Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

2014 Was a Good Year: Better Than You Remember

Stopping the innocent from pleading guilty: Can brain-based recognition detection tests help?

#19: Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement

#20: Shape-shifting claytronics: wild future here by 2020, experts say

Superintelligences Are Already Out There!

For a Longer, Brighter and More Just Future


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

Christian K. Nordtomme on 'Superintelligences Are Already Out There!' (Dec 21, 2014)

AmbassadorZot on '#22: Ray Kurzweil on Rationality and the Moral Considerability of Intelligent Machines' (Dec 20, 2014)

reddibrek on 'Currency Multiplicity: Social Economic Networks' (Dec 20, 2014)

pansi4 on 'The Slut Shaming, Sex-Negative Message in the Christmas Story: It's Worth a Family Conversation' (Dec 20, 2014)

Vigrith on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Dec 20, 2014)

ericscoles on 'The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you' (Dec 20, 2014)

instamatic on 'Wage Slavery and Sweatshops as Free Enterprise?' (Dec 19, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Review of Michio Kaku’s, Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century
Dec 15, 2014
(10003) Hits
(0) Comments

What Will Life Be Like Inside A Computer?
Dec 7, 2014
(8475) Hits
(0) Comments

Bitcoin and Science: DNA is the Original Decentralized System
Nov 24, 2014
(8196) Hits
(0) Comments

Is AI a Myth?
Nov 30, 2014
(5260) Hits
(32) Comments



IEET > Rights > Personhood > PostGender > ReproRights > Vision > Futurism > Technoprogressivism > Contributors > Hank Pellissier

Print Email permalink (37) Comments (17630) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


State-by-State Gay Marriage Acceptance


Hank Pellissier
By Hank Pellissier
Ethical Technology

Posted: Sep 14, 2010

How is gay marriage in America proceeding down the aisle?  This question concerns all transhumanists because persecution of homosexuality is an anti-Enlightenment human rights violation that is rooted in archaic religious superstition and anti-scientific thought.  Actively supporting gay marriage is the ethically responsible position for all progressive transhumanists.

image1Surprisingly, the grandest advance in homosexual matrimony in the last 60 days is not the California judicial dithering over Proposition 8.  No.  Peer south of the border, amigos, and you’ll see not Uno, but Dos Hispanic nations that have embraced same-sex marriage.

First, the Senate of Argentina ratified gay marriage by a vote 33-27 on July 15.  The proposal was spearheaded by President Cristina Fernandez and her husband, ex-President Nestor Kirchner, and opposed (predictably) by the Catholic Church, who condemned it as “a move by the father of lies [Satan] to confuse and deceive the children of God.” Buenos Aires already had civil unions; so did the village of Ushaia in Tierra del Fuego. The new law’s opponents are mounting only feeble resistance as the gauchos gallop towards a secular society, motivated by godfather Spain’s similar legislation in 2005.

I promised two miracles, so prepare for a shock if your virgin ears have not heard the news. On August 11, gay marriage was essentially ratified in… Mexico.  Blink again, and believe it.  The nation that exported machismo is swishing towards the altar.  Okay, right, Frieda Kahlo was openly bisexual, but… where’d this come from? 

Distrito Federal. Gay marriage was initiallly legalized in Mexico City by its progressive mayor Marcelo Ebrard (who is expected to run for El Presidente in 2012) and five months later the Supreme Court announced that Mexico City gay weddings must be recognized by all 31 Mexican states.  The Catholic Church (redundantly) had a hissy-fit, shrilling that the measure’s enactment was more horrible for Mexicans than the current drug war (25,000 dead and counting). 
image2
The United States is now in the embarrassing position of being surrounded by two large nations - Mexico and Canada - that have more progressive gay rights than the red-white-and-blue citizenry.  This hypocritical stance for a populace that identifies itself with personal freedom will sharply intensify when additional Latin American nations ratify same-sex marriage: I predict this will happen in four more nations in the next four years: Uruguay, Ecuador, Colombia, and… BRAZIL - the samba queen herself, emerging superpower, “Kiss of the Spider Woman” country.

Is the USA future equally gay?  Indeed. Popular opinion is shifting inexorably towards an accepting view of same-sex marriage; everyone knows this, even Republicans.  Recent GOP heavyweights who have declared that gay marriage is either valid, or not worth fighting about, include Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Glenn Beck, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Cindy and Meghan McCain.  Many Libertarian and “Tea Party” members are equally supportive of gay marriage, or at least indifferent.  So… who’s resisting? 

Religious folks.  Mormons, conservative Catholics, evangelical fundamentalists.  But they’re slowly getting outnumbered by their own voting children: a New York Times/CBS News poll revealed that 57% of the populace under 40 years old is supportive of gay marriage.

How fast are we changing?  My calculation is this: every year, gay marriage proponents gain an additional 1% of the electorate.  This is evidenced in California numbers: in March 2000, Proposition 22 wanted to amend the Family Code to say “only marriage between a man and a woman” would be recognized in the state. image3 The measure passed, 61.4% to 38.6%.  In November 2008, Proposition 8 also rejected gay marriage, but in a much closer election, 52.24% to 47.76%.  Elementary math reveals that gay marriage gained 9.16% more supporters in just 8.5 years.

Below I have calculated when same-sex weddings will achieve majority support throughout the land of liberty.  For 30 states, I’ve done this by adding 1% per year to the percentage that voted against a gay marriage ban, until the total reached 50.1%.  In the remaining states, I used either polling figures (that I often regard skeptically), and/or I calculate an acceptance date based on the behavior of neighboring states with a similar demographic.  If a state finds itself surrounded by either gay-marriage states (or nations), or by anti-gay marriage states, I accelerate or delay the process by two to four years, and I hurried slacker Mississippi along, alone in the end, with a five year nudge.  Justification for this equation is evident in New England, which adopted gay marriage in a daisy-chain fashion, and also in California, which was deeply impacted by Utah Mormons in Prop 8. 

My results are different than those arrived at by statistician Nate Silver of the New York TimesHis figures, I believe, are erroneous because he over-estimates the slide towards gay-friendliness at 2% annually, twice my prognosis.  Data explaining my analysis is referenced at the end.  If you disagree with me, let me know. Did I position your home-state correctly? I welcome all critiques and suggestions.

2004  Massachusetts
2008  Connecticut
2009  Vermont
          Iowa
2010  New Hampshire
          Washington D.C.
2011  New Jersey
2012  Oregon
          California
          Maine
          New York
          Delaware
          Washington
          South Dakota
2013  Maryland
          Colorado
2014  Michigan
          Virginia
          Rhode Island
          Wisconsin
          New Mexico
2015  Arizona
          Alaska
2016  Ohio
          Pennsylvania
          Illinois
2017  Hawaii
          Minnesota
2019  Nevada
          Indiana
2020  Idaho
          Wyoming
          Montana
          Florida
          Nebraska
2021  Utah
2024  North Dakota
          Missouri
2025  Kansas
2028  Texas
2029  Arkansas
          West Virginia
          North Carolina
2030  Kentucky
          Georgia
          Oklahoma
2032  Louisiana
          South Carolina
2034  Alabama
          Tennessee
2035  Mississippi

Gay marriage will arrive earlier if state courthouses deem it unconstitutional to do otherwise.  The above scenario should be viewed as a cautious prediction, based entirely on majority voting support.  My final forecast: the last states to concede to gay marriage were all members of the Confederacy that was reluctant to end African-American slavery.  This parallel will be repeatedly noted.


Data:
Alabama: 19% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006.  Neighboring influence accelerates it three years.
Alaska: 32% voted against marriage ban in 1998.  Canadian influence accelerates it two years.
Arizona: 44% vote against gay marriage ban in 2008.
Arkansas: 25% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
California: 48% vote against gay marriage ban in 2008.
Colorado: 44% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006.
Delaware: State legislature supports gay rights.
Florida: 38% vote against gay marriage ban in 2008.
Georgia: 24% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Hawaii: 31% voted against marriage ban in 1998.
Idaho: 37% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006.
Illinois: 2005 poll shows only 31% support gay marriage, but half of Chicago.  Neighbors accelerate it four years.
Indiana: Conservative MidWest state finally follows neighbors.
Kansas: 30% vote against gay marriage ban in 2005.
Kentucky: 24% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Louisiana: 22% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Maine: Narrowly rejected gay marriage in 2009.
Maryland: Recent UCLA study says the state will gain 3.2 million annually via same-sex marriage.
Michigan: 41% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Minnesota:  2010 poll says only 40% of state supports gay marriage, neighbors accelerate it three years
Mississippi: 14% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Missouri: 29% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Montana: 33% voted against marriage ban in 2004.  Canadian influence accelerates it one year.
Nebraska: 30% voted against marriage ban in 2000.
Nevada: 33% voted against marriage ban in 2002.
New Jersey: Poll says voters already support gay marriage by 6% margin.
New Mexico: Libertarian leaders; beats neighbor Arizona by one year.
New York:  2009 poll suggests that 47% support gay marriage.
North Carolina: 2009 poll showed only 21% support gay marriage.
North Dakota: 27% voted against marriage ban in 2004.  Neighboring influence accelerates it three years.
Ohio: 38% voted against marriage ban in 2004.
Oklahoma: 24% voted against gay marriage ban in 2004.
Oregon: 43% voted against gay marriage ban in 2004.
Pennsylvania: Conservative resistance, but the city of “brotherly love” spearheads change.
Rhode Island:  2009 poll says 43% oppose gay marriage in this Catholic state, but New England tolerance will accelerate it by 2 years.
South Carolina: 22% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006.  Neighbors accelerates it three years, religion delays it one.
South Dakota: 48% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006.  Neighbors delay it three years.
Tennessee: 19% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006. Neighbors accelerate three years.
Texas: 24% vote against gay marriage in 2005. Mexican and New Mexican influence accelerates it three years.
Utah: 34% voted against gay marriage ban in 2004.  Mormons add a year.
Virginia: 43% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006. 
Washington: Follows Oregon and Canada neighbors. Supported domestic partner referendum in 2009 by 7%.
West Virginia: Socially conservative state finally follows its neighbors.
Wisconsin: 41% vote against gay marriage ban in 2006. Neighbors Michigan and Iowa accelerate one year.
Wyoming: Still embarrassed by the murder of Matt Shepherd, the “Brokeback Mountain” state is also proud that it was the first state to give women the vote in 1869.


Hank Pellissier was IEET’s Managing Director on January-October in 2012, and an IEET Affiliate Scholar. He’s the author of two e-books, Invent Utopia Now and Why is the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews so High? He is currently at BrighterBrains.org
Print Email permalink (37) Comments (17631) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I personally think it is a very interesting Chart and it makes total sense as to when the majority of americans in a given state will reach acceptance of gay marriage. I am a supporter of gay marriage- hence i keep up with all updates and movements that are currently active and those that will take place in a near future. California is a very complicated and pragmatic state when it comes to same sex marriage due to the degree the issue has achieved.
I do disagree with this proposal, because unfortuantely this is not how it is gonna come around, there are states in which polls have already consistently identified support for the ideology of same sex marriage and yet they have not be able to achieve this progress- states such as Rhode Island with 60% and New York with with around 50%.
As the chart also portrays Iowa, the only state with gay marriage outside New England has embraced such practice, but that does not mean that a majority of Iowans support it. We have to be honest, their polls dictate that they have come around and it has presented a steady increase since it was once passed, but that doesnt mean they have reached a majority.
I would also go a step further and predict some of the most fierceful fights ahead with this issue will unleash in Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York and Maryland.
States such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania will debate the use, but their legislature are not ready to pass the measure.
Other states, such as Washington and Oregon have great acceptance, but face a much greater obstacle - their gay marriage bans; and unless they are outlawed by Perry v. Schwarzenegger it is gonna take time for them to see marriage equality in their state.





I have a somewhat different view: what business does the state have sanctifying or denying a religious ritual anyway, or interfering with certain familial arrangements between people? Get the government out of marriage, don’t beg them for approval. It’s none of their business. If there’s one kind of perversion I can’t tolerate it’s power perversion - the insipid need to control others without their consent and the demand that they permission to do the things they’re already entitled to do by virtue of being sapient beings.





I think you have some good points Justen—its interesting to note that Gay Marriage is not presently legal in Scandinavian countries, partly I believe because marriage is just not as important there, many couples never get married.  I think there is a case for abolishing marriage altogether, or at least relegating it to being a weird religious ritual, and replacing it entirely with civil unions that grant the same benefits as marriage.  In the case of the US of course, it is important that everyone have equal rights regardless of sexuality.  I am not sure about my stance on the following issue though—should the state impel religious to make their sacraments - like marriage - gay friendly?





@ Hank

Taking sacraments is a religious ceremony, and as such are not and should not be regulated by the state.

I’m for the abolition of marriage as a “secular” institution at all, and eliminating all laws dealing with intrapersonal relationships entirely other than voluntary economic “partnerships” and exchange of powers of attorney. Such idiocy as “polygamy” laws have no basis other than religious dogma.

But the same goes for the war on drugs, and other consensual crimes, all of which originate in religious belief systems that have no justification for being “laws”

There has to be a seperation of church and state, and that must apply in both directions. NO LAWS BASED ON, OR REGULATING, RELIGIOUS BELIEF SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

Which means a religion is free to be as dogmatic, bigoted, and hateful as it wishes to be.

But it also means that no law should exist that is based on religious dogma, including marriage.





Actually Norway & Sweden have equalized marriage,Iceland as well. (Their PM is a lesbian married to her longtime partner) Denmark & Finland are in the process of doing so as well. My problem is that civil rights should not be subject to the whims of a heterosexist society. 2035 for nationwide equality? Unacceptable!!!





Thanks for doing this research but I have to point out something, having lived in CA and volunteered against Prop 22 in 2000.

Unfortunately, not much has changed since 2000 in CA.

Prop 22 was passed during a PRIMARY ELECTION, an election in which Republican turnout was much higher than Democratic turnout. In fact, Republicans made up a much higher % of the votes than they were a part of the states’ electorate. The reason was that there was a very competitive race for president between John McCain and George Bush JR. On the Democratic side there was not a competitive race, with Al Gore basically having all but won against former NJ Sen. Bill Bradley.

Check out these numbers:

http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/returns/pres/00.htm

As you can see, in column two (which represents voters voting in a closed party primary) there were almost a 200,000 more Republican voters than there were Democratic voters. At that time in CA, there were 1,543,717 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

See: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/29day-presprim-00/county.pdf

Therefore we can say that the 2000 primary electorate was a Republican heavy electorate, and since Republicans are more likely to oppose gay marriage, the 2000 primary electorate was heavily anti gay marriage. More so than the overall population of CA.

Jump ahead to 2008 and Prop 8. Prop 8 was passed in a GENERAL ELECTION, one where Democratic voters were enthusiastic while Republican voters were less so.

Democratic voter registration advantage had grown to 2,255,443.

See: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-presgen-08/county.pdf

In CA’s 2008 general election, 79.4% of registered voters voted.

Therefore we can say that the general election of 2008 was much more representative of how CA’s feel about gay marriage than the primary election of 2000 . We can also say that not much has changed since 2000. We definitely should not compare the two results and claim that things have changed drastically.

I believe that more states will allow for gay marriage in the future, but I am much less optimistic than you and believe that it will take a lot longer that what you have theorized.

One reason why I feel this way is because of who is on each side of the debate.

Most of the people who are against gay marriage do so on religious grounds. Most of these people will never change their opinion since they believe that all mighty God wants them to believe (and vote) this particular way.

On our side are younger voters and those who are not overly religious. But while they may be for gay marriage, they are not going to protest for it nor are they going to go out and walk precincts for it. One reason is that they don’t think it is such a big deal. After all, people aren’t getting physically hurt or killed because of this issue (as compared to other civil rights struggles in the past). Also, young people today wait longer to get married (if they ever marry) and therefore care less about this issue. Justen typifies this view in his writings above.

Finally, I worry about the influence of new immigrants, who are often more religious and more socially conservative than the electorate as a whole. In my state of WA for instance, it is Russian Fundamentalist Christians who are leading the charge against granting more rights to gay and lesbians.

Again, thanks for doing this. I hope you are right.





I disagree that the government shouldn’t recognize relationships.  Not doing so has caused problems in Israel and other places in the Middle East, but I don’t really want to get into that, and you can find out with a quick google search.  I also don’t really see it as a religious idea, necessarily.

One issue with predicting based on the results of states’ respective marriage amendments is that some of them banned all recognition of same-sex couples (domestic partnership, civil unions, & ended up greatly restricting what can be done with wills and other legal documents and such), while some were just for marriage.  The first amendment proposed in Arizona failed by a few percentage points because it banned all recognition, while the second passed a couple of years later by a decent margin, and banned only marriage.  I mean, there’s pretty much no way South Dakota would approve it nearly as early as is stated.





Now this is more like it. I particularly like how you make it a transhumanist issue. While I oppose marriage in general it’s worthwhile to support the legalization same-sex marriage for the reasons given at the start of this piece. It’s hopefully a step toward queering the country.





The South Dakota information is surprising, but I have referenced it below—they only narrowly banned gay marriage, by a 52-48 margin.  Another forecaster writing in 2006 thought South Dakota would approve gay marriage by 2009.  South Dakota is also adjacent to Iowa, which has ratified gay marriage.  And finally, I remember that South Dakota produced George McGovern, and I believe they were the only state to vote for him.  What surprises me though is that North Dakota, according to my calculations, ratifies gay marriage much much later, even though it is next to gay-friendly Canada.





One very important factor.  If the U.S. Supreme Court supports Judge Walker’s decision…every other state across the nation will fall like a deck of cards and same sex marriage will sweep across the nation quickly.





Every time a state legalizes, support goes up.  So it actually accelerates.  Thus +1% per year is too low.

Not to mention judicial decisions which boost support:  if the DOMA decision holds, if the DADT decision holds.  And of course as Jerry mentions, if SCOTUS makes a Brown v Board-like decision.

California is looking more and more like 2010, as defendants in Perry v Schwarzenegger will not be able to demonstrate standing, as explicitly requested by the 9th.  Lack of standing cannot be appealed to SCOTUS.





I just don’t know about 2016 for Pennsylvania.  Sometimes in Pennsylvania I feel like it more be like 2024… but at least it wouldn’t be 2035.





Pennsylvania will come around 2016-2017. Same sex marriage supporters and advocates will push for the measure. Most likely by then States like New York will have follow suit in recognizing just relationships and thus advancing the states agenda.
Besides it will be a very controversial issue that will unleash in a couple years or so, as both a measure to admend the constitution to ban same sex marriage and one to provide it.
State senators have been discussing this issue as it was brought by senator Eichelberger and senator Leach. Pennsylvania senate judiciary committee rejected a bill to ban same sex marriages in the state on March 2010 in a vote 8-6.
Pennsylvania is one those particular states in which only a statute prohibits same-sex marriage not an admendment paving an easier road to reach marriage equality.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39246126/ns/us_news/

“At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal.”





Montana’s Republican party is simply outrageous!





Too bad Puerto Rico wasn’t considered on this survey. It’s a US territory and its culturally close to Spain/Latin America.

In Puerto Rico Same-sex marriage is prohibited by statute but not by ammendment. There was an attempt (Resolución 99) to ban same-sex marriages in the Constitution of Puerto Rico but it died in the house. 

The current government in PR is Conservative and Republican and the Opposition party is also quite Conservative (The President of the Senate Thomas Rivera Schatz has been publicly mocking gays for years and no sanctions have taken place)  so it feels like same-sex marriage is never going to happen here.

But when Ricky Martin came out of the closet, it opened the issue on the radio and most people calling were actually supportive of Ricky and his family. Same in print. Some radio commentators were in open support of same-sex marriage so it feels to me that public support may be way higher than political support.

But in Puerto Rico political agendas still revolve around pro-statehood v. pro-sovereignty. Research is badly needed!





I don’t want to do anything to jeopardize the possibility of Obama’s re-election. The former Confederate states you mention above are states that have the ability to defeat Obama in 2012, giving us four or eight years of another Bush-type interregnum; an outcome to be avoided for as long as possible. So I would like to lay off gay marriage until the Republicans recapture the Executive Branch in 2016. Then we can push gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever you want. Please consider this: if a GOP (it would take too much time to establish a third party between now and 2012) defeats Obama in the next general election, a Republican president would begin an administration in 2013 that would be eligible to remain in office until January 2021. An entire decade would thus be wasted. So by avoiding the provocation of gay marriage, we might be able to ease the re-election of Obama in 2012—giving us four more years of breathing space.
We can’t always improve the hand we are dealt, but we can always fold if we aren’t extra careful.





@postfuturist

No offense, but you are incorrect.

Obama only won three former Confederate states—NC, FL and VA. If every single state that was in the Confederacy voted Republican in 2012, Obama could STILL win re-election. In fact, he could also lose NV, NM, IA, CO and IN. At that point he would still have 273 electoral votes—3 more than the 270 needed to win re-election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2008.svg

The issue of gay marriage is not as volatile as it once was. It does not rally Republican voters as it once did; in fact the issue is starting to rally liberal and Democratic voters. This issue, like marijuana reform, also can help increase voter turnout among young voters.

Obama has placed himself in a good position on this issue—his position is a moderate one and reflects the opinions of the majority of the US public. He states that he is for civil unions and for the states to figure it out themselves. While this is frustrating to many GLBT activists, it is the safest course of action for him (and having Obama in the White House, making nominations to the Supreme Court, is much better for the GBLT activists than having a Republican in the position).

Another thing: the reasons for the change in public opinion have been because of the attention given to campaigns for and against gay marriage. Now is not the time to “lay off gay marriage”, as you say. GLBT activists must pick their battles. But they must also continue those battles.





At this time I do not share your optimism, there are always unpleasant surprises: did you think Bush would win in 2000? or be re-elected in 2004? Until 1999, how many outside of Texas knew anything about him? Someone thoroughly unscrupulous such as Karl Rove can act as a Svengali, using rightwing demogoguery to squeeze another Bush-type into the presidency in 2012, or 2016. Now, IMO that wont happen, but I didn’t think in 1998 that the son of a president only significant for having been Reagan’s vice president would be elected twice in the next decade. Politics is full of nasty surprises; Exhibit A is Sarah Palin, who has put us on notice that she will exploit any weakness & vacillation (she will take advantage of any opportunity to maneuver) in her opponents to either attempt to be elected president, or act as Rightist kingmaker. If that isn’t unsettling enough, the Tea Party movement exists allied with Palin, but still entirely independent of her. Right now it doesn’t look good for the rest of this decade, or for gay marriage in this decade. But after this decade is over, who knows.
I don’t trust ‘futurism’ anymore, the failures are minimized, the successes are over-hyped; BTW, I’m interested in scientific progress—but that may only be because I don’t know much about it, perhaps if I did the flaws would be more apparent.





A very recent AP/Roper poll that can be viewed here:
http://www.ontopmag.com/documents/ap-2010-poll.pdf
indicates Gay Marriage is already favored by the majority in the USA.
The poll presents a astounding shift in opinion in just the last year.
here’s what it says -
in September 2009
respondents favoring Gay Marriage - 46%
respondents opposing Gay Marriage - 53%
in August 2010
respondents favoring Gay Marriage - 52%
respondents opposing Gay Marriage - 46%
that indicates a 6% switch towards favoring Gay Marriage in one year,
far greater than my estimated 1% per year.
My opinion is that the poor economic situation is actually good for gay rights, every state can improve its revenue by allowing Gay Marriage
other polls show a decline in church attendance, another factor that probably benefits gay marriage





I am a heterosexual and really don’t understand the problem. The state only has authority in this situation as a result of establishing the marriage contract. Thus, when you get married the state short circuits the process so that you don’t have to actually sign a contract. The contract in implied by state law. The state is not a religous body thus can not say who can or can’t be married in a church. If you want to be “married” then don’t be so in your face with the religous nuts. A couple can make a contract between themselves that supercedes the state and would establish them as a couple. As far as I know there aren’t any restrictions on the formation of contract, but check with an attorney. Once you have the contract in hand then get a “marriage” from a participating church. If you are restricted in forming contracts, then fight for that right and then go for the short circuit marriage contract provided by the state. Only, do you really want that contract? It sucks.





A joke about Anita Bryant back in 1979 or ‘80: gays came out of the closet to find Bryant standing there telling them to go back inside. Things have changed since then, but only marxists think the changes are straight-line. Things were pretty liberal in the 1970s, then in the ‘80s came a retrenchment.
Do you ever talk to fundamentalists, far-right Republicans, tea partiers, etc? they are utterly determined to fight ruthlessly to have things their way; they play for keeps. I know your predictions for states allowing gay marriage/civil unions are merely a starting point for discussion, however I live in a state you predicted to allow gay marriage/unions in 2013, and there’s no way. 2023 perhaps—but not 2013.





Hi postfuturist—
regarding your post, I am actually from an extended family that is (was?) fundamentalist Christian and Far Right, so talking about Gay Marriage is something we do, heatedly, all the time.  The issue is very relevant in my family because I have one lesbian cousin, two gay cousins, and I am a “donor dad” to two lesbians.  I have been promoting gay marriage in my extended family for 10 years, quite alone in doing so, and I am celebrating the fact that my stance is becoming mainstream.
Regarding Montana where you are apparently from, it is shaping up to be one of the most interesting battlegrounds in Gay Marriage.  As you pointed out, the Montana GOP is rabidly anti-gay, but there is better news elsewhere in the state.  The Mayor of Bozeman is leading the way, he - along with the ACLU - are helping Montana gays sue the state for equal rights.  The story link is here:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_0ab4ad06-c1ef-11df-b357-001cc4c03286.html
Montana will be fun to watch.  Let me know if you want to make a wager.  It might not be 2013, but it won’t be as late as you suggest, either.  Would you “bet your ranch” against 2016 ?





Sorry to break it to you, but both states Maryland and Colorado will likely pass it by 2014, if Maryland doe not passes before then. Do you know Maryland recognizes out of state same-sex marriages? - How about Colorado, the have a domestic partnership inplace more than most states in the USA.





“How about Colorado,
the have a domestic partnership inplace more than most states in the USA.”

Only in Boulder and a few other bubble communities.
Hank has it right: it wont be as early as he thinks, but not as far in the future as I think.





Colorado (ALL THE STATE)
Designated beneficiary Agreement - july 1, 2009
Look it up sometime





Outside of Boulder, CO is basically a rightwing Midwestern state, with a few superficial frills. Designated Beneficiary Agreement isn’t full rights, merely a small start. What sours me on futurism is continually being told there are “glimmers of hope”; exactly, tiny little glimmers. Just today Republicans blocked the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, meaning even though gays risk their lives in the Services (for starters to help defend Republican’s property & power) the GOP grandstands against gays to gather more far-rightist votes. You all know the GOP wants to repeat the 1994 Gingrich time waster—that’s the name of the game: it’s aganist the law to kill people, but wasting their precious time is absolutely legal.





... a mistake some of you might be making is thinking gays are accepted, when they are really only being smarmed. “Here is your right to designated beneficiary agreements, now get away from us”, which is what they are saying once you strip away their public relations. What concerns me here is you know what the GOP is like, they aren’t going to give up in this decade, for sure. Say confirmed far-right Republicans and their allies are only actually 25 percent of the electorate—that’s still one quarter, they still pack a punch.





To completely belabor the point, many futurists and the majority of Marxists share a common shortcoming: they know people (or at least men) want power, but they underestimate the extent of the interest in power. Here’s what Clinton said yesterday; [headline] “Clinton: Don’t Misunderestimate Palin. Bill Clinton Says Sarah Palin Is Somebody To Be Reckoned With.”
At least it is coming into focus now, it makes sense that the GOP and Tea Party would use an attractive woman as a shill in the 21st century. They’ll do almost anything to gain power.





Despite the DADT setback
NY Governor signed a law for gay couples to adopt jointly
FL - Miami 3rd court of appeals found the adoption ban by homosexuals is unconstitutional.

Always progress for the LGBT community-





The Tea Party progresses as well, so does Palin; they are gaining a great deal of funding from well-off Rightists; and money is power.
Were you around in the late 1960s- early ‘70s? it might have appeared at that time progress was being made, however the progress was largely illusory. I vividly remember the ‘Stonewall’ gay uprising (protesting police harassment at gay bars) of 1969; since then, 41 years ago, there hasn’t been THAT much progress.
Same with feminism: men control women—as men are willing & able to use violence, or at least the threat of it, against women.





... Just you watch: rightwing demagogues will sweep the field in the midterms. However after 2020 the situation might change.
But a long row to hoe, Joe.





Here’s some more Positive news:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/gay-marriage-gets-boost-from-wall-street/?scp=1&sq=gay+wall+street&st=cse
a big Wall Street fundraiser for gay marriage in New York state -
one of the principal funders is California transhumanist, Peter Thiel
I believe New York will accept gay marriage very soon
also, a new AP poll indicates that USA voters are 52-46% in favor of gay marriage
and finally, there’s a lot of speculation that Obama will endorse gay marriage in his second term.
all good news!





@David7134 - It’s not that simple, because the government has treated marriage as a very special kind of contract, granting rights and priviledges that can’t be gained from normal contract law.

The clearest example of this is probably in taxation - opposiite-sex married couples enjoy a large number of tax breaks/exemptions when transferring property, can file returns (local, state and federal) jointly, and so on. Additionally, opposite-sex married couples enjoy spousal priviledge in the courts. Opposite-sex married couples are usually able to share employer provided health care, and don’t pay taxes on benefits provided for the spouse.

Just this week, my fiance (NOT my ‘partner’ or ‘friend’ - we are engaged to be married) and I established a ‘domestic partnership’ with our city’s registry. We decided to register as part of the requirements for the domestic partner health insurance offered by my fiance’s job, but the only benefits actually granted by the government because of it are visitation rights at city hospitals and jails.

I certainly never hope I never have to visit my fiance in a city jail, but that’s a particular right I never would have even thought of. And I’m pretty sure it’s not something you could put in a contract.





I am not from the US and never been there.however i do think that marrige will be legal there everywhere with in next 10 years.The think is that many countrys in Europe make it legal mostly it cold civil union that is the same like marrige.Also other countrys done that and this nomber is going up.So I think things will change there faster then many people think.





Predicting the future is pretty dicey. The gay marriage situation wont be much different in 2020. However in 2120 it sure will.





I’m a little torn between if NC is going to break away from the southern states and do marriage before the fed has to get involved or if it will take fed action way down the road before NC legalizes it.

Here are the factors.

1) Although marriage is being put up to a referendum this spring in NC, it is the only to southern state to not have a constitutional ban meaning the anti-lgbt laws are more easily overturned. Recent polls have also shown that when emphasizing that the referendum bans civil unions too, a vast majority of North Carolinians do NOT support the amendment.

2) Since your 2009 poll, support for marriage has grown 12%. That’s big. At this rate a majority of NC’s citizens will approve before the end of the decade.

3) NC is political polarized. You’ve got the “latte sipping prius driving” liberals in the research triangle, vibrant gay scene of Asheville, center left city of Charlotte, and then the extremely conservative rural areas. I read after the 2008 election when NC went blue for the first time since 1976, that in most counties the vote either went overwhelming towards Obama or McCain.

4)Some municipalities in NC already offer domestic partnerships which is not common across the south. Also, having lived in both Carolinas, let me just say that NC is years ahead of SC.

Conclusion: So yea, I definitely don’t think NC will legalize gay marriage without federal intervention before 2020. But I also think that without federal intervention, we’d be one of the first southern states to recognize same sex marriage.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Getting Mental with Giulio Prisco

Previous entry: What do people think about synthetic biology?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376