Three more states have approved same-sex marriage

Lou Dematteis/Reuters

Rhode Island

On May 2, Rhode Island became the 10^th state to permit same-sex marriage. The House approved the bill by 56-15 (the RI Senate approved the bill on April 24 by a 26-12 vote), and the governor signed it the same day. Same-sex marriages will be legal starting August 1, 2013.

Rhode Island had just approved civil unions two years ago, and now the new law will replace these civil unions with marriage. The Fox News article noted that “few couples” sought civil unions. I wonder why they think many more will seek marriage. What people fail to understand is that most gays do not want marriage. What they want is social acceptance of their orientation and behavior, and permitting same-sex couples to partake of the institution of marriage is one of the best ways to accomplish this.

Delaware

Just five days after Rhode Island enshrined same-sex marriage into law, Delaware followed suit. On May 7 Delaware became the 11^th state to permit same-sex marriage when the DE Senate voted 12-9 to approve the bill (the DE House approved the bill in late April by a 23-18 vote). The governor signed it a half-hour later. Same-sex marriages will be legal starting July 1, 2013.

In DE, civil unions – which were just legalized a year ago – had all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, so this is just a name change for them. But there is something to be said for a name.

Like RI, civil unions are being replaced by same-sex marriage effective July 1. Unlike RI, DE will convert existing civil unions into marriages in one year. Even out-of-state civil unions will be considered marriages if someone moves to Delaware.

Minnesota

On Monday, the Minnesota Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill by a 37-30 vote. Their House approved the bill last week by a 75-59 vote. The governor signed it into law on Tuesday, making Minnesota the 12^th state to adopt same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages will be legal starting August 1, 2013.

Same-sex marriage is now permitted in 25% of the states in this country.

I find it interesting that all 12 states (and the District of Columbia) who permit same-sex marriage are in the northern part of the United States (and mostly in New England):

Washington
Minnesota
Iowa
New York
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Deleware
Maryland
Washington D.C.

For further thinking on same-sex marriage, see my other articles and blog posts:

NotAScientist Says:

May 17, 2013 at 6:23 am

“What people fail to understand is that most gays do not want marriage.”

I’m curious as to where you got that sweeping generalization.

LikeLike

jasondulle Says:

May 17, 2013 at 10:37 am

By comparing the number of same-sex marriages (or civil unions) in places where it is legal, to the gay population. The % of gays who opt for legal recognition usually pales in comparison to the heterosexual population.

May 17, 2013 at 11:13 am

“By comparing the number of same-sex marriages (or civil unions) in places where it is legal, to the gay population.”

You’re missing at least two big pieces of information.

1: The percentage of the gay population that isn’t in a relationship, or else isn’t in a relationship at a point that they would want to get married yet.

2. The percentage of the gay population that refuses to get a civil union as they are insulted by the ‘separate but equal’ argument.

May 20, 2013 at 4:25 pm

1. That is a good point, but even then I don’t think this can bridge the gap. You would have to look at the number of heterosexual marriages each year compared against the total heterosexual population, and then compare it to the number of same-sex marriages each year compared to the total homosexual population. If, say, each year 10% of the total heterosexual population gets married, and yet only 2% of the total gay population gets married, then one must ask why there aren’t more gay relationships ready to commit to marriage. And I think there is a good answer for that: gay relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. Their nature is quite different.

And, we would actually expect for the numbers to be inflated on the same-sex marriage side, at least in the beginning. After all, if there are a lot of same-sex couples who have been living as if they were married for so many years, and desiring to be married all those years, there should be a windfall of same-sex marriages within the first couple of years of legalization, and then the figures would taper out thereafter.

I would need to do a lot more research to see if this bears itself out in the data. I once tried to do so a few years back, but it was very difficult to come across reliable data.

2. That could be true, but there are enough places where same-sex marriage is legal that we could focus only on those places.

Jason

May 21, 2013 at 6:30 am

” If, say, each year 10% of the total heterosexual population gets married, and yet only 2% of the total gay population gets married, then one must ask why there aren’t more gay relationships ready to commit to marriage.”

You’d have to look at it by state, and also look at how many are planning to get married. (Some people don’t do it in a day, and some may not have even started planning until after their state recently started allowing it.)

On top of it, I don’t necessarily grant the premise that it matters about how many homosexuals want to get married.

They deserve the right to marry someone they love. Whether they want to use that right or not is irrelevant.

David P Says:

May 21, 2013 at 7:26 am

“They deserve the right to marry someone they love.”

The right to love and choose their relationships, sure. The right to a certain definition and legal contract? I don’t think so. Far too often the distinction between these two “rights” is glossed over by same sex marriage proponents. There is no fundamental nature of the human condition that warrants marriage as some sort of guaranteed, universal human right.

May 21, 2013 at 7:36 am

“There is no fundamental nature of the human condition that warrants marriage as some sort of guaranteed, universal human right.”

Ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right, I don’t care…it’s a legal benefit given to some couples but not others, based only on the gender of the couples. That’s wrong and discriminatory.

May 21, 2013 at 9:45 am

NotAScientist,

I had forgotten that I downloaded a paper written by Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. I just hadn’t read it. I still haven’t had the chance to read it, but in the Executive Summary they write:

“This research report offers estimates of gay and lesbian marriage rates based on the best available data. The highest estimate to date of the proportion of gays and lesbians who have married in any jurisdiction where
it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts). More typically, our survey of marriage statistics from various countries that legally recognize same-sex unions suggests that today between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage. In the Netherlands, which has hadsame-sex marriage as a legal option for the longest period, between 2% and 6% of gays and lesbians have entered marriages in the first five years.”

This was as of 2006, so there would be even more data now. If you come across any data, let me know.

May 21, 2013 at 9:49 am

As for your comment in #5 about deserving the right to marry, I agree with David’s response in #6.

Thinking to Believe