Or at least there's renewed enthusiasm for trying to achieve it. In the wake of New York State's headlines-the-world-over legalization of same-sex marriage, consideration is once again being given to attempts to achieve marriage equality in Maine, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey and Australia. Even the New York Times' (nee Daily Kos') Nate Silver has seen fit to recalibrate his model on marriage equality ballot initiatives in light of all the excitement.
Let's proceed from east to west, with the big news from Maine first:
In Maine, Equality Maine is has all but announced an effort to collect enough signatures (easy, just 57,000) to put a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2012.
Thursday, EqualityMaine (EQME) and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) will deliver a petition to place a ballot question before Maine voters in November 2012 that could read:
Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?
Maine's Secretary of State, Charlie Summer, ultimately will decide what language will be on petitions used to collect signatures over the next year, but if enough are collected, voters in Maine will once again decide the fate of same-sex couples here.
The trick (hard) will be financing the campaign and passing the measure. According to Silver' revised calculations:
the model thinks Mainers are likely, although not certain, to affirm same-sex marriage if given another chance.
Equality Maine has some good polling news to back that up:
In a conference call earlier this evening, members of EQME and GLAD shared other information, including recent polling that shows that a majority of Mainers now support same-sex marriage (53% to 39% opposed, with 7% having no opinion). Such polling mirrors national trends.
And in confirmation, Polling done by Public Policy Polling back in March of 2011 showed a narrow plurality, 47%-45%, in favor of marriage equality.
Good news from other states after the cut.
In New Jersey, there is no hope of a legislative remedy, since the Governor, Chris Christie, has said he would veto any such measure. Further, ballot initiatives are not allowed in the Garden State. That means all that is left is a judicial solution.
On its way. Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal have just filed suit to demand that New Jersey's civil unions law be declared unconstitutional and full marriage equality take its place.
It will probably take three to four years for the case to work its way up to the Supreme Court, whose composition by that time is of course unknown and where the case's prospects are not clear. Nonetheless, until a Democratic Governor is elected and the New Jersey Legislature has the courage to pass a marriage equality bill (unlike its behavior in January 2010), this is the best path forward.
In Maryland, there's renewed talk of bringing the marriage equality bill derailed a couple of months ago back up for consideration next year. There's hope that New York's win, New York's example of how to conduct a successful campaign, and the fact that Republicans voted for the measure in New York will be enough to find the two votes the Maryland House was said to be short back in April. Attempts to get Governor Malloy to take a more active role, emulating Governor Cuomo of New York, are likely to be key.
In Oregon, the state's largest paper has all but endorsed a ballot initiative for November 2012. Says the Oregonian:
On July 4, 1776, when some Americans declared some truths to be "self-evident," they listed the fact that all men are created equal, and all endowed with the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
How could the right to marry not fall under that rubric? Every day, we see more clearly: Marriage does. Mind by mind, this is becoming self-evident. Oregon should become the next state in the union to approve it.
A recent poll by Public Policy Polling gave marriage equality a 6% edge, 48% in favor of legalization to 42% opposed. The paper says no decision will be made for a couple of months though:
A decision about 2012 won't be made until this fall. But the organization's "Why Marriage Matters" campaign has been quietly effective in showing why a second-tier stature isn't good enough for our sons, daughters, colleagues and friends who happen to be gay.
According to Silver's model:
55 percent of Oregonians would vote against a ban on same-sex marriage like the one the state's voters approved in 2004.
Of course, this isn't the same as voting affirmatively for an amendment legalizing same-sex marriage. But it's a strong hint that a ballot initiative has a reasonable chance of victory in Oregon.
And finally, out west -- way, way west -- Australia is in the midst of its own battle to legalize same-sex marriage, spurred on by New York's vote. Their Prime Minister, Julia Gilliard, is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage but is becoming increasingly isolated in her own party. All eyes are now on a December national Labor party conference:
The issue of gay marriage is scheduled to be debated at a national Labor conference, to be held in December this year.
Advocates of a change in national policy, which only recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, hope a yes vote at the state Labor meetings will increase pressure on the Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to legalize single-sex unions.
Although Gillard herself... has said she is not in support of legalizing gay marriage in Australia, the backroom powerbrokers of the Labor Party usually get what they want, a point Gillard knows only too well, having been installed in the prime ministership after the elected leader Kevin Rudd was ousted in backroom coup.
And as Penny Sharpe, a member of the powerful NSW branch of the party, told the SMH: "The Labor Party has a proud history of supporting equality and this is the final piece in the puzzle to removing discrimination against same-sex couples."
Polls have consistently shown that more than 60% of Australians support marriage equality, and an even larger percentage think Parliament should be allowed to vote in the issue.
What about Minnesota, you say? There, the fight is not about marriage equality, but rather to prevent a constitutional amendment from taking effect that would supersede Minnesota's existing, similar law restricting marriage to one man and one woman. What does Silver think about the chances that said amendment will go down in flames as it should?
The ban is certainly not a heavy favorite to be defeated: see this blog post for someone who thinks it will pass, and consider that there are two plausible Republican presidential nominees from Minnesota, which could affect the dynamics of the vote. But I'd set something like 5-to-3 odds against its passage.
Silver correctly (of course) notes a significant advantage the nays have: the amendment must pass with a majority of all those who cast a vote in the election, not just a majority of all those who cast a vote on the particular issue:
Historically, about 5 percent of Minnesota voters undervote constitutional amendment proposals despite casting ballots for other races, so what this means is that the ban on same-sex marriage will de facto need something like 52 percent of the vote in order to pass. For this reason, I'd conclude that the Minnesota measure is a slight underdog.
There is one gargantuan elephant that is not in the room. California. According to Silver's most conservative of the four models he looks at:
...54 percent of Californians would vote against a measure like Proposition 8 if one were on the ballot next year.
(Again, that is not the same as voting affirmatively to legalize same-sex marriage, but should be taken as a strong clue).
All I can say is Carpe Diem, California.