform arithmetic or speak or understand metaphors. Strokes kill distinct localizations of brain tissue, and this suggests that for straight males, brain functions are localized. The opposite is true of straight females: Strokes still kill distinct localized areas, but females tend to suffer wider spread functional disability after a stroke, and also, unlike straight males, to recover lost function more broadly.
A straight female might experience difficulty after a stroke performing arithmetic, but recover fully, while a straight male might lose the ability completely and never recover it.
Straight females have a more distributed learning; straight males have a more localized learning. Now, interestingly, when strokes occur in self-identified homosexuals, it suggests the opposite. Gay males recover like straight females, and gay females recover like straight males.
The style of brain organization is determined when the brain is forming near the end of the first trimester. The critical event is whether the placenta produces a pulse of a hormone, androsterone, which is a precursor of testosterone. If the pulse occurs, as it usually does for an XY (genetically male) fetus; the brain uses localized learning. If it does not occur, as it usually does not for an XX (genetically female) fetus, the brain uses distributed learning.
An additional effect of the androsterone surge is a lengthening of various organs, including the ring finger. When it does occur, the ring finger is longer than the index finger by about 5% to 10%. This is visible. When it does not occur, the ring finger and index finger are the same length.
Among self-identified life-long lesbians, ring fingers are statistically longer than index fingers; similar to straight males. Among self-identified life-long gay males, ring fingers are statistically shorter than among straight males.
This suggest the androsterone surge during fetal development also determines sexual attraction orientation.
There is some evidence that the genome of the mother may have something to do with the frequency of whether the androsterone surge follows the usual pattern or not; and there is an echo among gays of whether they carry that gene from their mother or not; but it doesn't mean that gene is expressing in the child or causing homosexuality.
I hesitate to call this an "error" in the development or to suggest androsterone intervention during development to ensure heterosexuality. That might be particularly difficult in the case of trying to prevent or mediate an androsterone surge in a genetically female fetus, to prevent lesbianism. I don't think the science is that far advanced, and I also think this is a level of tampering equivalent to genetic intervention on eye color, athleticism or height.
In any case, homosexuals really are born, not made, even if homosexuality is not genetically determined.
I think genetic determinism is a poor argument for gays anyway. There is a lot of evidence of a genetic component for sociopathy, but we still lock up criminals and don't much care if serial killing is a natural expression of their genetic makeup.
The correct argument for gays is simply that it is nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other if there is no physical endangerment. And like all laws, how actions make others feel is immaterial; it doesn't count in free speech, or filing lawsuits, or adultery, or interracial marriage or any number of other actions that incense others. Legality is not, and should not, be based on whether some people find something personally distasteful.
Is self delusion an inborn trait that drives people to become republicans? See PeteKent above and this extremely uncomfortable and weird news conference from John "I am clueless" Boehner:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1078621564?bctid=18387432001
That is a GREAT map! Nate needs to link it!
Interesting how the anti-gay map has strong correlations with the racist white map of Andrew's (prior posts here) and both strongly correlate to republican sections of the country. What better sign of how out of touch the current repub party is!
I almost never post here and blanket statements aren't my style but I'll say this:
this legislature will never pass an amendment like this, and it is highly unlikely a future legislature will either, because the Democrats are not likely to lose the state senate, in which they have over 60% control.
I know some of the legislators personally and have talked to them about this in the past, and my guess is that the speaker and majority leader will never, ever let this hit the floor. They're both pretty safe seats and will suffer the heat of not letting their chambers vote so their democrats can say they're against it without ever having to vote on the matter (because in the end, they'd pass it, just like a couple years ago 8 republicans crossed ranks when finally forced to vote on an equal-benefits law).
The reality is that we're looking at 2013 or later, at which point it will have been a reality for so long no one will overturn it.
...and I think there is a good chance that Iowa will suddenly become a tourist destination, and Ellen will broadcast a few shows from Des Moines because of this.
In addition to Chachy's wonderful map of Nate's analysis in this article, NPR has a good map of the current legal status of gay marriage across the states.
Andrew,
What I like about Palin is that she is authentically "folks". I do not belive she is stupid,she was just unscholed. It was as an amazing ebut ont he national stage as any we have seen, I'll grant you that.
It would be a good idea to listen to the actual tape from the Presser. I heard it live and was bowled away at how quick Obama was to dismiss women's rights in favor of deferring to the Mullahs so he could better attack Al Qeada. It all seems rather confused to me. But he was glib!
I wonder if the story will get much play, I thought it was reveaking and demostrates that on fundamental human rights -- like the rights of women or gays Obama seems to want to subvert them to some higher calculus.
PeteKent-
I have seen the video - it is a non-story.
As for Palin - lets' see this week she is dissed by the RNCC, her child's baby-daddy rolls on her on Tyra (great discussion of sex there), and her sister-in-law is arrested for home break ins. She is not ready for prime time.
Oh, almost forgot, she also just pissed off every democrat in Alaska and half the repubs by saying Begich should resign.
Shoot her now...
John:
I never compared those who do not support gay marriage to Nazis. Bigots, yes. Nazis, no. My very clear point was your inference that the majority should have the final say in legal matters is flawed because the U.S. has a court system designed largely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Nazi Germany did not! The Nazi Party won a majority in 1933. Hitler, as the head of the Nazi party, became Chancellor. The rest is history. Get it? Was that simple enough to wrap your authoritarian mind around?
Anything I write here will never change bullies like you, who are only concerned with controlling others. Too bad your obvious inferiority complex compels you to troll the internet attacking those who don’t hold the same thuggish beliefs as you.
American society is changing. People are becoming more tolerant. Your inability to accept those who are different than you will leave you in a clear minority. I hope then you will be happy to have the protections afforded you by our court system.
Joe B,
While I sympathize with the overall thrust of what you are saying, I am afraid your history of the Third Reich is a little off...
The Nazi party never legitimately won an absolute majority [BEFORE they took control and held sham elections], they merely did somewhat well in a multiparty system... after the elections of the early Thirties, combined with a campaign of physical intimidation (the infamous SA), as well as a very right-wing judiciary that was pro-Nazi (refusing to jail the criminals in NSDAP), President von Hindenburg [a WWI hero who was almost certainly senile by this point] picked Hitler to form a parliamentary majority as chancellor in hopes of returning stability to the Weimar republic. After much evil and intrigue, to make a long story short, Hitler seized control of the state.
The salient point here is that a judiciary is capable of both good (as in America for the most part) and evil (in the case of the Weimar republic, and such unsavory USA decisions as Plessy v Furgeson)
Obama called the marital law "abhorrent".
So, obviously to Pete Kent, Obama is "bowing to the mullahs" and showing his allegiance to Islam. And this is somehow a big opening for a Palin presidency, as everything in Kent's world is.
Anyway, Karzai is now re-considering the marital law, in part because of criticism from leaders like Obama.
PK, the bottom line is that it is their country and they have some beliefs that differ from those of the vast majority of Americans. Obama acknowledged that. He criticised the law strongly, in terms that feminists can agree with:
"We think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle."
Yes, feminists should really get upset by that, right?
It's also very strange that you alternate between expressing absolute contempt for feminists and seeing them as some kind of potential base for Palin.
You also saw the PUMA vote as being incredibly huge and a critical factor in the McCain/Palin victory in the Presidential race.
There is a difference between wishful thinking and reality. I thought I should point that out, because you seem to constantly miss that distinction in your "analyses".
Can you point to any public statement from Palin on the Afghan marital law? I'm sure that Karzai was on pins and needles waiting for her to weigh in on the subject.
Petronicus:
Thank you, but since I'm a history teacher I knew all that. Yes, the Nazi Party did not get a clear majority, but Germany did not have a strong constitution and court system to protect minorities. I was trying to keep it simple and short for the sake of those, like John, who really don't have the mental capacity to take in too many details.
I had a feeling someone would feel compelled to launch into a huge "I'm smarter than you", obsessive compulsive based history lesson. That's not the purpose of this dialog, as this is not a forum to discuss details of German history.
Sometimes less is more. Let's keep on topic.
Brad,
The statement you quote is pretty equivocal, suggesting balancing needs to be done, where none is necessary.
You quote Obama as saying: ""We think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle".
"AN" important principal? Well that's not too helpful, now is it?
I cannot point to any statement by Palin on subject, but I suspect she, like Mrs. Bush. Would strongly affirm the rights of Afghan women and girls to achieve equality of access and opportunity in that society.
It was at the end, when pressed to express the kind of moral outrage that such backsliding in terms of fundamental human rights the Afghan marital rape law would impose on their female population, where Obama demurred, leaving the suggestion that any sense of moral outrage would have to play back seat to more important strategic goals.
I think that is wrong.
I do not think it was the sort of approach to human rights y'all were made to expect from Obama. This balancing of strategic concerns (based on less than solid premises) against the rights of Muslim women to be held in equal esteem is the sort of moral relavatism any sort of fair-minded person ought to find abhorrent.
(follow me now on twitter: PeteKent01)
Again, he called the law "abhorrent".
That's unequivocal, isn't it?
"I cannot point to any statement by Palin on subject, but I suspect she, like Mrs. Bush. Would strongly affirm the rights of Afghan women and girls to achieve equality of access and opportunity in that society.
Oh, yes, I'm sure. Much like how Palin and Mrs. Bush criticised our ally Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt, Azerbaijan etc on their Islamic-based laws curtailing women's rights.
Oh, they didn't criticise that, did they? Well, I'm sure they intended to get around to it.
I thought that we invaded Afghanistan to bring democracy. But when democracy produces things that you don't like, you want the U.S. to act like a dictator and nullify laws that are duly passed by Afghan legislators.
I guess that we can add "champion of global women's rights" to your ever-growing number of conflicting personae.
Fred wrote:
"Obama did not invade, George "the insane stupid asshole" did."
You are off-base, fred.
I never said Obama invaded Afghanistan.
My point was that we (the U.S.) established a democracy in Afghanistan. Now, people like Pete Kent want democracy to be ignored when it produces things that they don't like - such as the marital law.
"Bush needed to own the world, control it, Obama wants to know the world and influence it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point, fred. Kent wants Obama to dictate what laws we will and will not allow to be passed by the Afghan government. As it turns out, Obama's strategy is producing positive results by persuading Karzai to re-consider the marital law. That's a good thing.
Really, however, PK is just interested in using this issue as a blunt instrument. I doubt that he has sincere concerns about the rights of women who worship the 'wrong God'. He seems only interested in women's rights when they can put to some political end for the right wing of the GOP.
Perhaps you are confusing me with Pete Kent. I'm fairly bewildered by your response, and look forward to a clarification.
It's worth noting that support for gay marriage in California skyrocketed after the state Supreme Court struck the ban down. So we can assume that even if a state were to vote against a gay marriage ban, it would be a lot harder to get it to repeal such a ban, especially if it's in the state Constitution.
Iowa will probably vote to ban gay marriage. California voted yes on 8, and it's got small proportions of evangelicals + Mormons and went for Obama by 24. By comparison, Iowa only voted for Obama by 10 and has a large evangelical population.
Does the estimate for Florida voting against a gay marriage ban mean the year when 51% would vote against a ban or 41%? A constitutional amendment there needs 60% to pass, so 41% is enough to block it.
For those saying Idaho is in the list way too early I live there and I think it's pretty close. About a decade ago the fundies tried to pass a law making it illegal for state employees--teachers, librarians, counselors, etc.--to mention homosexuality in any positive terms and it narrowly failed. Idaho actually has a low level of religion--we're in the top 10 least religious states--and it is far more libertarian than conservative. 2011 might be a bit early but I'd imagine by 2013-2015 at the latest.
Great work Nate!
Every day the neo-cons become more and more unhinged.
Pretty odd that the party of "personal responsibility" is placing the responsibility of the actions of a few deranged people on one man.
Actually it isn't odd since the fundies are insane.
Thanks for yet another fine post, Nate.
Marriage equality* will soon be guaranteed by law throughout the U.S., and within the decade everyone will be wondering what the fuss was all about.
* There's only one kind of civil marriage license, so the more accurate terms are "marriage equality" or "marriage discrimination", not "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage". There's one kind of marriage, and right now in most U.S. states it's a special right for heterosexuals.
CBGB,
Not all the change in attitude about SSM can be attributable to 'old folks dying, new, younger, people with different attitudes entering the voting pool'.
An example - my parents were totally against SSM until the mid- to late-nineties. Then, when they fully understood that I was gay, and was in a long-term relationship with another person, and they saw that many of the rights and advantages they had (mostly economic, and most of those because of the tax code), they fairly quickly changed their opinion about SSM. My parents at that time were in their 70s when their opinions changed.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
And I didn't have to do any persuading of them to get them to change their opinion - they were able to see the facts, analyze them, and make a decision on those facts, thus changing their opinion.
Tony C. said...
If homosexuality were a mutation, it would have a clear genetic alteration that would be easy to find.
Tony,
While I agree with almost everything you told juvanya in your message at 11:18 AM, the above part is incorrect.
I have a genetic eye disease that affects about 20% of my grandparent's descendants, and is estimated to affect from .5% to 4% of the general population. The disease is the third or fourth largest cause of corneal transplants in the US.
For more than ten years, doctors and researchers have been trying to find the specific gene or genes that causes the disease to be expressed. Some of this research is being funded by the NIH, and there are dozens of doctors and researchers nationwide participating. Some of the research is being done at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore (started before the NIH funding became available). The research is being conducted with multiple approaches in hopes of isolating the gene(s) that cause the disease to be expressed. In total, there are now hundreds of families that have been recruited to participate in this study.
So far, the researchers have narrowed down the location of the gene(s) to a specific chromosome, and a specific general location on that chromosome, but that is as far as they have progressed.
What makes the search more frustrating for the researchers is that there is a very similar version of this disease that manifests itself at a much younger age, but in all other respects is almost identical, but:
1. The genetic cause, and the specific gene, of the juvenile variant was discovered almost 20 years ago; and
2. The gene that causes the juvenile variant is on a totally different chromosome than the late-onset variant has been narrowed down to.
So for you to state that a "genetic alteration" . . . "would be easy to find" in many cases is totally incorrect.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
PeteKent said...
Obama’s Feminist Vulnerability
Sarah Palin took a giant strep forward in her curiously quixotic quest for the Presidency today when the current incumbent made a gigantic stumble.
at his,
At his European Press Confidence today following the Saturday Session of the NATO Summit at which he obtained a commitment of 5,000 additional troops for Afghanistan from the Europeans, he was asked a tough but fair question by Fox News Major Garrett.
Garrett asked the President whether he would condition further aid to Afghanistan on the government acing to nullify a law it recently passed that makes it permissible for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife along with other surrender of personal rights by wives and daughters, in other words when offered the opportunity to choose between the rights of women generally or stand with their Muslim oppressors, the President sided with the Mullahs and in favor of Sharia law and contrary to the Natural Law.
His instinctual bias in siding with authoritarian religion as an expedient in defeating Al Qaeda (one of whose goals is the subjugation of women) was a shockingly blunt exposure of his point of view on such matters as to be certain to offend both the left and the right.
And therein steps Sarah Palin.
Feminist leaders cannot be feeling anything less than outrage that Obama failed express any sort of moral indignation at the notion that the rights of women can be subverted to that of their husbands and fathers (without any corresponding burden on husbands). Those on the right will not fail to observe yet another suggestion of a pro-Islamic tilt in Obama’s still obscure makeup.
Obama’s defenders might suggest that he was merely correcting those tired old excesses of the Bush administration, but one can wonder, Has the official pendulum actually swung that far? Certainly not so far that on its return it should knock over in the process fundamental principals of Natural Law that support the equality, if not the exaltation of women!
Pope John Paul II dedicated much of his formal writing to subjects that bear upon human relations. He did this, as any good pastor would do, to teach us about our humanity and thereby the source of our morality. The Pontiff wrote movingly on the subject of the dignity of women, bridging to his primal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. There can be no doubt that John Paul was himself a feminist, and that the Catholic Church is rooted in feminism, just as “true” feminism (to be contrasted with “movement” feminism) dictates opposition to abortion, which the Church sees as the central moral issue of our day.
In many ways Palin is the avatar of the anti-abortion movement. In her flawed, but seemingly effortless way, she shepherds her family through the shoals of modern day morality, an example that is compelling, if noting else.
That is her power.
Like Obama, Sarah Palin commands attention.
Palin is herself an undeniable feminist icon. Read Camille Paglia for a left wing supporter’s slant. Quite unique, not the Phyllis Shaffley or Anita Bryant type; much more comely and fecund than Katrina Vandenheuval, Ariana Huffington, Maureen Dowd, Rachel Maddow (Yikes!), or the always chic, but totally irrelevant, Tina Brown.
She has an authentic character and seems flawless in her flawed way. Imagine: She is the mother of a mongoloid child of questionable parentage whom she most palpably loves to death. She is the mother of another young mother, much like she was, this daughter an unwed mother, she and the baby’s father now split. Her son has been deployed to Afghanistan. She has two other daughters of school age. Her over-grown kid, daredevil of a husband anchors the brood while she is off being governor of Alaska.
It’s all so messy and all so real. It is handled seemingly in stride. They pick at Sarah Palin most thoroughly but no one seems to be able to deflate the notion that this is a close and loving family that rolls with its punches and survived a most dreadful personal period on the world stage and continues to withstand negative and malevolent scrutiny like no other figure in the history of modern American politics.
Despite her summer and fall of travail, the humiliation of the Katie interview and the bravura performance at her VP Debate with Biden, she has come through the post-election season with millions of her fan base in tact and as fervent as ever. Obama is yet still the bigger rock star, his blazing light pointing the way, teaching us not so much about policy and our better interests, but about how to communicate it all..
Palin has much less guile, she is yet more unguarded than Obama. That’s her authenticity and what she risks should she become too programmed, too fussed over. She represents an almost post-feminist sensibility of the successful woman who succeeded without compromise to her essentially dignity as a woman. She would understand that the Natural Law trumps even the Sharia Law, the former being imprinted on us by God (our conscience) to guide us in life, and the latter a variant moral code that seeks to impose obedience to the will of God as an end itself rather than as a bridge to a higher and better way.
Perhaps Obama believes that Islam accepts that among women, wisdom is better imposed than imbibed (that being the Islamic view of genetics – as it certainly appears that they wish to order their societies along such predilections). Obama, I suppose could be given the benefit of the doubt and be said to be affirming religious tolerance. How noble!
So, in the name of religious tolerance or defeating AL Qaeda (whose ideology includes the subjugation of women), the President decided to tolerate the subjugation of women, acting contrary to the best interest of women and girls in the Arab world and in denigration of women everywhere. Failure to recognize the righteousness of this, I suppose, would be “arrogance”.
It leaves me to wonder if in response to Major Garrett’s question whether Obama didn’t create an opening for the Republican party, as he ripped a new cleavage with the feminists, some still smarting over the dissing of Hillary Clinton during the campaign and watchful for signs of any ill-treatment of her.
This is a void tailor made for Sarah Palin to step her snowshoe into.
As things crumble and people feel put upon, as hypocrisy and sea changes substitute for policy direction, Palin may present a straight-forward if quirky alternative to the obscure and equally quirky Obama, the Muslin lover.
(Romney – Palin ’12)
Just in case this fuckwit decides to delete.
ab·hor·rent
adj.
1. Disgusting, loathsome, or repellent.
2. Feeling repugnance or loathing.
3. Archaic Being strongly opposed.
BTW, Pete, how's that BREAKING Ashley Biden controversy coming along? Apparently it wasn't even her on the tape, that's why the prick who was peddling the tape lowered his asking price from 2 million to 400 grand, then withdrew under presssure.
Or perhaps the media are more interested in one of the Wasilla Hillbillies fucking young master Levi under her hardcore successionist parents roof.
Don't miss Levi's interview with Tyra Banks on Monday, folk!
Thank you. That was an amazing post! Made my day!
PeteKent...
I hope you continue to support Sarah Palin and to tout her "virtues" every chance you get. You see, if enough of a groundswell is generated for her, she will mow down all opposition and seize the 2012 GOP nomination--then become this generation's Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater or George McGovern.
You see, Pete, Sarah Palin is an idiot, and I think the country is fed up (for a while at least) with electing idiots to high office. But the GOP is particularly susceptible right now to believing that all they need to become relevant again is the right Messiah.
Palin is leading her followers (and, one hopes, her party) over a cliff, and I say all the rest of us should do everything to encourage them.
Steven... Yes, you are right, but my observation was about the electorate. These days the executive and legislative branches are much more fearful of shifts in the mood of the electorate than they were forty years ago. Back then the Congress could do things for sensible reasons (like raising taxes to rebuild dilapidated infrastructure) but not anymore. Such common sense planning is now always drowned in the "Taxes are killing us!" rhetoric, with the result we find ourselves in the current fix.
Homosexuality is not due to a mututation, as far as can be told, but it is a physiological condition. An interesting theory, and one that makes perfect sense to me, is that women who bear sons build up antibodies to certain male proteins in their systems, and if enough accumulate over a series of pregnancies where she is carrying a male it has an effect on the brain of any subsequent male fetus, often resulting in a homosexual orientation. This is supported by studies that show that the more sons a woman bears, the greater the chance that the younger ones will be gay. In fact, the statistics are too remarkable to be dismissed or ignored.
To the guy asking about DC - legalizing gay marriage in DC would require repealing DOMA. Their city council could very well vote for it, and the mayor would be signing it, but the federal government would just override it until DOMA is repealed, since it would essentially have to be a federally recognized gay marriage. Even when that happens, they could specifically pass a law banning gay marriage just in DC, although I think this would be unlikely to happen in this congress (thanks schumer!). So yeah no.
PorridgeGun,
Have you also noticed that PK's default choice of feminists that are "still smarting over the dissing of Hillary Clinton during the campaign" is always Palin in 2012 and not Hillary? Because Hillary and Palin are interchangeable, right?
I don't know which is sadder: that Pete Kent relied on racist Democrats in 2008 or that he relies on feminist Democrats in 2012 to fullfill his weird Palin fantasies.
What makes Kent's rant supremely stupid is that if Obama had cut off military aid to the Karzai government over the passage of the marital law, PK would then cite that act as one of "political correctness", condemn Obama for handing Afghanistan to the terrorists, and undoubtedly find that this development was "tailor-made" for Palin's 2012 election.
Tomorrow's PK rant: Obama eats breakfast, which is an insult to the world's starving people. This is the break Palin has been waiting for.
@ Matt Do you know if Florida is the only state that requires 60% for a constitutional amendment to pass? The 60% threshold could come into play in other states.
Someone mentioned the possibility of thousands of people being divorced by having gay marriage legalized and then prohibited again.
It's extremely unlikely that that would ever happen. For decades now, we have had same-sex marriages being created by one partner changing genders, and no court has ever ruled that this invalidates the marriage.
The basic legal theory is that marriage is a contract, and as long as all of the legal requirements for the contract were met when the contract was formed, it doesn't matter if some of those change later, the contract is still valid.
(By the way, the whole problem with outlawing same-sex marriage is that it is a lot harder to define 'same-sex' than most people think. I'm someone with a DL that says 'Female' and a passport that says 'Male' because the two different government agencies involved use different criteria. So who would I get to marry?)
ph-unbalanced,
A few years ago, there was a controversy in (I think) either Kansas or Kentucky, where one of the couple went through a sex-change, the driver's license reflected the sex change, the couple stayed together for a few years, but then the couple wanted to get a divorce. The court was in a quandary about whether it had jurisdiction, since SSM was 'not legal' in the jurisdiction, therefore could the court divorce a SSM couple.
I can't remember how the court finally extracted itself from the conundrum, though, but maybe someone else can recall the situation and final outcome.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
GROG said...
Is it fair to assume that anyone who is for gay marriage is also for polygamy?
That smelly rogue fish you have there is what is known as a 'red herring'. :)
1) It is extremely doubtful that polygomy is Constitutionally arguable, certainly not on the same path as SSM. Why? Because it's about the legal contract of 2 people.
2) Polygomy is already legal, has been for a while. In the form of living with and having sex with as many people as you want. :o Polygomy sects run afoul of the law in a few ways, none of which are directly related to living with and banging multiple people or taking religious vows.
PeteKent -- Why aren't you posting exclusively on your own blogsite? Can you give everyone here the URL again so we can all go over there right away and wait breathelessly for the latest talking points from Slackjaw and Inanity?
Because I don't think you should spread yourself so thin. I think you should just post on your very own blog. That everyone will read.
Not. Here.
By the way, Palin is a certified dunce. Anyone who would want her in national office either wants to destroy this country or didn't get enough of Bush. I can just see her mixing with world leaders and cringingly ("authentically," in your words) introducing people to the "First Dude." How charming. How embarassing. How pathetic.)
Anyway, Petey, trundle on back to your blog. No need to keep posting the Republican talking points for the day here. We would much rather read them on your very own site.
@GROG: Concerning the question of same-sex marriage and polygamy
The original poster (AJKamper @ 8:09) said:
Polygamy would be a glorious return to our great traditions of old.
Or do _you_ get to decide which traditions are good and which aren't?
So he was not implying that allowing same-sex marriage should lead to allowing polygamy. Quite the opposite. He was saying that if you believe in hewing to Biblical standards on marital questions, then outlawing same-sex marriage could be accompanied by a permissive attitude towards polygyny (multiple wives). I don't think the Bible allowed for polyandry (multiple husbands).
Todd Dugdale is exactly right. The Repubs (for whom PK is the local spokesperson) are frantically searching for a wedge, any wedge. Today it's Obama's press conference. When that doesn't work, which it obviously won't for anyone who actually reads what he said, it will be something else.
Poor juvanya is more to be pitied than condemned. His/her views on homosexuality are based on an absurdly misinformed understanding of nature. Several commenters have already given excellent responses based on evolution and human embryology. I would just add that contrary to juvanya's ridiculous proposal that gay marriage is sustaining homosexuality, which would otherwise die out naturally, it is an established fact that homosexuality exists in all human cultures, and as best as we can determine, always has (the assertions of Iran's President to the contrary notwithstanding).
I find it interesting that the states in chich you are likely to find cousins marrying cousins are the very states that want to disallow unrelated people from marrying !
@Nate
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583
If Religiosity is one of the primary factors in whether the amendments receive majority support. And the percentage of self-identified Christians is dropping at a steady pace each year. Then it seems fairly natural that support for the constitutional bans would drop a certain amount each year. (Though your data seems to indicate a more precipitous decline in support)
The article notes a simultaneous decline in self-identified Christians and rise in people with no religious affiliation. (as well as rises in atheists and agnostics)
To PeteKent above -
The marital law in Afghanistan is now being reviewed, nice try to spin Fox News unfair questions into something though.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30044936/
Anyone else worry that Gay Marriage might become the abortion of the next 20 years, and every right wing politician having to stand up and make some anti gay comment to prove that they are worthy?
Notice how SnW hasn't made any comment here yet? Seems like an issue he would be interested in? Maybe he is away for the weekend or something. (Or he is just a single issue concern troll?) Anyhoo my point to him about Gay Marriage being essentially a legal issue is kind of proven here. No need to legislate when the bench can do it all for you. And its not 'legislating from the bench' as a few right wing trolls might chime in, its applying the principles of the constitution to an issue that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered.
I actually think gay marriage, once instituted, will be a smaller deal for most of the country than abortion. You won't have people running around screaming about murder.
Nate-
I would love to make my own regression model, or at least see a copy of yours, could you maybe send me it at tcxkshop@comcast.net?
Thanks so much!
Six gay men shot to death in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/05/gay.deaths.iraq/index.html
Isn't it time the U.S. led on this issue?
@Mike In Maryland:
Yes you are right; I over-reached. I was wrong. Some genetically derived effects are easy, some are not.
Finding them should be easier as sequencing gets faster, and that is rising exponentially, at least in the academic lab situations with which I am familiar.
There are several things that contribute to that problem; some is "mosaic" symptoms that can be caused by more than one mutation; for some important proteins the interaction pathway is 15 steps long, and a mutation that disrupts any one of the 15 steps can cause the symptoms, and more than one kind of mutation can disrupt each step.
Also, some mutations cause zero symptoms until exposed to an environmental trigger, so both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients can have the gene. But they share millions of other genes, so the suspect gene hides in the crowd.
If a gene is responsible for homosexuality, the picture is complicated by the choice of whether it was a mother's gene, possibly triggered by an environmental cue, or a fetal gene, possibly triggered by an environmental cue, or a combination of both: Mother requires Gene X, fetus requires Gene Y, and environmental cue Z (like a flue) must also occur in the sixth week of pregnancy...
So yes, I was wrong.
I suppose, as well, that if genes were discovered that caused homosexuality then homosexuals could argue that, like skin color or epicanthic folds, sexual orientation was a genetically determined difference that was not a valid basis for discrimination. Also, if homosexuality were genetically determined, it takes the "recruitment" issue off the table.
I can see the appeal of that argument to homosexuals, but the difference is that genes for skin color and epicanthic folds do not change behavior.
The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" crowd acquiesced to the genetic argument, and attacked behavior instead: Gays could serve if they suppressed their gay behavior! Sex wasn't prohibited, just homosexual sex was prohibited.
Thus I stand by by my earlier opinion that the genetic argument is a dead end in arguing for gay rights and gay marriage. When it comes to policy I don't care why they are gay, no more than I care why Joanie loves Chachi. Joanie has a fundamental right to love Chachi, to marry Chachi, and to express affection for Chachi in public, no matter how that makes me feel.
Admittedly, this is a harder fight for gays than an easy out like genetic determinism. With 5-10% of the population gay, it seems like the easy genetic answer, at least, like a single nucleotide change, is ruled out.
But suppose a genetic answer is found. Do we want homosexuality defined as a disease, or a syndrome? Do we want doctors diagnosing this syndrome in the womb for possible remediation by supplemental androsterone or androsterone inhibitors (supposing such exist)? Do we want homosexuality treated like epilepsy? Is it something to be "cured?" I don't think so.
The argument for gays is that their sex life and public behavior have no discernible ramifications for others. It does not violate anybody's rights to property or safety or free speech, it does not create an environment with a greater propensity for fostering such rights violations.
This is a free country, and we should not be prohibiting behavior X without clear evidence, or at least clear argument, that the freedom to engage in behavior X is in some sense at the non-voluntary expense of others; and in that sense reduces their freedom.
I don't believe any case like that can be made for homosexuality or same sex marriage or adoption by homosexuals or homosexual couples, and that is why none of these should be outlawed.
For those of you dissing Utah, keep in mind that the governor in recent weeks has been suggesting a civil unions program for gay couples.
I see Idaho as much more likely in 2012 or 2013 than 2011, due to the redistricting, but fascinating nonetheless. Great data, and great map, map-drawer guy. :)
Unfortunately "voting" trends don't matter much in our judicial oligarchy. I suggest everyone on this site read the following:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-04/right-decision-wrong-reason/full/
Tony and Mike-
You are both struggling with the idea of quantitative genetic traits vs. non-quantitative ones. Non-quantitative traits are things that are determined by one (or few) genes that has a high penetrance. Coat color in a labrador retriever is like that, you have a few colors and few genes that are easily followed to make the determination. When you think of a quantitative trait you need to think more about something like height, where there is a genetic predisposition to be tall, normal in height, or short in most people (excluding dwarfing, etc.) but the determination of an actual height at birth is extremely difficult. Pretty clearly nutrition and other environmental factors can also influence final height, as can fetal nutrition and probably hormonal interactions both at the fetal and at the growth stages.
Now, layer on penetrance where many genes do not exhibit their effect (e.g., type II diabetes never showing up in someone who lives in a low food area even though they have all the genes).
Now, layer on top of all those environmental interactions and some very difficult to describe societal influences and you end up with a phenotype, "homosexuality", that is nearly impossible to determine which genes "caused" the "homosexuality predisposition".
So, in the end there is likely some genetic predisposition in some homosexuals, but it is far from a "switch" where a gene is either in the A or B allele that drives the outcome. This is not a simple two gene system like in labrador retriever coat color.
Now, layer on top of that the studies that show that women on average have higher homosexual tendencies than men.
Whew, now I know why I quit science to go into something easy, like law!
Jeff-
That DailyBeast article is FUNNY! You really buy that analysis of the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution is not a legal question? You are kidding me right! This article is basically arguing that since he thinks it is immoral, and his morals trump the law. Why his morals, why his decision that gays somehow are not humans deserving the same equal protection based on his weird idea of the vague concept that somehow gays are bad for children. He argues that "protecting tradition, promoting a good environment for children, promoting procreation, promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and saving the state money" are values worth protecting. His problem is most of those cut against his anti-gay marriage argument. "Protecting tradition" is not a legal concept the court can act on, promoting stability in relationships should be the same for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, etc.
He then goes on to argue that we don't need judges, and the mob rule of Iraq is a great idea (where they just kill the gays, see the above). Is that the society you want to live in?
Finally, go read the Loving v Virginia case and tell me how his argument differs fundamentally from that case, where they allowed inter-racial marriage. Crazies like you were screaming the same things then, and you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
You sound like this:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Now, tell me again why gays are different from straights and why they particularly do not deserve the same protections under law required by the Constitution?
@Brad:
But actually, from a legal perspective, isn't the whole struggle about whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait a moot point?
I am not struggling with it so much as dismissing it out of hand; no matter what makes same gender sexual attraction occur, it certainly is no more dangerous to others than is religious fervor (and I think, less dangerous) or a propensity for self-stimulation/medication by alcohol and tobacco.
Without harm to others, is there any fair argument for outlawing it? I have never heard one, they all boil down to (as you respond to Jeff) "It disgusts me so I want it outlawed."
They all over-extend in some way; like claiming if everyone was gay we'd go extinct. Well, if everybody begged for charity we'd all be broke, but we don't outlaw charities, do we?
Oh, yes, absolutley, it matters not why people have chosen to do things, and act in a legal way. Those acts cannot be discriminated against by the government - that is the whole natural rights theory that the framers put into the Constitution, and explicitly chose it over the religious approach.
Whether genetic or not, gays must have the same equal rights under law. I was just attempting to upgrade and inject a bit of the science.
I always chuckle when I hear some Republican proudly boast about "freedom" and "equality" and "we believe in less government" as part of his underlying philosophy but then quickly shed this Libertarian-leaning bend and put on his authoritarian-religious-conservative hat and call for a ban on SSM, denying "freedom" and "equality" and abandoning a "we believe in less government" stance towards many of our citizens.
@Dave -
Your point is well taken, but republican hypocrisy is in no way is limited to SSM.
Somehow the party that supposedly supports smaller and less intrusive government is also for: curtailing abortion rights, draconian drug laws, the death penalty, domestic wiretapping, torture, etc..
They think it is perfectly acceptable for government to stick its nose into end of life issues (Teri Shrivo), and to interpret science (global warming) and restrict medical research (stem cells). They hate deficits, except when they are the party in power as evidenced by the fact that the near entirety of our current national deficit is the product of two die hard conservative republican administrations (Reagan/Bush).
How about the fact that they are extreme "patriots" when there is a republican at the helm, but immediately start talking armed rebellion, forming armed militias, and start bombing and shooting their fellow citizens when a democrat is voted in?
And what is that business about republicans supposedly being for "equality"? Never seen it, never heard it.
Dave-
I agree completely, how on the one hand can the repubs argue they are for small government, when they ask for more and more law and government interference in people daily lives. Making this even more laughable is the extraordinarily broad reading they insist is correct for 2nd Amendment relating to guns, but we are supposed to narrowly read the equal protection clause and privacy clause. They can't have it both ways - and hopefully this hypocrisy will get through to them, someday.
Well, here's the crux of the whole argument:
You either accept that gay people are your equal before the law, or you don't.
Religion? This is not a theocracy, and our laws are not based in anyone religion.
Slippery-slope? Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not contagious, and it won't spread just because the law isn't treating gay people like shit anymore.
Popular acceptance? The law protects unpopular minorities as well as popular ones. A person cannot be denied their rights simply because you don''t like them.
Equivocation? Homosexuality is not bestiality-my boyfriend is very much a human being. It's not pedophilia-he's also very much an adult. I'm not crazy or sick, and I didn't choose it nor do I feel bad about life.
Bottom line: Are all American citizens equal before 5the law or aren't they?
I am your equal. Not your superior, not your inferior-your equal.
SnW,
Contrary to your opinion, I fundamentally agree with what you say on this issue. However if you are right, and you are equal before the law, no legislation should be necesary. You could I guess waste legislative time on a law guaranteeing that Gay Marriage cannot be outlawed, but surely thats a waste of legislative time.
The problem may come I suppose with a definition of what 'marriage' is. Some would define it as between a man and a woman. I can't see that the state needs to do so mind, as that definition is surely based on a theological understanding of what marriage is for (as a Catholic, the answer would be for reproduction and to offer a loving family environment for my offspring.) But I don't see a need to insist that that is a universal view.
To GROGs point, personally I don't have a problem with allowing for polygamy in certain circumstances. Again that comes from a belief that my moral view on the issue does not need to be the same as everyone elses. I don't know how you deal with such things as death benefits and the such like in those cases, but that is the sort of thing that I am sure each cultural grouping can deal with in there own way.
markymark-
That is exactly the point, all these defense of marriage acts violate the equal protection clauses and are thus a waste of time. The courts will lead us to the right end, just like they did with civil rights.
Well, the insane (and inane) rantings of Pete Kent continue. PK, clearly, your view of women is probably equal to your view of dog shit. The idea that women, any women, would vote for Sarah Palin simply because we all have ovaries is ridiculous and says quite a bit about you and your Republican party. Their pathetic pandering (Palin for the Hilary vote! Michael Steele for the AA vote!) is so transparent it's comical.
Palin is not pro-woman. She is a woman who has benefited from those before her, (i.e. Stanton, Steinam, Friedan) but then turns around and spits in their faces (figuratively speaking). She is the Phyllis Schafly of this generation.
Obama, having been raised by a single mother, strongly influenced by his grandmother, and married to an Ivy League lawyer is 10X the advocate for women that Palin will ever be.
Sorry to hijack this thread, sometimes PK is just too much!
PeteKent said...
BREAKING TROLL ALERT!!!
Sarah Palin's Candidacy Advances
Pete Kent
April 4, 2009 12:05 PM
***********
Really Petey ????
Sarah Palin's sister il law arrested !!!!!!!!!!
http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/04/72500/index.html
Good Lord,
What a righteous family !!!
this is a good news for Pete Kan't !!!
btw
the news echoed (in eternity...)even here in Europe:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/sorella-palin/1.html
:P
@ Tony C.
But actually, from a legal perspective, isn't the whole struggle about whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait a moot point?
Yes it is.But would it not speed up the acceptance of SSM if a genetic cause were proven? The religion-based opposition to SSM would then have to face the fact that homosexuality is GOD-GIVEN and therefore as valid as heterosexuality (and entitled to the equality that Statler rightfully demands)!
MarkyMark,
We've gone around on this issue a dozen times. Each time, I assert that I deserve equal rights, and then you come back with, "I agree with you more than you think. We should not have laws granting you equal rights".
Which is kinda like me saying "Fire engines are red" and you replying, "Oh, you and I are so alike. Fire engines are blue"
If you pat me on the head again, I'll break your arm. Approach the issue and stop damning me with faint praise.
On the issue of there being too many laws: The quantity of laws is not the issue. The quality of laws is. Laws which contradict the equality of all Americans should be struck down, and laws affirming the equality of all Americans should be upheld. This is in accordance with the Constitution, which is not harmed by the addition of laws that confirm it, or the subtraction of laws that contravene it. In fact, it is strengthened thereby.
Make no mistake, mark. I am your equal, and I am not your ally. You will not convince me to accept a lesser status just because you spoke to me the way one does to a retarded child.
As to Catholics, their religion is not what we base laws in this country upon, nor do we base any laws upon any other religion. They can write Cannon Law that matches their faith if they like, but not Constitutional Law.
The leading scientific explanation of the cause of homosexuality is the Hormone Disruption Theory.
Every fetus begins in a proto-female state. If the fetus is male then the Y-Chromosome activates the release of androgens to make the fetus masculine. The androgens like testosterone masculinize the brain and genitals. However, brain tissue naturally resists this process and thus we have a continuum of highly masculine brains to very low masculine brains.
A similar analogous process may produce lesbians-- women with a somewhat masculinized brain due to exposure to higher percentage of androgens during development.
Studies have shown differences in straight and gay brains in respect to size and dendritic connections in the hypothalamus, commissure, and amygdala.
Studies have found some of the same differences in the brains of homosexual sheep.
Genes play a role in that genes regulate hormones and brain development.
Tony C.,
I think science has come to the conclusion that being homosexual is not because of a 'gay gene (or genes)', but a gene(s) could be part of the 'cause', based on studies of identical twins.
With identical twins, they share the exact same genes, grow up in the same environment, and have almost identical nutritional habits. Identical twins also are almost universally much, much closer in their interpersonal relationship to each other than non-twin siblings.
Studies have shown that in identical twins, there is a greater propensity for when one twin is homosexual, both will be homosexual.
But it is not universal that both will be homosexual.
While there is uncertainty about the prevalence of homosexuality in males and females, most think it is in the 3% to 7% range. However, in identical twins, when one twin is homosexual, the probabilities indicate that the other twin will be homosexual about 50% of the time.
The conclusion is that a gene or genes might be involved, but it is not a dominant factor - otherwise all sets of identical twins would exhibit the same set of sexual preferences within the set. Thus it is not a question of nature vs. nurture, but many feel it is more of a question of nature AND nurture, or something else added to the mixture, but what that something else is, no one knows at this time.
As to the genetic eye disease I have, although the location of the gene or genes is not yet known, it is definitely an autosomal dominant gene, with each child of a person who is diagnosed with the disease having a 50% probability of having the disease, if only one parent has the gene(s). It also is a late-onset disease, with most people diagnosed with the disease being diagnosed when they are in their 6th or 7th decade of life. Some, however, are not diagnosed until they are in their 80s, and may never need a corneal transplant, but they have children who are diagnosed in their 30s or 40s. And the opposite can occur - the parent being diagnosed at a young(er) age, and an offspring being diagnosed at a much later age. Since the gene(s) that cause the disease is yet to be identified, the only available means of identification now is a visual exam of the eye. I have two cousins who each have a child who was diagnosed with the disease when they were pre-teen. The parents were diagnosed when they were in their 40s, in both cases at least one parent was diagnosed only after their child was diagnosed. As of now, there are no known triggers (environmental, nutritional or otherwise) to the onset of the disease. With members of my family living from Rhode Island to Florida to Arizona, and all points in between, the disease strictly follows family lineage - those branches of the family who have had members diagnosed continue to have new members diagnosed, while those branches of the family that have not had members diagnosed continue to not have members diagnosed, continuing to the fifth and sixth generation after my paternal grandparents.
Since many of the family live in Indiana, and thus in similar environments, with similar nutritional patterns, if environment and/or nutrition were factors on triggering the disease, it should be evident by now, since if those were factors, there would be branches of the family who went several generations with no diagnosis of the disease, then suddenly someone is diagnosed; or entire sets of siblings would be diagnosed at similar ages, with similar severity of the disease. That has not happened to date.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Brad,
First off, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't make any religious arguments. I'm sick to death of that tactic of screaming "theocracy". It's often a cheap and dishonest way of shortcircuiting political debate.
As for the equal protection question, you obviously didn't read the article very closely. It's not that equal protection isn't a relevant legal principle, its that it is a principle that can't guide us clearly on this question. Think of it this way. Here are three propositions:
1. Those of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry.
2. Those of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
3. Siblings shouldn't be allowed to marry.
You can make an equal protection argument, logically, against any of these prohibitions. I think that the argument should only prevail against the first proposition. You presumably think it should apply only against the first two. But why not the third? There are moral judgments undergirding each case. Just invoking the equal protection argument, as such, doesn't resolve anything.
The application of equal protection is a political and, yes, a moral question. To assert that it applies to a given class of people on a given issue is to make that sort of political and moral judgment. The democracy should do that - not judges.
joshuachayne said...
The leading scientific explanation of the cause of homosexuality is the Hormone Disruption Theory.
OK then, explain why sets of identical twins (remember, identical twins contain the exact same set of genes, and are gestated together in the womb in the exact same amniotic fluids) are not 100% homosexual, or 100% non-homosexual. As I stated above, studies have shown that in about 50% of sets of identical twins, if one of the twins is homosexual, the other will be. But that also means that if one of the twins is homosexual, the other will NOT be.
As to whether the cause of homosexuality is genetic or not, it does not matter at all when it comes to the equal treatment of all citizens - either all citizens are treated equally, or I consider it 'legalized', but not legal, state-sponsored discrimination.
There might be some advantages if it is found that homosexuality is totally genetically caused, as then the idiot right, Bible-thumpers would have a major set of arguments, if not the only set of arguments, taken out of their quiver.
The other major advantage (and at the same time, a tremendous disadvantage) of the finding of a genetic cause for homosexuality would be the religious right Bible-thumpers having to justify aborting or not aborting a fetus that was found to be carrying the genetics for homosexuality. To me, their moral quandary would be fun to watch, but at the same time, very scary, as it is a known fact that they are not capable of a rational thought process.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
SnW,
What you don't seem to understand is that you seem to be saying that you are already equal under the law (not a position I have ever questioned), and yet you seem to think that it is a legislative priority to make a new law to confirm that.
My position is that if you are equal under the law (I reiterate, not a position I disagree with) then you don't need a law to confirm that. Existing laws should be perfectly adequate, and going down the judicial route is therefore a more sensible way to achieve your goal. I am not saying fire engines are blue, you are saying that you need a law saying they are red.
I do happen to believe that legislation, when it is not needed, is both harmful and wasteful. It takes time away from other laws, and requires someone to spend political capital on it, when that capital is better spent elsewhere.
Making laws that don't need passing IS bad legislation. If SCOTUS had passed down a judgement making Gay Marriage impossible, then I might have more sympathy with a legislative route. But as I understand it at the moment, Gay Marriage is constitutional, and as such legislation making it lawful is unnecesary and harmful to your purpose as it mobilizes your enemies.
And I don't believe debating political tactics is patronizing someone. If I have been patronizing, point out where. I certainly haven't meant to be.
Jeff said...
As for the equal protection question, you obviously didn't read the article very closely. It's not that equal protection isn't a relevant legal principle, its that it is a principle that can't guide us clearly on this question. Think of it this way. Here are three propositions:
1. Those of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Exactly who gets physically hurt in that situation? No one.
2. Those of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Exactly who gets physically hurt in that situation? No one.
3. Siblings shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Exactly who gets physically hurt in that situation? Any offspring, because of the probability of genetics-caused deformaties, either physical or mental, or both.
Take your religious arguments, dressed in pseudo-scientific dressings, and stuff them where the sun don't shine.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Jeff-
Don't put words in my mouth. It is clear what the good prof was arguing, he was arguing what you are, that the equal protection clause only applies when he wants it to.
The government really has little reason to bar marriage in any of the three cases. The likelihood of bringing together enough recessive genes in one generation of sibling marriage is actually very low. Let whomever wants marry, marry.
That said, the third is the situation of the three that can be differentiated at all. The first two do absolutely no "damage" to the state and certainly not enough to rise to the high level required for the government to be able to impinge personal rights. There is absolutely no damage to the state when gays marry, and there is absolutely no damage to the state when other races marry. We finally got rid of our scurrilous racial past in the last 40 years, now it is time to get out of our scurrilous religious past that is again dividing people. There is absolutely no way the good prof or you can argue that gays should not marry based before any fair fact finder.
what impact does seeing gay marriages happen in a state have on peoples feelings about whether or not to ban? Does the number of gay marriages/years that marriages are happening prior to the vote impact voter opinion of marriage equality based on impact to real-life married gays?
The article I read announcing the Iowa ruling also listed polls about Iowans current opinions regarding gay marriage, and my first thought was "wonder if that'll change (for the positive) once marriages start happening"
Is there any correlation between the reduced popularity of marriage bans and the recent granting of marraige equality or some sort of weird seperate but "equal" type of lip service (ie. civil unions) in other states?
Only 35% of Americans are against both gay marriage and civil unions for gays - 33% support gay marriage and another 27% support civil unions (I guess 5% refused to answer).
Now 8/2008 3/2007 3/2004
Legally marry 33% 34% 30% 22%
Form civil unions 27 22 28 33
No legal recognition 35 39 26 40
PDF of poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_040309.pdf
I bet support for gay marriage goes up in Iowa over time as people realize nothing changes for them when gays marry, and it helps the economy (current predictions are for millions in revenue):
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090405/NEWS/904050345/1001/NEWS
From the DesMoines Register article:
"A University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll released Friday found that 58.7 percent of Iowans under age 30 support gay marriage, and three-fourths favor some formal recognition of gay relationships.
A Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in 2008 showed that although most Iowans believe marriage should be only between one man and one woman, a majority of Iowa adults also supported the creation of civil unions granting benefits to gay couples."
OK then, explain why sets of identical twins (remember, identical twins contain the exact same set of genes, and are gestated together in the womb in the exact same amniotic fluids) are not 100% homosexual, or 100% non-homosexual.
Because its a common condition that one fetus gets higher priority access to the blood supply than the other. If one gets a bigger dose of the hormones than the other, some sort of differentiation could almost be expected, right?
Oshtur Vishanti said...
Because its a common condition that one fetus gets higher priority access to the blood supply than the other.
I don't disbelieve that may be possible, or even probable, but can you cite several reputable studies that back that proposition? Remember - reputable sources, please. Since we are discussing medicine (a branch of science), 'counter studies' (if any) would also be appreciated, and your basis for disbelieving the counter studies.
There are too many people who post things as fact (do I need to name them?), without factual basis for their assertion, that I prefer to have some knowledge of the basis for their assertions before I accept them.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Marky
Well, the Iowa Supremes didn't write a new law. They struck down an existing one. I would be satisfied with striking down every existing law that restricts the civil rights of GLBT people to a lesser state than heterosexuals are restricted.
However, I do repeat my earlier assertion that you are completely missing the point. The quantity of laws is irrelevant. The quality of laws is the only thing that matters. If we had one million laws that all stated "it is illegal to murder", why would that be a bad thing?
Those who think all laws are inherently evil will write only evil laws. They make terrible judges, as they assume that only anarchy is just-and even then, they overwhelmingly favor a lack of laws restricting the elites, while retaining what laws restrict the disadvantaged. In that sense, libertarians are hypocrites. This hypocrisy explains why they can never capture more than single digit percentages in elections. While Ron Paul bagged a shitload of money, even with all those campaign dollars, he could not convince the American people it was time to adopt the Somali system of government, which is to say, whoever can afford the biggest gun gets to make the rules. He is, like you, a propoonent of the idea that "we don't need any more laws-we need less laws" which echoes Reagan's "the government is not the solution to problems, it is the problem". After 30 years of that kind of anti-government, we began to realize that those who say all government is bad are terrible at running governments-they are just fulfilling their own prophecy.
I believe that government can be good if it is done properly. FDR asked Congress to draft ALOT of new laws, vastly expanded government-and did an amazingly good job as President. A testament to this is that there are no other Presidents who won more than two terms, and yet he won four. Washington probably could have if he'd have wanted that, but I doubt any other President could-even Lincoln.
So stop whining about how, "Oh, this is just one more law, and we have so many!" That's not at all the issue here. It's whether or not the law that is written is a good one or a bad one, not how many laws there are.
[b]There are too many people who post things as fact (do I need to name them?), without factual basis for their assertion, that I prefer to have some knowledge of the basis for their assertions before I accept them.[/b]
Sorry, its really hard to care about internet users that can't use Google. I thought you were genuinely interesting, I wasn't debating with you - you asked a question, I provided an answer - oddly enough what opinion you end up with is way way way way way down on my concern list.
But do check it out - identical twins vascular supplies cross mingle with a complex network of AV, AA and VV connections so that each has similar absolute supply but often one is getting 'first dibs' on the blood before its shared. With a trace element like a hormone that would reasonably be all it takes to make them non-identical in exposure. Assuming they get identical blood supply would be the baseless initial assumption. (oh and they are exposed to the hormones via the blood stream not the amniotic fluid)
@Opus 132:
Um, maybe. I am so thoroughly an atheist I seldom think of how to pitch something as god given; for me it would be an inherent lie.
Wouldn't the religious just deny it and say you can't prove it, or it is Satan's work to mess with the genes?
Honestly I don't know; the religious seem, shall we say, hell-bent on simply denying any science that disagrees with their preconceived notion of the world and their preferred status in it.
Oshtur-
LOL!!! The idea that penetrance is based on access to the blood supply is just hilarious.
If there is a genetic predisposition, is has a low penetrance. We do not understand penetrance related to complex quantitative traits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance
@Mike in Maryland:
Well, that would suggest some kind of social environmental triggers that tip a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality in one direction or the other.
Isn't it true that among identical twins, one is usually the dominant personality and the other is more submissive? (I can't remember if I read that or if it is just hearsay.)
A 50/50 chance suggests a social situation that happens exclusively to one twin and as a result not the other; such as being born first, being born second, or being the "leader" twin, or being the "follower" twin. Or something like that.
I say that because 50/50 is a hard balancing act to achieve naturally, and for twins suspiciously "one out of two."
In any case, it does seem my original argument holds. Genetic determinism has holes in it, and the proper argument is human rights.
Tony C,
This is why most scientists are atheists or agnostics.
A few (disturbingly, the head of the Human Genome Project,e.g.) are very religious. These would be the people likely to do what you,re worried about. I think their colleagues would come down on them the way the American Psychiatric Association comes down on those who try to 'cure' homosexuality or describe it as an illness or aberration in their profession. Geneticists found to be genetically engineering the sexuality of fetuses to match popular or religious bigotry do so at their own peril-it would not be long after that the AMA would be howling for blood, and state boards of health would be yanking their license to practice. Such would be the moral equivalent of those few physicians that agree to work for big tobacco or who administer the death penalty-these few are social pariahs within the medical and public health communities, seen as symbols of death and cruelty themselves, which are, after all, the enemy of medicine.
Therefore, I do not fear this proposition so much.
Tony C.-
Suffice it to say, some of our best scientists in the world are working on mathematical and biological for complex quantitative traits, and they have failed to describe the reasons for penetrance. I am absolutely positive that you have not figured it out in five minutes.
Post a Comment