Pharyngula

Posted by: Rox | January 6, 2010 9:12 PM

I'm so used to getting to these polls after they have been massively pharyngulated that initially I was surprised to see the results after I voted. And then I realized that this post hasn't been up for very long. :P

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 6, 2010 9:21 PM

Voted.

Posted by: John Morales | January 6, 2010 9:28 PM

Yes 34% (1,660 votes)
No 66% (3,258 votes)
Total Votes: 4,918

Posted by: JerryM | January 6, 2010 9:41 PM

the position of the Yes and No change after a vote, so take care to read before voting.

Posted by: souper genyus | January 6, 2010 10:11 PM

Help a New Jerseyan out!

More weddings=more cake/open bars

Posted by: scribe999 | January 6, 2010 10:14 PM

I am often embarrassed by my home state...I really need to be able to hold my head up after this senate vote.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | January 6, 2010 10:35 PM

Souper Genyus @ #10:

Help a New Jerseyan out! More weddings=more cake/open bars

Ah, but the cake is a lie!!

Posted by: Miki Z | January 6, 2010 10:48 PM

It seems to randomize the order of the answers. Though why you would bother trying to correct for the order effect in an opinion poll online is beyond me.

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | January 6, 2010 10:56 PM

NJ's done some weird stuff. I think they were the first state to outlaw corporal punishment in (public) schools.

More recently they almost (?) passed legislation immunizing non-profits from certain types of lawsuits - most notably it would have affected child sexual abuse. (Guess which religious organization supported this.) I know next to nothing about this; any Jerseyites know?

Posted by: Miki Z | January 6, 2010 11:24 PM

Suggestions for future polls:
Have you ever looked at someone other than your spouse lustfully? ( ) Yes ( ) No
If yes, when will you gouge out your eye? ( ) Now ( ) I already did

Should homosexuals be permitted the same contractual rights as heterosexuals? ( ) Yes ( ) No

Posted by: toomanytribbles | January 6, 2010 11:57 PM

it's at 50-50

Posted by: theodd1btm | January 7, 2010 12:11 AM

Just broke 51% the right way!

Posted by: Jackal | January 7, 2010 12:13 AM

The answers should read "Yes, I support their right to marry" or "No, I hate gay people." Isn't that what it comes down to?

Posted by: Miki Z | January 7, 2010 12:20 AM

I think it comes down to thinking that women are second-class citizens as well. I suppose there might be some who oppose it who would view men as the second-class citizens, but I've yet to meet anyone of that stripe.

If there's something magically different about "man/woman" than "man/man" or "woman/woman", I don't see how sexism doesn't enter the picture. I didn't always feel this way, but the more I read about the issue, the more strongly I feel it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the "anti-" literature moves me faster towards the view of "anti-gay" as sexist.

Posted by: Bix12 | January 7, 2010 12:39 AM

Voted.

Yes 52% (4,417 votes)
No 48% (4,049 votes)

Total Votes: 8,466

Nice movememt! /:-)

Posted by: Richard Eis | January 7, 2010 3:51 AM

From the article ""Given the intensely personal nature of this issue" and "They have to come to the realization that we were elected to take sometimes difficult stands"

What exactly is so difficult about upholding the constitution and equal rights?

And if its so bloody personal why does everyone else get to vote on it?

Shall we get married? ...oh I don't know, lets ask the neighbours what they think about us having a legal contract together.

Posted by: boygenius | January 7, 2010 4:25 AM

I voted yes five times. Just so I could make Cuttlefish smile.

*I would have voted yes regardless, but the opportunity to repay Cuttlefish with a smile required an extra couple votes. It's the least I could do!*

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 7, 2010 4:54 AM

Update:

Yes 59% (5,825 votes)
No 41% (4,118 votes)
Total Votes: 9,943

Posted by: Zish | January 7, 2010 6:24 AM

Yes 60% (6,196 votes)
No 40% (4,191 votes)
Total Votes: 10,387

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 7, 2010 6:59 AM

N1 = 2
N2 = 7

If the rule is N(n+1)=2*N(n)+3,
then N3=17 (2014), N4=37(2019)...
with 157 by 2029

If the rule is N(n+1)=3*N(n)+1,
then it will be 202 by 2024

If the rule is N(n+1)=0.5*N(n)+6, then the number will stop at 12

Two N values is dreadfully little to work with.

Posted by: Miki Z | January 7, 2010 7:30 AM

It's probably more like this:
Deffuant, Guillaume (2006). 'Comparing Extremism Propagation Patterns in Continuous Opinion Models'. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(3)8

with countries that completely legalize marriage^* at one end and countries that prosecute for homosexuality at the other.

^*No words are missing here: if some of your adult population can't marry, your marriage laws are incomplete.

Posted by: Danish | January 7, 2010 7:58 AM

Voted a few times from Denmark. I often wonder why these local polls don't at least restrict voting to only IP-addresses in the US. But I'm happy they don't as I'd be left out of the fun. :)

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 7, 2010 8:10 AM

PS I quoted adult in my #45 because even in my day (before the general public used the term gay) as a teenager I knew closet gays. Legally not adult - but to me then and to me now - they were in many ways more mature than the real adults who could not see the danger of their passive acceptance of McCarthy and of other things like war and of the fight against rights.

So adult to me are people acting like responsible adults - for that comment.

Posted by: Miki Z | January 7, 2010 8:32 AM

It's probably a little revisionist to say they ever had it. My personal hope is that Proposition 8 gets overturned. "The will of the people" will always result in one form of tyranny or another -- cf. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem -- and some things should never be subject to a vote.

Posted by: prostock69 | January 7, 2010 9:12 AM

It's now up to 62% for Yes!

Posted by: Jessie | January 7, 2010 10:50 AM

Shouldn't the UK be added to the list of countries which have legalised same-sex marriage? It is called a 'civil partnership' but I understood that it gave exactly the same rights as marriage.

If 'marriage' is to be preserved as a term for religious unions between a man and a woman, civil partnerships need to be made available to all. That's a different battle.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | January 7, 2010 11:10 AM

In US jurisdictions that have that have civil partnerships, the legal rights are less than those which attach to civil marriage.

I don't know what the situation is in the UK.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | January 7, 2010 11:27 AM

It also seems that the UK legislation does not travel well. You won't get into the USA as the spouse of your partner if they have a work permit (or is even a citizen), for example.

So no, we are most certainly equal here.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 7, 2010 11:55 AM

The National Organization for Marriage is crowing about how much money they've spent in New Jersey.

The nation's most vocal opponent of gay marriage has launched an anti-gay marriage radio ad in the state of New Jersey ...In a press release NOM says the new campaign brings the group's total expenditure in New Jersey to fight against gay marriage to $1 million.

In the meantime, this secretive organization (first founded by Mormons for purposes of running anti-gay campaigns, but now in hiding as to who its donors are) puts up a front that it is a "grass roots" organization made up of concerned individuals, but it refuses to reveal those supposed grass roots.

In possibly the most blatant disregard of a state election law since records have been kept, the Washington, DC-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed its final campaign report this week on Question 1 in Maine, and again refused to provide any of its donor's names. This is in spite of an order to do by a Federal Judge and Maine's Attorney General.
     Maine election law requires that all organizations raising $5000 and over, file as a PAC and report all contributor's names who gave $100 and above. This longstanding state election law was put into place so that Maine voters know who is contributing to their elections before they vote. No one knows where $2 million of the $3 million spent to pass Question 1 came from.
     NOM continues to march all over the country breaking law after law.
     I have never seen arrogance that even comes close to theirs. NOM is currently under investigation in two states, California (Case #08/735) and Maine. They do not adhere to state election laws, and when they get caught, they sue the state saying that truth and transparency are apparently unconstitutional.
NOM files its federally required IRS tax returns months or even years late or never at all. They are making a mockery of our election laws, and are able to bully legislators, election officials, Governors and the voters. They think that they can threaten and bully everyone just because they have millions and millions of dollars.
     That is why we need a Congressional Investigation of the National Organization for Marriage immediately. Where do they get all their money from, and why is there no accountability? Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, who run the organization, need to tell the truth. Whom are they trying to protect?

Posted by: eandh99 | January 7, 2010 12:01 PM

The dating for Canada is a little off - individual provinces began allowing same-sex marriages as early as 2003 - I know, I got one! In slightly more positive news - the Rhode Island legislature has overruled that governor's veto and gay partners can now indeed make funeral arrangments etc.

But yeah, way to weasel an excuse for bigotry, NJ.

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 7, 2010 12:03 PM

#55

I always thought the rights granted under civil partnerships and civil marriage are exactly the same.
Can you give an example of a difference ?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | January 7, 2010 12:08 PM

It depends on the particular jusrisdiction. There is no standard definition of what rights are covered.

The whole point of 'partnerships' is to have fewer rights, hoping that will be enough to shut us up about it. It's a strawman to talk of merely avoiding the word 'marriage'.

Posted by: tsg | January 7, 2010 12:31 PM

#65

Not a direct answer to your question, but the problem with "separate but equal" is that it doesn't work. If they are equal, why make them separate?

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 7, 2010 12:35 PM

tsg,

I'd just like to know what's the difference, that's all.

So if you can name me a difference, you'll answer my question.

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 7, 2010 12:39 PM

and again, I'm talking UK.

I know a lot of diffeences between civil union (PACS) and civil marriage in France for example.
But I don' know any in the UK.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | January 7, 2010 12:50 PM

negentropyeater (@39):

So, let's attempt to predict when all 203 sovereign nations in the world will have legalized same-sex marriage

No bet. I just hope it's not in the year 2525!

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 7, 2010 1:11 PM

tsg,

As a homosexual, I want equal rights. As long as I have equal rights, the name of the piece of paper that grants me these rights matters very little to me. Nothing stops me from calling myself "married", or inviting my friends to my "marriage ceremony" if that's what I want.

Why call it differently if it grants the same rights is beyond me, and frankly, as someone who is suffering a lot from not being able to mary my life long Malaysian partner, of very little importance.

Posted by: tsg | January 7, 2010 1:47 PM

As a homosexual, I want equal rights. As long as I have equal rights, the name of the piece of paper that grants me these rights matters very little to me. Nothing stops me from calling myself "married", or inviting my friends to my "marriage ceremony" if that's what I want.

Why call it differently if it grants the same rights is beyond me, and frankly, as someone who is suffering a lot from not being able to mary my life long Malaysian partner, of very little importance.

As a married heterosexual, I want you to have the exact same rights I do, and I think the best way of not only granting them now, but ensuring that you keep them, is by calling them exactly the same thing in the law. I do understand your question is important. All I'm trying to say is that if there weren't two separate institutions, you wouldn't have to ask it.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 7, 2010 2:24 PM

Re: #69

Mrs. Betty Bowers is made of awesome.

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 7, 2010 2:41 PM

Bill,

My preferred solution (which I've mentioned here before) would be to do away with civil marriage altogether, and replace it with some form of domestic partnership that would encompass the same legal and economic rights and responsibilities, but which would make no reference whatsoever to sexuality.

If they'd drop the "same-sex requirement" from the civil partnership act in the UK, that's exactly what you'd get.

But that probably won't happen as long as Cameron is PM.

Posted by: tsg | January 7, 2010 3:11 PM

My preferred solution (which I've mentioned here before) would be to do away with civil marriage altogether, and replace it with some form of domestic partnership that would encompass the same legal and economic rights and responsibilities, but which would make no reference whatsoever to sexuality.

I believe this to be a bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which is that the opposition to gay marriage has been largely on the presumption of protecting marriage, and the very last thing we need to do is hand them a bill that they can say is eliminating it. Yes, I know that's not what it would be doing, but politics is all about appearance and very little about actual fact.

Secondly, I can think of no clearer way to say to everyone, "these rights that we have, you now have, too" than by opening the existing institution to the group that has been excluded from it for so long. Personally, I don't want the bigots to even have the opportunity to say "you're not really married". Gays should be able to look them right in the eye and say, "according to the state, the very same body that says you are, I am. What your god has to say about it matters not the least either to me or them."

Lastly, it also means that insurance companies and hospitals will have to go out of their way to discriminate against gays. Redefining marriage to include gays means there won't be any of these battles over the details taking place every time there is a separate but equal policy that turns out to be not quite equal.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | January 7, 2010 5:01 PM

tsg:

My preferred solution (which I've mentioned here before) would be to do away with civil marriage altogether, and replace it with some form of domestic partnership that would encompass the same legal and economic rights and responsibilities, but which would make no reference whatsoever to sexuality.

I believe this to be a bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which is that the opposition to gay marriage has been largely on the presumption of protecting marriage, and the very last thing we need to do is hand them a bill that they can say is eliminating it.

Well, keep in mind that [a] I already acknowledged that my "ideal solution" is not a viable political solution, and I'm not offering it as a proposal for legislation, and [b] my ideal approach to regularizing marriage is part of my larger philosophical goal (which I also recognize is not viable as a real-world political initiative) of making the public law entirely sex-blind. That is, I don't accept that the state — any legitimate state, regardless of its political model — has any compelling interest in regulating, or even noticing as a matter of law, the private, consensual behavior of its citizens (unless that behavior constitutes a crime on some other objective, nonsexual basis).

My ideal expunging of sexuality from the law would not only take sex out of domestic partnership arrangements, it would also have the effect of legalizing (or preventing the future criminalization of, as applicable) prostitution and other sex work, contraception, so-called "sodomy," sex toys, pornography... all the things that are only touched by the law in the first place because they relate to sexuality. I'm fully aware that this is a utopian position that would be fraught with political peril if anyone tried to act on it within our political world-as-it-is. But as a matter of principle it's how I'd set things up if I were made king of the world for a day, or if we were building our society from scratch.

All that said, though, what I'm talking about isn't really ending marriage, but returning the allegedly spiritual aspect of marriage to the realm of the churches, and deconflicting that aspect with the secular civil law. One argument against legalizing gay marriage is that it would amount to the state sanctioning, presumably on behalf of all its citizens, a sexual practice that some of them consider sinful. On plausible remedy is for the state to stop sanctioning (or condemning) any sexual behavior, because what reason does it have to do so in the first place?

The more rational religious folks should welcome such a change, much as some of them actually support a strong separation of church and state in other areas: My idea should really seem, from the religious POV, to be an instance of "render[ing] unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's." What's not for them to like? ;^)

Ahh, but the intersection of religion and politics (in the U.S., at least) is, sadly, not occupied by such relatively rational, liberal-minded believers.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | January 7, 2010 5:40 PM

Boo on NJ. You jumped onto the wrong side of the fence.

Posted by: plien | January 7, 2010 7:05 PM

As a dutchie i would like to comment that we in the Netherlands first had the so called homo-huwelijk, a domestic partnership, before marriage was opened to same-sex partners.

So now we have this situation where you can live together and have nothing arranged (but if on welfare you'll be treated as a couple), live together and file taxes and such together, live together or apart and be in a domestic partnership (for arrangements for kids and wills and such you have to get more apart expensive settlements) or a marriage in which all things are settled at once, but if it's not to your liking you still have to get a sollicitor. The first two are for every adult, the last two only for those who are not else closely related.(eg no incest)
I know both homo- and hetero-couples in domestic partnerships and mariages.

It took years and it came in little steps. I'm not saying that one must be patient, be as loud as you like, just don't expect immediate results. Or migrate to the Netherlands. (^.^)

Posted by: tsg | January 8, 2010 9:29 AM

@Bill Dauphin #54

I apologize. I wasn't trying to imply that you advocated this stance as a practical solution. However, I have had conversations with a number of people who do and felt it necessary to expand on why it is not.

------
In other news...

From here:

The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would infringe on religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.[emphasis mine]

This is precisely what I was talking about when I mentioned "partial solutions that may make it harder to get full equality later." We have the appearance of equal rights, so the fact that they aren't really equal doesn't matter.