boxturtlebulletin: Marriage Rights Predictions for 2009

[bluedawg12]

Highlights from BoxTurtleBulletin - for more detailed State analysis please go to the link.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

Marriage Rights Predictions for 2009
Timothy Kincaid
January 2nd, 2009
2008 was an exciting year - with both highs and lows - for marriage equality. But the upcoming year is likely to be exciting as well. Here are a discussions and some projections about the direction of marriage equality in 2009.

Of course, my crystal ball is probably no better tuned into the future than yours, but here are my guesses and some states to watch.

California: In March, the California State Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether Proposition 8 is a valid amendment to the state constitution.

The relatively close margin on the vote coupled with the dominance of political positioning in opposition to the amendment will provide the court with the sort of political cover that could allow them to judge in favor of equality. Further, as the state moved from a 61.4% opposition in 2000 to a 52.3% in 2008, jurists may hesitate to uphold an initiative that can predictably be contrary to the wishes of the majority of Californians within the next few years.

Additionally, there is little threat of voter reprisal for three of the justices who ruled favorably on In Re Marriage Cases. Carlos Moreno and Kathryn Werdegar are not up for a confirmation vote until 2014 and Joyce Kennard is safe until 2018. Chief Justice Ronald George is due for confirmation in 2010, but as he is already Enemy Number One to anti-gay activists it’s unlikely that this will weigh much in his decision.

Interestingly, Ming Chin – a dissenting vote on marriage in May – may feel pressure from two fronts in his consideration of this case. Chin is up for confirmation in 2010 and it would be naïve to think that he is not aware of the political backlash and massive organization that resulted from the outcome of Proposition 8. I think he is aware that his decision, either way, will engender a movement to oppose his confirmation. Additionally, Chin, as an Asian American, may recognize that the stripping of fundamental rights – whether or not he initially supported them – from a protected minority can establish a precedent that has long legs and severe consequences.

This is difficult to call, but I think that I will cautiously predict that the CA Supreme Court finds that a fundamental right cannot be removed from a suspect class by means of a majority vote. I will go so far as to say that I would not be surprised to see a greater than 4-3 split on this issue.

Should, however, the Court rule against equality, be prepared for state-wide protests and for the creation of a political machine to collect signatures to get a reversal amendment on the ballot in 2010 as well as to deny reconfirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin.

Iowa: The state Supreme Court heard arguments this month on whether the state’s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. They should announce their decision at some point within the first half of the year.

I’m not making a call on this one. But should equality prevail, there is no initiative process in Iowa.
<snip>

New York: This state is situated to be the first state to voluntarily select marriage equality, should it so choose. The state Assembly has already voted favorably and the Governor is supportive; the only glitch is a handful of Democratic Senators who are seeking to hold up the confirmation of the Democratic Senate Leader in order to oppose marriage equality and advance their own political profile.

<snip>

One factor that may influence this, however, is the action of New York’s neighbors (see discussion below). Should a New England state move to marriage equality, that might be a bit influential and supportive. But if it looks like New Jersey will legalize marriage, state pride may push New York legislators to twist arms and get this on the books.

<snip>

New Hampshire: The state has had Civil Unions for a year and already there are expressions of discontent and a move to legalize full marriage. Last week, State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill to legalize marriage.

However, Governor John Lynch opposes this effort and even if those who voted for civil unions all favor marriage, they do not have the votes to override a veto.

I predict that this bill will not make it to the floor for a vote.

<snip>

Vermont: This state has had civil unions for eight years with no discernable negative consequences. A commission reported in April 2008 that marriages would provide many tangible and intangible benefits that are not achieved through civil unions. While this came too late for action in 2008, there will be a vote in 2009 whether to legalize marriage.

Governor Jim Douglas has stated his opposition to the bill but he’s not indicated whether he would veto the legislation or allow it to become law without his signature.

My guess is that this legislation will stall, eventually pass, but be vetoed by the Governor. But a public outcry in favor of marriage could result in Douglas passively letting the bill become law.

<snip>

Maine: There is a relatively below-the-radar movement to bring marriage equality to a vote in the Maine Legislature in 2009. Whether or not successful, anti-gay activists are likely to try for a constitutional amendment in 2010. I have no predictions on this.

New Jersey: New Jersey has had civil unions for two years. But a commission released this month reported that civil unions were not adequate to address the needs of gay couples and recommended that marriage be instituted. A poll in August 2008 found that over half of New Jersey residents prefer marriage equality and nearly 60% would be accepting of the decision if the legislature were to enact gay marriage, especially if the commission recommended the change.

Governor Jon Corzine responded to the report by stating that marriage should be legalized in the state “sooner rather than later”. Legislative leaders are saying that the issue is a matter of “when” and not “if” marriage equality would be legislated. They may be seeking to feel the direction of the political wind as all of the legislators and the Governor are up for election in 2009.

Working towards equality, the NY Times editorialized on the 20th that New Jersey politicians should live up to their principles.

I tentatively predict that the legislature will vote early in 2009 for marriage equality.

New Mexico: In 2008 the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled efforts to pass a Domestic Partnership bill which had passed the state House. However, efforts may have more favorable conditions in 2009.

The New Mexico Independent is reporting that HB21/SB12, a bill to provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to registered partners, will be considered shortly after the legislature reconvenes in later this month. The success of this bill will depend to a great extent on Senate committee assignments.

I predict that this measure will pass and that Governor Bill Richardson will sign it into law.

Other states: I predict that some states other than those listed above will address marriage or couple recognition. Perhaps Washington will act on marriage or a Plains State will provide a domestic partnership or other registered benefits scheme. Alternately, emboldened by Proposition 8, some anti-gays may begin efforts to pass constitutional bans in other states.

[Fearless]

1. Overall... looking pretty good! Thanks!

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

2. Yeah, quite a bit of action.

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Washington State won't do squat

Washington has had a "Defense" of Marriage Act since 1998. Despite having one of the largest openly gay legislative caucus in the nation (one of 49 Senators, five of 98 Representatives; link), our law-making "leaders" have been too cowardly to advocate repealing this act and taking any kind of step towards marriage equality. Instead, they have been promoting "domestic partnerships" which, at last count, provide about 132 of the over 900 statutory rights, priviledges and protections granted by state law, and zero of the rights, priviledges and protections granted by judicial precedent and common law. Without their leadership on this matter, no progress will be made.

At best, the 2009 legislative will see one or two dozen things bestowed by domestic parthership. No matter how you slice it, that is not equality: that is Jim Crow, and our quislings are leading the charge.

Edited for clarity

[bluedawg12]

5. What's Wa. like demogrpahically?

I picture a young, educated, coastal pop. and then an Idaho like mentality in the rural, mountain areas.

Is that fair?

What demographic are the quislings in fear of?

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. All of the gay lawmakers come from solidly progressive, Democratic districts

There is absolutely no chance that pushing for equality over Jim Crow would threaten their chances of reelection. I dare say that a strong stand in favor of full, equal marriage would grant them a legislative sinecure that would make election by the old Chicago Machine look chancey. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to take the lead on marriage equality.

That said, the state is divided geographically by the Cascades and the Puget Sound. The eastern two-thirds of the state is exceptionally conservative and quite Talibangelical. The Olympic Peninnsula is sparsely populated; the people who live there are largely of the homesteader mentality ("I don't care who or what you are, as long as I can rely on you in a crisis and you don't mess with me and mine.") In between is the "I-5 corridor," which contains almost half the state's population and is pretty liberal. Seattle itself represents almost 1/6th of the state's population, and is very liberal. The result is that the House and Senate are usually close to even between the two major parties. For six years, in fact (1998 to 2004) the House was evenly split and had a Republican and Democratic co-Speaker. Currently, the Democrats control both houses of the Legislature.

[bluedawg12]

14. If it's not the fear of losing re-election then what is behind thier reluctance?

Are they just so accustomed to following that they can't lead even when they could?

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. That would be my guess

I really have no idea.

[bluedawg12]

17. It's a good guess. The same reason why, when gay marriage has so much positive exposure

and the country seems to be shifting ever so slightly to the cultural left on gay marriage, or leaders blithely waltz to the right.

Politicians seem to have an aversion to: Change? Conflict? Leadership?

All of the above?

I can't get over the Newsweek pro-gay marriage cover article and then, the abysmal statement by the Keane rep on gay's simply being able to write a legal contract.

[Two Americas]

13. I am working there right now

Working in agriculture.

I was amazed at the contrast between here and the Midwest. Things are much more polarized here, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots as bad as I have ever seen anywhere.

The right wing thinking here on the east side of the mountains is more extreme than anywhere else, I think.

[bluedawg12]

15. That's why it seemed a little like Idaho to me, on the east side

there's another place with pockets of really out there folk.

Something about rural America is not right, Alaska is another place.

Perhaps I am over simplifying, but, those areas sound very extreme from what I hear of them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. To give you an idea of just how polarized it is in this state

Ellen Craswell
Far right wing religious nutcase. State legislator for 16 years representing Washington's 23rd district (Kitsap County) and Republican candidate for Governor in 1996. She and her husband helped to found the American Heritage Party, an extremely conservative "strict constitutionalist" minor party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDermott">Jim McDermott
One of the most liberal members of the US House of Representatives. State legislator for 10 years representing Washington's 43rd district (where I live), Democratic candidate for Governor in 1980, elected to Congress in 1988 for the 7th District, where he has served since.

State district 23 and Congressional district 7 have shared a common boundary about 8 miles long since at least 2000.

[bluedawg12]

19. I was thinking about the polarization you describe, today.

This little news blip about that young man, Levi Johnson, (I think that's his name) the one who is the father of Sarah Palin's new grandchild, and promised to wed Palin's daughter.

Now, here is Palin riding on right wing ideology and pro family values bandwagon, but barely articulate and not even knowledgeable enough to know she was not even remotely skilled or educated enough to be POTUS.

Well, the story was about this boyfriend Levi, who quit high school and planned to work at some apprenticeship in the oil fields. Today's story about him was that he wasn't going to get that job - because he dropped out of high school, a HS diploma is requirement.

Here is a situation of a group of people that seem like they could be an all-American family, except underneath the surface they have extreme, near superstitious religious and political beliefs.

Granted this is speculation and over simplification, but what occurred to me, and in your description about polarization in your State, and mine BTW - that where the roots of right wing extremism seem to be able to take hold is where there is no framework of understanding of history and politics and folks may use religion and extreme rw politics to help them cope with change, complex issues and perhaps a sense of being left behind?

Especially, as TwoA's mentioned, the disparity between the have's and have-not's, the have-not's have swung right. In Russia, during the revolution, they swung left. In Germany after WWI they swung right.


It's all so tied together, education, economic disparity, resentment, perhaps jealousy? This leads to polarization and eventually to social instability.

[Two Americas]

21. excellent points

"..the roots of right wing extremism seem to be able to take hold is where there is no framework of understanding of history and politics and folks may use religion and extreme rw politics to help them cope with change, complex issues and perhaps a sense of being left behind?"

Exactly right I think. I don't think that is is right wing politics that they are embracing though, they are responding to fear mongering and a clever bait and switch, and through that they are duped into supporting the right wing agenda.

"In Russia, during the revolution, they swung left."

I am convinced that the working poor and blue collar people are now moving dramatically to the left. I have spent a lot of time in those communities over the last 30 years, as a speaker and itinerant performer all over the country which is perhaps the best way to understand this, and there has been a big shift over the last 12 months. By the way, I almost never see white liberals and activists in the poor neighborhoods, in the immigrant communities, in the rural poor communities and blue collar neighborhoods. Late this summer I suddenly started hearing "we need another New Deal" everywhere I went. That represents a massive change.

"It's all so tied together, education, economic disparity, resentment, perhaps jealousy?"

Yes! Great insight. From the point of view of poor minority people, of the working poor, of rural people, whether or not a carpet bagger or city slicker says they are "liberal" or "conservative" is not very important - it is just so much hot air, and it doesn't much change anything in their lives if Democrats or Republicans are in power.

There is no left wing political narrative getting out there to the have nots. There is little or no resistance to a left wing political narrative. By "left wing political narrative" I mean a left wing point of view on politics - power and economics - not the so-called cultural issues. What people do hear is a gentrified and upscale liberal message, often dripping with contempt and condescension, and that sounds more like the promotion of a new aristocracy then it does advocacy for the have-nots. Just look at the convoluted, hair-splitting and esoteric arguments that activists make here to defend the status quo, while simultaneously claiming that the modern Democratic party represents some radical departure from the right wing program. Most of the people here - informed and involved and wanting to believe in the party and hoping that they are the good guys - don't fall for those arguments. How can we take that to the public and expect any support?

Within the context of a strong left wing political narrative, speaking out for tolerance and equal rights becomes much easier and more successful. Within the context of moderation and centrism, it become almost impossible.

[Two Americas]

20. it surprised me

I had been all over the country, and in my work I get to little out of the way places and spend a lot of time talking to people. But I had never been in the PNW. Within a few hours of crossing the eastern Oregon border and talking to a few dozen people I started noticing that something was really different than anywhere I had been in the country before. After a couple of days, I realized that the gap and the polarization was extreme - between the poor and the well-off, between the suburbanites and the rural people, between the professional and the blue collar people.

The rural people have a tremendous resentment towards the people from the other side of the mountain, with their wealth and arrogance and disconnected sense of superiority. That makes for fertile ground for right wing demagoguery. The Seattle people have a contempt and disdain for the rural people, so that feeds the polarization.

The real gap here is between the haves - be they "liberal" or "conservative" - and the have-nots. The culture war nonsense that the right wing has cooked up is a by-product of that. This is important to understand, because much of the fear and hatred starts with a resentment of the have-nots toward the haves. Too many upscale progressives inadvertently act and talk like haves, looking down their noses at the have-nots and assuming that they are all stereotypical right wing fundies and rednecks. Where class prejudice ends and political opposition begins is difficult to decipher.

Also, the rural poor and blue collar people are much easier to convert directly from right wing idiocy to very Left wing politics and tolerance, in my experience. They just will never be converted into fashionable upscale Seattle progressives.

For example, I mentioned going into a crowd of 300 Warren supporters in a small town rural church a week ago, in one of the most conservative districts in the state (fools rush in...) and speaking out against bigotry toward GLBTQ people. I got a respectful hearing, and a positive response and I think I got people to re-think what they are being told by the religious right leaders. I know I did. Warren's ideas will never go unquestioned in their minds again, because they have now heard something compelling that is different, a point of view that they had not heard, and my point of view is stronger than Warren's is. Yet among upscale liberals - who are supposed to be "good" on the issue - I am running into tremendous resistance when I say the same things, and no amount of argument or sound logic will budge them from their "don't get me wrong, I support you BUT..." position.

Obama is trying to bring together a coalition of different factions, but they are all factions of the haves. They have connections to Monsanto, or the drug companies, or with the wealthy donors to the party, or with the religious right. That is then called "unity." With each new appointment, yet another group of have-nots is tossed to the curb.

GLBTQ peopole are have-nots in the most profound and fundamental ways - their right to existence, their right to be equal members of society is being denied, everything in their lives is at constant risk. Their very lives are at risk. The true path to social progress is in bringing together a coalition of the have-nots. That is what most of us have in common, and that trumps all of the bigotry and fear. The haves want no such coalition to form.

[LostinVA]

4. I think they're right about NJ -- and, we'd be the first state to LEGISLATE equality!

[bluedawg12]

6. Seems like the ideal way! No popularity contests with votes.

Not Court action - rather law makers, making just laws.

[LostinVA]

7. Laws that GIVE rights, not take them away

I actually think it should be illegal for Courts, legislatures, and voted-based referendums to be able to TAKE rights away from people.

[bluedawg12]

8. They can grant rights?

I thought it was about curtailing those pesky freedoms? :eyes:

I agree about NOT taking away rights - that should not be a possibility, with out some really, really, serious safe guards - if ever.

[AntiFascist]

10. Excellent, we need more predictions like this regarding California...

anyone who thinks it would be easy to recall CA Supreme Court justices who are not up for a confirmation vote is dead wrong, and it would not even be easy for those who are up for confirmation.

Too many supposed legal authorities claim that the best approach is to push for popular approval of gay marriage, but how long would the rest of the nation have to wait, then? They don't seem to understand the purpose of equal protection under the law.

[galledgoblin]

11. those NY senators are assholes

it's not just their gay constituents they turned their backs on, they turned their backs on all their liberal supporters. unless they get their act together, they're in for a huge surprise next election... which may be good news for us in the long run.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

12. Yep.

So tired of people caving in to the bigots!