Congratulations Maine! Next up: New Hampshire. Let's get on the ball, New York & New Jersey; you're falling behind!

Uh, CT did pass a law just recently. So while the courts did rule on it first, gay marriages have been legislatively legitimized in CT.

That Vermont and Maine both accomplished this feat through the legislative process is huge. It means that more and more elected officials feel safe taking a stand on this issue without fear of getting plastered in the next election cycle (as apposed to as little as ten years ago). It also means that these laws are far less likely to be overturned in a state-wide referendum.

Combine this with the DC councils vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and the momentum appears to be on the rise for civil rights.

As a Californian, I am deeply shamed. My State had a chance to truly make history on November 4th, 2008, but instead chose to poison the euphoria of Obama's victory by passing Prop 8. By a narrow margin, mind you, but still. If Proposition 8 is sustained in the courts, it just might happen that California would be among the last so-called "liberal" states to guarantee equal protection for gays. That's just sad.

I lived in Maine for many years. Yay Maine!!!

Prediction: Now that gay marriage has passed through the legislative process, now conservatives will be saying that is due to left wing liberal legislators who don't reflect the will of the people forcing their agenda onto the rest of "us" . Its not the will of the people unless it passes by ballot initiative or referendum. Their campaigns to overturn the legislature's action will begin tomorrow morning. And if in the end they lose the ballot initiative, it will not be because the state's voters rejected the attempt to repeal, it will be due to the influence of out of state left wing activists pouring millions of dollars into their state attempting to influence the process and force unwanted legislation on the good people of their state (ignoring the fact that much of the backing for their repeal initiative campaign will have come from out of state in the first place). Its simply not possible to win when you disagree with those who are absolutely certain they are correct.

Yay Maine! How about more non-New England states following on, quickly?

New Hampshire gay marriage amendment passed the in the State Senate. The House already passed it, the Senate made some changes so it has to go back to the House, then to the Governor.
Governor Lynch in the past has said he was opposed but there is a strong belief he will sign it. YEAH! The Granite State

Goody on the good legislators and governor of Maine!

ex-maine-ah is right. those efforts are already underway in vermont, calling for ballot referendums because "the people" didn't get to vote. (as if nothing is valid if not voted on directly by the people. i guess nobody ever explained "representative democracy" to these people.)

there is a facebook page called something like "against gay marriage in vermont" with 68 members- every last one of them from california.

It means that more and more elected officials feel safe taking a stand on this issue without fear of getting plastered in the next election cycle (as apposed to as little as ten years ago). It also means that these laws are far less likely to be overturned in a state-wide referendum.

Massachusetts was not that different. The MA State Supreme Court said that the law, as it stood, was unconstitutional and told the Legislature to either define marriage as man/woman (and get it in the Constitution) or accept that marriage can include gays.

The Legislature then fought to keep it out of the Constitutional agenda, which affirmed gay marriage. The anti-marriage side kept losing more and more members in subsequent elections and gay marriage has now been enshrined for five years now in MA with no challenges. In other words, it was affirmed by the MA Legislature too.

If Democrats really cared about equality, they'd allow me to marry my entire herd of 62 goats. Why is my passionate commitment to them not worthy in your eyes?

Now comes the tipping point. Ha, ha, bigots.

I'm a Mainer, and have to say that this issue was simply a no-brainer. There was some public debate, an open auditorium filled with thousands, but even there they had to engineer the debate rules to allow equal time for the anti-marriage crowd compared to the overwhelming pro-marriage crowd.

This never turned into a public demonic battle. It was simple, in the end, and nothing like the ugliness of the Bush years. Kudos to both sides of the debate. I'm sure the Christianist ranters will make noises, but they can't but accept that the elected representatives did their work, appropriately, and overwhelmingly in favor of marriage.

It's a lovely day to be here. I already have two friends wanting to move here, to get married. That was fast!

those efforts at repeal in vermont will go nowhere. we do not have a referendum process like Maine or California, so only the legislature can reverse the law, and that ain't gonna happen. amending our constitution also takes many years, and would include a vote of the legislature, so that ain't gonna happen either.

like this is an issue that voters ought to weigh in on. like marriage between mixed races should have been voted on? or women's suffrage? yeah, right!

I vaguely remember Maine trying to pass some pro-discrimination law against gays in the early 90's.

I wouldn't have thought that Maine would beat Rhode Island in the gay marriage sweepstakes.

Good on ya, Maine!

Anyone taking odds on New Hampshire? That's the culturally reddest of New England states, by my uncalibrated stereotype-meter.

If Democrats really cared about equality, they'd allow me to marry my entire herd of 62 goats. Why is my passionate commitment to them not worthy in your eyes? Posted by: Loother on May 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Loother, you'd have my full support, but I wouldn't wish that on the goats. It is, however, laudable of you to want to make honest goats out of them instead of just continuing to use them for sex and chevre.

Now that more and more states seem to be legalizing gay marriage, I'm starting to wonder about the serious practical problems that DOMA is going to face.

For example -

two women get married in Vermont or Massachusetts. They have a falling out and separate. One woman moves to Texas. She marries a man there without obtaining a divorce in Vermont. To whom is she married? DOMA would seem to suggest that in some states she is married to the woman, but in other states she is married to the man. But even this seems problematic.

DOMA says that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage conducted by another state. But do states have to recognize opposite-sex marriages conducted by other states? That is to say - Texas doesn't have to recognize the woman's previous same sex marriage in Vermont, and can allow her to marry a man. But does Vermont have to recognize her opposite sex marriage in Texas? How can this possibly work? DOMA just seems like a transparent violation of the full faith and credit clause.

Yeah, but how many years will it be before Democrats in Congress find the spine to extend recognition to these marriages?

It's nice being married in your home state, but it's awfully hard to have to leave that equality behind when you go on vacation, or to have to pass up job opportunities in backwards states.

It'c nice being married in your home state, but it's awfully hard to be treated as single by the IRS, SSA, and every other Federal initialism you can think of.

So, Obama and Congressional Democrats: Sniff the fresh aim coming down from the North (and from Iowa). Get on the equality bandwagon!

John -

Here is another one of those interesting ancillary issues for you. As everyone here knows, the Iowa Sup Ct declared that recognition of same sex marriage was required by the Iowa Consitution effective April 27. This weekend, the Des Moines Register ran a big story that the Iowa National Guard finds that as a miliary entity, DADT trumps the Iowa Sup Ct ruling even in Iowa, and so they will kick out service men and women who enter same sex marriages.

Hopefully that sort of (growing) inconsistency will pressure Obama to lift DADT sooner rather than later.

What's really good about this, to me, is how clear the governor was: Yes, I used to be against it, but I changed my mind. I assume people will try to shout "flip-flopper," but that argument is getting so tired. People do change their minds (I was undecided on gay marriage a year ago, before the sheer ugliness of the prop 8 debate forced me to the pro side), and I'm glad he had the courage to do so.

now conservatives will be saying that is due to left wing liberal legislators who don't reflect the will of the people forcing their agenda onto the rest of "us".

Ex-Maine-ah, since christian hate groups can no longer blame "liberal activist judges," the newest catch phrase is "wealthy homosexual activists." As though gay people were rolling in the amounts of dough that Tony Perkins et al make every year off of gay hate. According to public records, Maggie Gallagher of NOM takes home over $100,000 annually! I'd love to make that much money off of something as easy as religious-based hate and lies.

The bill passed in the Maine Senate had a proposed "people's veto" amendment, which, if it had stayed in, would have put a stay on implementation until a public referendum. However, the proposed amendment was stripped out. There will be no automatic "people's veto" vote. If out-of-state christian hate groups want to vote on this, they have to do it the hard way and gather the signatures of over 50,000 registered Maine voters.

I am so proud to be a native New Englander today.

DOMA just seems like a transparent violation of the full faith and credit clause

People do change their minds (I was undecided on gay marriage a year ago, before the sheer ugliness of the prop 8 debate forced me to the pro side), and I'm glad he had the courage to do so.

Yes, I was impressed by that as well. This issue is particularly conducive to mind-changing because there are so many pieces of misinformation and ignorance and simple lack of awareness floating around it.

Once people think about individuals they know and love being hurt by inequality, once they understand that civil unions and civil marriage are not anywhere near equal in terms of legal rights, once they face the sheer ridiculousness of the notion that creating equal marriage somehow hurts opposite-sex marriage, they do change their minds. And enough of them are doing it fast enough that Baldacci's change of heart seems understandable and natural to people.

Sorry, the first line in my post of 2:04 should have been in italics; I was quoting Jurgan. I'm glad that Jurgan's come over to the side of equal marriage (welcome!), but I've always been here.

I'd love to see some non-New England states get on the ball, simply because the rest of the nation is tired of New Englanders' cultural smugness. The success of the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics is bad enough.

If more states could go the way of Iowa -- states that aren't perceived as hospitable for gay marriage -- the movement would have a better chance of succeeding nationally. I fear it will be ghettoized as a red/blue, heartland/coastal issue. And we don't need that.

the newest catch phrase is "wealthy homosexual activists." As though gay people were rolling in the amounts of dough that Tony Perkins et al make every year off of gay hate.

Just another example of how anti-gay bigots are often flaming sexists, too. How often have you heard them screech about "homosexual promiscuity" and "homosexual diseases" and so forth? They ain't talking about -- haven't even stopped to think about! -- lesbians.

Similarly, when they're talking about "wealthy homosexuals," they appear to be referring to the fact that, on average, a two-man household makes more than a one man-one woman household. They surely aren't referring to two-woman households in which lack of gender parity in income tends to be magnified.

How often have you heard them screech about "homosexual promiscuity" and "homosexual diseases" and so forth? They ain't talking about -- haven't even stopped to think about! -- lesbians.

Oh, shortstop, I think they think about lesbians quite a lot! The one that gets me is the "homosexual lifestyle." What IS that, exactly?

And not to hog a dying thread or anything, but "Hooray, Maine!"

Similarly, when they're talking about "wealthy homosexuals," they appear to be referring to the fact that, on average, a two-man household makes more than a one man-one woman household. They surely aren't referring to two-woman households in which lack of gender parity in income tends to be magnified.

Actually, I think it's more the two-income-no-kids phenomenon. Same-sex couples are somewhat less likely to be raising children, so they're likely to have more disposable income from the same base salaries.

And at least some of the gender disparity in income results from child-related career limitations that historically have fallen on women; without kids, a two-woman household will not encounter these income limitations.

But, Dirty Davey, women still make about 75% for every dollar a man earns, and in some fields, the disparity is even larger. My partner and I were both teachers when we were raising my daughter. Child or no child, we could not have lived anywhere near as well as any of the male couples we knew!

What is this disposable income you speak of?

The one that gets me is the "homosexual lifestyle." What IS that, exactly?

You have to ask? Your problem, young lady, is that you don't have an eye for fabrics, colors, furniture arrangement or penises.

If Democrats really cared about equality, they'd allow me to marry my entire herd of 62 goats. Why is my passionate commitment to them not worthy in your eyes?

Well, there's the issue of consent...

I vaguely remember Maine trying to pass some pro-discrimination law against gays in the early 90's.

They're at it again this year. There's a citizen's initiative circulating that would, "Remove Protections Based on Sexual Orientation from the Maine Human Rights Act, Eliminate Funding of Civil Rights Teams in Public Schools, Prohibit Adoptions by Unmarried Couples, Add a Definition of Marriage, and Declare Civil Unions Unlawful"

Sadly there won't be any same sex marirages in Maine until September at the earliest. The law can't take effect until 90 days after the legislature adjourns (June 17th). Then, if opponents can collect enough signatures, it goes on the November ballot.

It's a good day, but there's work to be done yet.

If Proposition 8 is sustained in the courts

It is almost certain to be.

But, that said: we will have another opportunity. Repeal will be probably be on the ballot next year.

Yeah, but how many years will it be before Democrats in Congress find the spine to extend recognition to these marriages?

The Supreme Court will have to do it, under the argument that full faith and credit requires recognition at least for limited purposes like granting divorces and bigamy statutes.

It will find its job easier the more states have legislatively recognized gay marriage; at some point that reduces the sting of the ruling.

FreeProton:

I share the shame. I am still having the periodic dog head tilt that this state passed 8. But it is inevitable that it will change. Cheers to the NE (and Iowa).

Today's news, (ahem) coupled with yesterday's news, is great for me as a DC resident. My partner and I haven't really considered getting legally married, since it wouldn't be legal in DC where we live.

Now, with the vote in the DC council to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, plus the votes in New England, we can go ahead and plan that wedding we've always wanted at a friend's home in Kennebunkport, and then come home to DC where it will be legally recognized.

This IS the first time a state has adopted equal marriage without any prior court action on civil unions or marriage. This is quite a day.

The last time there was a people's veto in Maine related to this, it was an attempt to overturn a provision in the employment law that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was 2005 and the attempt failed by ten points. Mainers pointedly did not support discrimination. Now you have an electorate that has gotten more gay-friendly and you have a very well-organized set of organizations in support of gay civil rights.

Congrats, Eeyore!

And aphrael, the campaign for repeal should be much easier now. Just run an ad "California used to be ahead of the curve, a trend-setter for the country and world. Now we're behind. . . Iowa???"

- Zeitgeist, who can make those jokes because he is an Iowan.

Interesting malapropism on local Chicago news:

"Maine passed legislation giving married couples the right to be gay."

Finally!

Now, with the vote in the DC council to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, plus the votes in New England, we can go ahead and plan that wedding we've always wanted at a friend's home in Kennebunkport

Felicitations! Just promise us that you'll get your guests so exuberant that they'll pee over the Bush compound wall on the way home from the reception.