Only (3) States Approved Same Sex Marriage By Majority (Popular Vote)

[Truth7t7]

State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage, 1994-2015

The information below reflects the status of gay marriage nationwide on June 25, 2015, the day prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

(37) States with Legal Same-Sex Marriage Prior to the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court Ruling Were Brought, As Seen Below.

(26) By Court Decision, (8) By State Legislature, (3) By Popular Vote

(13) States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans Prior to the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court Ruling As Seen Below.

(12) By Constitutional Amendment and State Law

(1) By Constitutional Amendment only

 

[Truth7t7]

State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage, 1994-2015

The information below reflects the status of gay marriage nationwide on June 25, 2015, the day prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

(37) States with Legal Same-Sex Marriage Prior to the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court Ruling Were Brought, As Seen Below.

(26) By Court Decision, (8) By State Legislature, (3) By Popular Vote

(13) States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans Prior to the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court Ruling As Seen Below.

(12) By Constitutional Amendment and State Law

(1) By Constitutional Amendment only

Only 3 States Maine, Maryland, And Washington, Instituted same sex marriage by a majority "Popular Vote", all the rest were court ordered by Liberal Judges, and approved by Liberal State legislators.

94% of the American States were forced to receive same sex marriage, without provisions in exercising the democratic process in the majority "Popular Vote".

Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008)

California a top 5 "Liberal State" voted in prop 8 in 2008 a State constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage "It Passed" 52/47%, no majority in favor of same sex marriage there, in the very liberal California.

The prop was ruled against in court(s) by "Liberal Judge(s)" and pushed on California, Just as the US Supreme court has done with 5 Liberal Justices.

The fact is there are no protections for any Americans afforded by the US constitution based upon "Sexual Preference"

The 5 Liberal Supreme Court Justices forced same sex marriage upon America, there is no provision or protection in the 14th amendment "Due Process Clause" it was 5 Justices and their prejudices and abuse of power.

The soon to be conservertavie Supreme Court will reverse Obergefell v. Hodges on the interpretation of original intent, try reading the minorty disent as it explains exactly what you are reading.

Obergefell V Hodges

As the 5 Liberal Justices Interpreted Life And Liberty To Include A Same Sex Marriage Liscense, 100% Abuse Of Power!

US Constitution14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Life=Death Penalty

Liberty=Imprisonment,Detainment

Property=Confiscation, Seizure

 

[CitizenD]

94% of the American States were forced to receive same sex marriage, without provisions in exercising the democratic process in the majority "Popular Vote".

That's not how rights work or should work.

In 1958 around 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In 1968 when the SCOTUS Loving v. Virginia decision overturned state miscegenation laws, around 20% of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958


But... to humor your logic for a moment, if same sex marriage were put to a national popular vote today, it would overwhelmingly win.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Moral Orel]

Tom and Sally both love Jim and want to marry him. Sally can marry him because she's a woman, Tom cannot marry him because he's a man. Sounds like textbook gender discrimination to me. No need to even think about discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Truth7t7]

That's not how rights work or should work.

In 1958 around 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In 1968 when the SCOTUS Loving v. Virginia decision overturned state miscegenation laws, around 20% of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958


But... to humor your logic for a moment, if same sex marriage were put to a national popular vote today, it would overwhelmingly win.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

The "Fact" Is There Are No "Rights" Provided For Or Protected In The US Constitution Regarding Same Sex Marriage Or Sexual Preference, Try Reading The Dissent Opinions In Obergefell v Hodges, Abuse Of Power By 5 Liberal Justices.

Only 3 States Maine, Maryland, And Washington, Instituted same sex marriage by a majority "Popular Vote", all the rest were court ordered by Liberal Judges, and approved by Liberal State legislators.

94% of the American States were forced to receive same sex marriage, without provisions in exercising the democratic process in the majority "Popular Vote".

Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008)

California a top 5 "Liberal State" voted in prop 8 in 2008 a State constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage "It Passed" 52/47%, no majority in favor of same sex marriage there, in the very liberal California.

The prop was ruled against in court(s) by "Liberal Judge(s)" and pushed on California, Just as the US Supreme court has done with 5 Liberal Justices.

The fact is there are no protections for any Americans afforded by the US constitution based upon "Sexual Preference"

The 5 Liberal Supreme Court Justices forced same sex marriage upon America, there is no provision or protection in the 14th amendment "Due Process Clause" it was 5 Justices and their prejudices and abuse of power.

The soon to be conservertavie Supreme Court will reverse Obergefell v. Hodges on the interpretation of original intent, try reading the minorty disent as it explains exactly what you are reading.

Obergefell V Hodges

As the 5 Liberal Justices Interpreted Life And Liberty To Include A Same Sex Marriage Liscense, 100% Abuse Of Power!

US Constitution14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Life=Death Penalty

Liberty=Imprisonment,Detainment

Property=Confiscation, Seizure

 

[Truth7t7]

Tom and Sally both love Jim and want to marry him. Sally can marry him because she's a woman, Tom cannot marry him because he's a man. Sounds like textbook gender discrimination to me. No need to even think about discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Marriage Is Defined By One Man, One Woman.

If You Want To Change The Historical Definition Of Marriage, Seek A Constitutional Amendment, Like Was Seen In The 13th Slavery, And The 15th & 17th The Right To Vote.

Liberal California Voted To Ban Same Sex Marriage 52/47%, And It Was Approved By The Majority, As Did "Several States" As The Democratic Process Was Silenced, And America Was Forced With Same Sex Marriage.

 

[Speedwell]

Marriage Is Defined By One Man, One Woman.

If You Want To Change The Historical Definition Of Marriage, Seek A Constitutional Amendment, Like Was Seen In The 13th Slavery, And The 15th & 17th The Right To Vote.

Liberal California Voted To Ban Same Sex Marriage 52/47%, And It Was Approved By The Majority, As Did "Several States" As The Democratic Process Was Silenced, And America Was Forced With Same Sex Marriage.

There is no provision of the Constitution which defines marriage as one man, one woman. There is nothing to amend.

 

[Truth7t7]

There is no provision of the Constitution which defines marriage as one man, one woman. There is nothing to amend.

One Man, One Woman, Historical Precedent.

To Change This Precedent, Ammend The Constitution To Provide For And Protect Same Sex Marriage.

Just As Slavery Was Historical Precedent, The 13th Amendment Changed And Defined The Politiacal Opinion, And Provided Freedom And Protection, No Politics Involved.

The Liberal Homosexual Agenda Can't Muster Up A Popular Vote, Let Alone A 2/3 Majority Of Congress.

Same Sex Marriage Will Be Reversed In A Soon To Be Conservative US Supreme Court, The Battle Will Continue.

 

[PloverWing]

Only 3 States Maine, Maryland, And Washington, Instituted same sex marriage by a majority "Popular Vote", all the rest were court ordered by Liberal Judges, and approved by Liberal State legislators.

True, but misleading. Only three states approved same sex marriage through direct popular vote, but direct popular vote is not the normal way that state laws get passed.

Several states, as you note, approved same-sex marriage through their state legislatures. These are legislators that we, the voters, voted for; the "Liberal State legislators" were in the legislature because the voters put them there.

Additionally, several other states had same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions, approved by elected state legislatures: [http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx]. I followed this closely in my state, and I remember domestic partnerships getting voted on in the state legislature.

So, yes, some of the state-level decisions happened in the courts, and of course Obergefell was a court decision. But the elected representatives of many more than three states had approved some version of same-sex unions before Obergefell.

 

[Speedwell]

One Man, One Woman, Historical Precedent, To Change This Ammend The Constitution To Provide For And Protect Same Sex Marriage.

Why? It was not necessary to amend the Constitution to allow interracial marriage, which had also been forbidden by "historical precedent."

 

[Truth7t7]

True, but misleading. Only three states approved same sex marriage through direct popular vote, but direct popular vote is not the normal way that state laws get passed.

Several states, as you note, approved same-sex marriage through their state legislatures. These are legislators that we, the voters, voted for; the "Liberal State legislators" were in the legislature because the voters put them there.

Additionally, several other states had same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions, approved by elected state legislatures: [http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx]. I followed this closely in my state, and I remember domestic partnerships getting voted on in the state legislature.

So, yes, some of the state-level decisions happened in the courts, and of course Obergefell was a court decision. But the elected representatives of many more than three states had approved some version of same-sex unions before Obergefell.

Popular vote is used to decide issues as Californias Prop 8 passed (52/47) To Ban Same Sex Marriage, And Yes Thousands Of Democrats Were Represented In The Approval To Ban This, The Individual Collective Voice Was Heard, And Taken Away By Liberal Judges.

You Distract From This Truth, No State Legislator Is Needed, Democracy Was Silenced In California, Simple.

Liberal Biased Legislators And Judges Shoved Same Sex Marriage On Americans, Your Opinion Is In Left Field Regarding Majority Popular Vote.

 

[Moral Orel]

Marriage Is Defined By One Man, One Woman.

If You Want To Change The Historical Definition Of Marriage, Seek A Constitutional Amendment, Like Was Seen In The 13th Slavery, And The 15th & 17th The Right To Vote.

Liberal California Voted To Ban Same Sex Marriage 52/47%, And It Was Approved By The Majority, As Did "Several States" As The Democratic Process Was Silenced, And America Was Forced With Same Sex Marriage.

What you've just done here is known as The Genetic Fallacy.

One Man, One Woman, Historical Precedent.

There's no such thing. You're talking like it's a legal precedent, but even that wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. We don't need a Constitutional amendment every time we start using a word in a different way. That would be ridiculous because the meaning of words change all the time.

Bottom line is that we shouldn't have laws that say men can do some things, but it's illegal for women to do the same thing. And we shouldn't have laws that say women can do some things, but it's illegal for men to do the same thing. That is covered by The Constitution though, and that's why all the gender discrimination that was going on was stopped.

 

[PloverWing]

Same Sex Marriage Will Be Reversed In A Soon To Be Conservative US Supreme Court, The Battle Will Continue.

If a conservative Supreme Court reversed Obergefell, it wouldn't end same-sex marriage in the U.S.; it would just add a layer of inconvenience for same-sex couples.

Article four of the Constitution says that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Loving v. Virginia provides a precedent here as well. If a couple is married in one state, their marriage has to be recognized by the other 49 states. So if Obergefell were overturned, a couple could fly to, say, Vermont, get married there, and fly back home.

The legal battle is over. Move on.

 

[Truth7t7]

Why? It was not necessary to amend the Constitution to allow interracial marriage, which had also been forbidden by "historical precedent."

Same Sex Marriage Will Be Reversed In A Soon To Be Conservative US Supreme Court, The Battle Will Continue.

 

[Truth7t7]

If a conservative Supreme Court reversed Obergefell, it wouldn't end same-sex marriage in the U.S.; it would just add a layer of inconvenience for same-sex couples.

Article four of the Constitution says that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Loving v. Virginia provides a precedent here as well. If a couple is married in one state, their marriage has to be recognized by the other 49 states. So if Obergefell were overturned, a couple could fly to, say, Vermont, get married there, and fly back home.

The legal battle is over. Move on.

If Obergefell v Hodges is reversed, marriage will return to the definition of a man and woman, States will not have to recognize this as you claim.

Inconvience?

No "Gone", marriage will be between a man and woman, simple.

The legal battle is over?

Thats a fairy tale statement in denial of truth, the soon to be conservative US Supreme court will reverse Same Sex Marriage, then the legal battle will be over for 15-20 years, possibly longer

 

[PloverWing]

Liberal Biased Legislators And Judges Shoved Same Sex Marriage On Americans, Your Opinion Is In Left Field Regarding Majority Popular Vote.

I live in New Jersey. My whole state is in left field. We leftists keep voting for liberal legislators, who mostly go to Trenton and carry out the liberal things we ask them to do.

 

[USincognito]

Marriage Is Defined By One Man, One Woman.

If You Want To Change The Historical Definition Of Marriage, Seek A Constitutional Amendment, Like Was Seen In The 13th Slavery, And The 15th & 17th The Right To Vote.

Liberal California Voted To Ban Same Sex Marriage 52/47%, And It Was Approved By The Majority, As Did "Several States" As The Democratic Process Was Silenced, And America Was Forced With Same Sex Marriage.

Slavery and the right to vote were in the body of the Constitution. Marriage was not. Your "point" is a non-sequitur.

 

[PloverWing]

If Obergefell v Hodges is reversed, marriage will return to the definition of a man and woman, States will not have to recognize this as you claim.

If Obergefell v Hodges is reversed, the individual states will be able once again to choose whether same-sex couples can be married in that state. So a same-sex couple would be able to get married in Vermont, but not in Mississippi.

However, "full faith and credit" means that Mississippi has to recognize marriages that take place in Vermont, just as Vermont has to recognize marriages that take place in Mississippi.

 

[Truth7t7]

I live in New Jersey. My whole state is in left field. We leftists keep voting for liberal legislators, who mostly go to Trenton and carry out the liberal things we ask them to do.

I Live In Liberal California, So What

Wikipedia: California Proposition 8 (2008)

Popular vote is used to decide issues as Californias Prop 8 passed (52/47) To Ban Same Sex Marriage, And Yes Thousands Of Democrats Were Represented In The Approval To Ban This, The Individual Collective Voice Was Heard, And Taken Away By Liberal Judges.

 

[Truth7t7]

If Obergefell v Hodges is reversed, the individual states will be able once again to choose whether same-sex couples can be married in that state. So a same-sex couple would be able to get married in Vermont, but not in Mississippi.

However, "full faith and credit" means that Mississippi has to recognize marriages that take place in Vermont, just as Vermont has to recognize marriages that take place in Mississippi.

A reversal of Obergfell v Hodges will define marriage as between a man and woman, nobody in the united states will have to recognize this, I disagree with your opinion.