NOM BLOG

Infographic: The State of Marriage in the States

 

Stateline has produced a helpful infographic showing the landscape of marriage laws across the United States and a history of various state-level marriage votes over the years (click for full-size):

It is interesting to note that, with the exceptions of California, Maine, and South Dakota, every state which has voted to protect marriage has done so by more than 55%. Will North Carolina join these states tomorrow?

6 Comments

  1. orthodox christian
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    SSM and homosexuality NO!
    Traditional Marriage and Traditional Family YES!

    Who am I to go against God Almighty and Eternal?

  2. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    RJ/Creighton/etc.,

    You said:

    "The Black Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Civil Rights Movement, including the treatment of the minority involved by the majority, are remarkably similar."

    Talk about hyperbole. You are one sick little lq

  3. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    RJ/Creighton/etc.,

    You said:

    "The Black Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Civil Rights Movement, including the treatment of the minority involved by the majority, are remarkably similar."

    Talk about hyperbole. You are one sick little lad if you think that the evils of white supremacy are remarkably similar to the man-woman requirement of marriage law.

    Why would you discount history in that way?

    On the other hand, the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics as per SSM rhetoric and argumentation -- and your own gay favoritism -- is closely analogous with the assertion of white supremacy under that form of identity politics.

    The racists selectively segregated the sexes via an identity filter; your pro-SSM view uses the gay identity filter to selectively segregate the sexes under the auspices of the foundational social institution that integrates the sexes. Likewise, both identity filters deeply discount and obstruct the provision for responsible procreation which is the core meaning of marriage (combined coherently with sex integration). Abuse of marriage for nonmarriage purposes is also remarkably similar in both assertions of supremacy over our society.

    Marriage integrates the sexes; each one-sexed scenario is sex-segregative and that is supposed to be a desirable feature.

    Marriage provides for responsible procreation; each one-sexed scenario is nonfertile, inherently, and that is so regardless of gay identity.

    No, the raxcist analogue is the SSM campaign -- including its minority-rule tactics and its smearing of the principles of good governance.

  4. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    RJ, same-sex sexual behavior is immoral, always. It is not the moral equivalent of coitus of husband and wife. It is different and, even if tolerable, it does not merit special treatment that sets the gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the types of relationships and livinig arrangements in the nonmarriage category.

    You said: "we are not talking about "sibling marriage" or polygamous marriage, are we?"

    Right, you are not talking about that because, given your own argumentation, you cannot reasonably distinguish between your favored subset of nonmarriage and the rest of nonmarriage.

    The best you might do is copy-paste from the boundaries around the core meaning of marriage; a core meaning that you expect society to reject as hateful and unjust.

    That puts you at odds with yourself.

    On what reasoned basis might some same-sex scenarios be banned (to use the pro-SSM rhetoric) from SSM?

    The prototypical sibling friendship is platonic so you can't object to that type of relationship on the basis of incestuous sexual relations.

    You can't even rely on sexual behavior or even sexual attraction as the basis for ineligiblity, according to your own homosexual emphasis in your pro-SSM remarks.

    You can't revive concerns about procreation as the basis for ineligiblity, likewise, because that is supposedly unfair, according to SSMers. Besides, siblings of the same sex would not pose the sort of concerns that justify the line drawn at opposite-sex siblings under marriage law today. And according to the anti-procreation remarks of SSMers, infertile siblings ought to be made eligibile.

    That is not a slippery slope argument, by the way. Your own argumentation swallows all of that whole without even chewing.

  5. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 3:01 am | Permalink

    Nothing you have offered, Creighton, can justify the limit to twosomes. So, polygamous-like SSM is also on the table because it is also swallowed whole by your own arugmentation.

    You can't arbitrarily draw a line against related people nor against those inclined to form threesomes or moresomes. You need far more than your argumentation has equipped you with.

    The evils of white supremacy are not "remarkably similar" to the man-woman requirement of marriage law. You would be a sick lad to think such a thing.

  6. Posted May 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    One man to one woman is recorded in heaven

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.