Where do you see the US in twenty years with respect to same-sex marriage? Scenario 1: All states have banned or rescinded SSM with state constitutional amendments or laws repealing it. Scenario 2: SSM has been abolished nationally via the "Federal Marriage Amendment" - ratified by two thirds of Congress's (house and senate) and by three fourths of the states (38 ). Scenario 3: More states - at least half - have passed SSM laws, while bans still stay in place in the other half. Scenario 4: SSM is legal in all states via a Supreme Court ruling affirming it as a constitutional right. or Scenario 5: Other.
Somewhere between 3 and 4 I'd imagine, it's not all that different from other civil rights cases, eventually the high court will weigh in and declare legislated discrimination unconstitutional and overturn state laws that ban it.
I'm going to have to go with Anikdote on this one. I'm betting that in the next two decades enough states will have legalized SSM that a SCOTUS ruling will be forced. Civil rights movements have a pretty defined path with the US justice system. The high courts are forced into action after enough of the population has moved toward equality.
Gays get the right to marry. People decide it's much cooler to be gay and 90%+ of the nation becomes homosexual Those who remain heterosexual and reproduce avoid the newly defined marriage because they see it as a institution for expressing on's love and support for each other or some other crap, when all they wanted to do was have babies. The lack of marriages among heterosexuals will cause men and women to become more promiscuous, leading to children who's father can't be identified (and thus support can't be provided). The lack of marriages among children born will provide poor role models and support networks for the next generation, leading to moral and social decay of society.
No Unlikely, but I can't wholly rule it out. Fewer than half, I think. No. I think the marriage equality states will retain that equality (Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire [perhaps iffy], Connecticut, New York) I think these states could pass marriage equality within the next 20 years: Washington (already has, but faces a potential repeal by voter referendum) California (I think the overturning of Prop 8 by the 9th Circuit will stand) I think the "civil unions"/"domestic partnership" states will eventually install marriage equality: New Jersey Illinois Delaware Rhode Island Hawaii Oregon (will repeal their amendment banning it) Maine Nevada Colorado Additional States: Maryland Minnesota New Mexico Possible longshots: Wyoming Pennsylvania I think the amendment to ban it will pass in North Carolina this year, and could still be standing in 20 years. I think Indiana will eventually pass an amendment as well. Maybe West Virginia will add civil unions, but I don't think they'll get all the way to marriage in 20 years. See, I think the current momentum toward marriage equality will stall before it reaches a majority of the states. Maybe in another 30-40 years we'll hit the tipping point with a majority of the states. But it will never be nationwide without intervention by the Supreme Court. The plains states, mountain states, southern states, Texas and the outlier Michigan pose a formidable barrier. Without some serious shifts in population demographics, they aren't going to budge. Right now Michigan is headed in the wrong direction. I think Section 3 of DOMA will fall as well, though probably not on the first try. As more states add marriage equality, the glaring inequality in the others will lead to cases that eventually invalidate the remaining state amendments and what's left of DOMA. Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina,Tennessee, Virginia, Idaho and Michigan will almost certainly be in the group that has it forced upon them by the Court. Could be more states, but I think definitely those eight will be the most resistant. It's really just a guess. A lot can change in 20 years -for better or worse. But I think things will slow to a snail's pace once we hit 18-20 marriage equality states.
South Dakota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia passed their constitutional bans with less than 59% of the vote. Could conceivably be overturned by voters there within 20 years. I'd say Pennsylvania stands a good chance of having it within that timeframe too. And if it passes in Minnesota by a fairly slim margin (around 55%), that could be overturned within the next two decades. How many states still had anti-miscegenation laws before the Supreme Court stepped in?
This assumes significant change in attitudes in those states toward homosexuality in the intervening years. Michigan is particularly unlikely to repeal its amendment in the next 20 years, absent a major change in demographics in a different direction. The state has been experiencing "brain drain" and liberal emigration for quite a few years, while the most socially conservative elements in the state have stayed firmly entrenched. It's not at all unthinkable that Michigan will go Republican in the November 2012 presidential election. You could perhaps be right about South Dakota and Wisconsin, but not Michigan. The slim margin with which Michigan's amendment was passed doesn't really mean much with the state trending more conservative and likely to continue in that direction. And as a reminder - Michigan's is one of the most broad amendment's, second only to Virginia's in scope. Michigan won't ever be a civil union or domestic partnership state - not even on a limited level. Our state's amendment prevents ANY status for same-sex couples, and I don't think that's going to change absent court intervention. 16, mainly southern states.
To Perriquine: Thanks for the insight. I do however tend towards a more optimistic viewpoint that time - even a single decade - can make all the difference. Take for example California. In 2000 their ban on SSM passed with 61% of the vote. Then 8 years later with only 52% - almost a 10 percent swing. I think the states with the best polling numbers and the lowest pass margin for their state constitutional amendment banning SSM will be looked at as being serious contenders for repealing it by popular vote, perhaps as little as 10 or 15 years down the line. In a couple of the states I previously mentioned as candidates the swing need only be as low as 5 or 6 percent, and 15 years from now many of the elderly voters who helped pass these amendments in the mid 2000's will have died off and the younger, significantly more tolerant generation will have the power to vote. It's already been 8 years since some states passed their amendments. I am of course aware that a vote to repeal a constitutional ban would not instantly recognise SSM, but the ballot question could incorporate it. And if not the courts can easily step in as they have in other states, given no specific prohibition.
There's more to this than the percentage spread and the inevitable dying off of an older generation. There's the fact that people, very generally speaking, tend to become more conservative in their outlook as they age. There's the question of how a state's demographics may change or stay the same based on other factors - such as strength of traditional religious beliefs in an area and whether the church associated with them maintains a strong influence over the political process. Taking Michigan as an example again, I don't think you can assume that the low spread between proponents and opponents is going to change that significantly, even factoring in the die off of older people. There are other facts to consider: the state's poorly performing economy, resulting in "brain drain" - people with secondary degrees leaving the state in significant numbers. The emigration of young gay people to friendlier states - especially now that Republicans hold both the state house, state senate and governship - and are using that to roll back the gains gay people had made here. There's the influence of the Christian Reformed Church and the deep pockets associated with it. There's the influence of predominately black churches. There's the growing muslim population. Which is not to say that being Christian Reformed, being a black Christian, or being muslim makes a person anti-gay. It is, however, a matter of acknowledging the reality that certain demographics, very generally speaking, tend to be disproportionately less supportive of gay people, compared to broader populations. Michigan has concentrated populations of these groups. All I'm saying is that you have to look at the entire picture, and when you do, I don't think you find that rapid change is a part of that picture in some places.
I see what you're saying. But then I think you're basing a lot of this on the circumstances of your own state and the unfortunate situation of it having passed a comprehensive "total" constitutional ban on ANY same-sex marriage like institution and your personal experience. I think actually the tougher it is, the easier it will be to repeal.
The issue is becoming a bit of a bore really, and this is a good thing. More and more I think that people are saying why not? What's the big deal? Marriage equality would be bad for me and my hetero marriage how? Added to this is the fact that generational change is working in our favor with people under the age of 30 or so being demonstrably more in favor of equality than older generations. Seems to me that it's reaching the point where the primary push to deny us marriage equality is coming from (and funded by) a minority consisting of Christian Talibanistas and control freaks ranging from Protestant Fundies of various stripes, to Mormons, to an increasingly irrelevant flock of Roman Catholic prelates. The same people who as it happens also oppose birth control and have issues generally with equality for women. I don't think that the future belongs to them, although there may be places where they retain control. And that's fine. Even unreconstructed bigots need a few islands to call their own. Easier to avoid them that way.
Homosexuals will enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else. The right wing bigots will loose ground.
