October Could Be A Big Month In The Fight For Marriage Equality

Too long to summarize here, but Chris Geidner and Tony Merevick review legal and legislative action in seven states, including Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, Illinois, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Virginia, that could go a long way toward advancing marriage equality.

Some of these actions are likely to go quicker than others, but keep in mind that its only been 3 1/2 months since the Supreme Court issued its decisions in United States v. Windsor and Perry v. Hollingsworth. Momentum is picking up.

Please follow and like us:
FILED UNDER: Gender Issues, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. CB says:

    Why is this even a thing anymore? I don’t mean to push anecdotes as data, but every one of my red blooded Republican friends and family members, even the religiously inclined, basically shrugs their shoulders and says “let ’em be”. Maybe thats a function of the northeast Republican mindset, but by and large, I see support for the anti-marriage side erroding everywhere. I just don’t get how the opposition can be so persistent in the face of such obviously imminent change.

  2. DD says:

    This is the stupidest article I’ve seen in a long time. Why say it’s too long to summarize, isn’t that what an article is for? You gave absolutely no information that is of any use. Why bother

  3. Franklin says:

    There could be a ruling in Michigan today, at the earliest. The local clerk is prepared, in the event that the current law is ruled unconstitutional and that there is no stay issued.

  4. Franklin says:

    OK, the Michigan case just got punted down the road to a trial in February.

  5. stonetools says:

    Still waiting for Doug to concede that without a concerted push nationwide from Democrats, the party he disagrees with and can’t vote for, the cause of marriage equality (which he says he endorses) would be dead in the water. Just noting that his favorite Republican, Chris Christie, is singlehandedly blocking the cause of marriage equality in New Jersey.
    Hey, but I’m sure some of Doug’s best friends are gay…

  6. Franklin says:

    There’s more than one issue to vote on, no?

  7. jd says:

    @Franklin: No. My son is gay. I’ll vote for the ones who will fight for his rights.

  8. bill says:

    so why exactly do homosexuals need more benefits when they already have more disposable income than heterosexuals? just curious- not “bi-curious”.
    as always, follow the money- it’s always about the money.
    and no, being against it does not make one a “hater”- it’s economical.

  9. anjin-san says:

    so why exactly do homosexuals need more benefits when they already have more disposable income than heterosexuals?

    I guess you missed that “all men are created equal” thing. And that “equal protection under the law” thing. Actually, its remarkable just how much you have missed.

    it’s economical.

    No, it just moronic.

  10. anjin-san says:

    My son is gay. I’ll vote for the ones who will fight for his rights.

    My cousin, who I am quite fond of, is gay. I will fight for his rights, and I will support others that do so.

  11. anjin-san says:

    Still waiting for Doug to concede that without a concerted push nationwide from Democrats, the party he disagrees with and can’t vote for, the cause of marriage equality (which he says he endorses) would be dead in the water.

    Did you see the post about the Seinfeld “Chinese restaurant” episode elsewhere? You may not be getting seated any time soon.

    Both sides do it… pass it on.

  12. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @bill:

    so why exactly do homosexuals need more benefits when they already have more disposable income than heterosexuals?

    An urban legend. A faulty premise promoted by marketing agencies who have a vested interest in promoting advertising targeted at LGBTs, and one not supported by academic research.

  13. bill says:

    @Gromitt Gunn: if you’re going to negate it, bring something to the table. and try to explain why tax breaks intended for married couples who raise children should be thrown to same sex couples who don’t/can’t? once again, i have gay friends (who have raised kids quite well) , but to turn it into a law that will ultimately drop people from the insurance rolls and raise costs to gov’t ranks is asinine- and not one of you even bothered to argue that it’s a pure money grab, you make my work easy.

  14. jd says:

    @bill: Gay couples are quite capable of raising children if given the legal right.