Following a Rainbow to the Supreme Court?

Use this blog post as sort of a timeline on the issue of Same Sex Marriage. As far back as 2004, the issue has been on the domestic political agenda for various reasons. In 2004, GOP strategist Karl Rove helped get 11 marriage referendums on swing state ballots, like Ohio. In all 11 of those states where gay marriage was defeated, George W. Bush won on his way to the presidency.

But first some comparative government gay marriage news. CNN International Reports:

(CNN, August 6, 2010) -- Mexico's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Mexico City law that legalized same-sex marriage. In an 8-2 vote, the high court found the law, which went into effect in March, constitutional.

The ruling comes a day after a court in the United States found a law banning gay marriage unconstitutional.

The justices upheld the law in Mexico City, but did not decide whether their decision affects jurisdictions in the rest of the country. The court will take up the issue again next week, the state-run Notimex news agency reported.

Mexico City's law also allows same-sex couples to adopt children. The constitutionality of that part of the law will be decided next week.

The lawsuit against the gay marriage law was presented by the federal attorney general's office, which challenged the legality of the measure.

_______________________

Mapping the future of Gay Marriage in U.S.
(From Political Warrior, Jan. 12, 2010)

Use these resources as a way to prepare for Wednesday's deliberation of same-sex marriage as a Policy Issue or a Constitutional issue.

______________________
First, starting today, former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson attempts to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

____________________
On the California case Perry v. Schmarzeneger, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday temporarily blocked a federal judge's plan to broadcast the trial over California's ban on gay marriage by posting video on YouTube.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A3II20100111

________________

Check out the maps, of where this is going here:

The Los Angeles Times has produced a nice interactive map showing that state-by-state status of gay marriage. The map is also a choropleth map on a red to green scale with each color share representing a different level of rights (interesting color spectrum, no?) Related is a map that shows the projected future of gay marriage in each state (I would have reversed the shading of the colors, personally).

______________

Last week, the New Jersey legislature rejected legalization of gay marriage. Earlier in Gay marriage became legal in Vermont and Iowa in 2009 and takes effect January 1, 2010 in New Hampshire.

In the District of Columbia, a city council vote passed same-sex marriage.
_____________________

A Marriage Made in Heaven
(From Political Warrior, May 24, 2008)

While the Class of 2008 was preparing to walk across the graduation stage to their future, a couple of weeks ago the California Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, to legalize same sex marriages. Gay couples can begin the marriage application process next week.

This wedge issue in the culture wars gives us an opportunity to review some terms as we reflect on our values. Article IV of the Constitution states that "full faith and credit" must be given to the laws, records and court decisions of other states.

However, for more than a decade, conservative activists have erected a series of legal barriers to prevent one state's move toward recognizing gay marriages from setting in motion a national wave. In 1996 they won passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which said that same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them do not have to be honored by the federal government or other states.
Bans on gay marriages are expected to face legal challenges

And they won laws in 42 states to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In 27 of them, these are constitutional amendments that cannot be overridden by judges or lawmakers.

Marriage is also a reserved power of the states (10th Amendment). Both by court decisions, now California and previously ruled Massachusetts, legalize same sex marriage. Massachusetts' ruling limited marriage rights to that state, California's ruling is more broad. That may make this a ruling a center piece in the 2008 presidential election.

Should we get fired up over this issue again? A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080528-9999-1n28field.html

In 2004, George W. Bush won 11 states that also passed "Protection of Marriage" referendums. It was one of karl Rove's winning strategies. One wonders whether if this change election will wind up being more of the same.

Opponents in California are pondering a constitutional amendment to counter the court’s decision. Gay and lesbian activists are now setting their sights onto a larger platform. Prepare yourself for an onslaught of talking heads, each with their own authoritative angle. Richard Kim, in The Nation, suggestions that rational thought will disarm culture war.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/kim
The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School offer a primer on marriage here:

"Marriage as we know it in the United States is based on the model established by Protestant reformer John Calvin in Geneva in the year 1546. Geneva was to be the model city. This model would later be used by Puritans coming to the New World. In 1546 Geneva officials passed the Marriage Ordinance, a comprehensive policy explaining the purpose and affect of marriage on a civil society.
The Ordinance, written by Calvin, began by establishing “God as the founder” of marriage. Marriage was seen as a covenant, built not only upon the laws of God but the laws of nature. Therefore, marriage was to be between a man and a women. For our purposes the more interesting point is the fusion between church and state. In the Ordinance Calvin discussed “ . . . the dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.” It is this point which snags our debate today.

Some would argue that a solution to our current debate may be found when we remember that a marriage is made in heaven and not inside a government building.

It would seem that we have resolved the issue over the distribution of rights as it relates to monogamous couples, gay or straight. The issue today is over the word “marriage.” Who is its protector?

History suggests this is a church - state issue. A consensus has been built separating these two important spheres. "

Graduates and seniors to be chime in, when you get married will marriage still be exclusively between a man and a women? Or is the institution about to change? Should it change?

_____________

A Pew Foundation poll result I heard this week (8/5/2010) stated that if you are 50+ you support Gay Marriage at just 34%. If you are under-50, you support it at 54%.
_______________

Irish musician Bono, left, sits with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore while addressing a conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Gore's Gay Marriage Gambit
(From Political Warrior, Jan. 25, 2008)

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and (my guy) Irish rock singer Bono warned the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that efforts to tackle climate change and global poverty were lagging, and not improving conditions as much as is needed.



At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, G-8 Nations were urged to speed up global warming, hunger efforts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/business/main3747503.shtml

But much coming out of the talking heads of the MSM on this side of the pond came over what Citizen Gore said about Gay Marriage this week.

Gore, who as vice president supported the Defense of Marriage Act, has put up a video on his Current TV Web site in which he stands up for gay marriage:

“Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage…”

Gore’s statement, notes Ben Smith at Politico, “pushes the Democratic establishment that much closer to a position he now shares with Eliot Spitzer and some other leading Dems, and is prompting a bit of grumbling in gay political circles that this batch of candidates aren’t quite there.” He continues:

Gore’s words come after the leading presidential candidates have tiptoed up to, but not crossed, the line of support for same-sex marriage. All three support equal substantive rights for gay and lesbians couples, and they’ve sought to woo gay voters in other ways: Elizabeth Edwards has voiced her support for same-sex marriage, for instance, and Barack Obama recently scolded the black church for homophobia, in a speech to an African-American congregation.

Will Gore’s comments up the ante for the candidates if they want to be seen as sincere? And taking both issues into account, is there any doubt that Al Gore, private citizen, has done more to move the global political debate than Al Gore, elected official, ever did.