It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CNN) -- In a historic turnaround, the ballot box is showing America's shifting attitudes about same-sex marriage. After gay marriage rights died at the polls dozens of times in the past, on Tuesday they passed in at least two states.
Rarely do popular votes reflect such dramatic social changes.
The result: Maryland and Maine will now allow couples like Chyrino Patane and James Trinidad to tie the knot.
The Maryland couple has been together for seven years, and now, after the historic vote, they plan to marry in the next six months to a year.
In Maryland, where just 51.9% of voters approved gay marriage rights, "It was a little bit pins and needles," said Human Rights Campaign's Kevin Nix. "It was going to be a close call all along."
A similar ballot measure in Washington state is pending. And in Minnesota, voters rejected a measure that would have banned same-sex marriage.
Pollsters got a hint of the coming change. Recent national surveys have shown shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage, with a majority of Americans now approving of marriages between two men or two women. A June CNN/ORC poll, for example, reflected such a shift in opinion in the U.S.
Election Day brought two additional gains for proponents of same-sex marriage: Wisconsin elected America's first openly lesbian senator, Democrat Tammy Baldwin, and President Obama became the first president to openly support same-sex marriage and get re-elected.
In the six states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York -- and the District of Columbia where gays and lesbians have previously won marriage rights, it was because of actions taken by judges or legislators, not voters.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
Originally posted by Juggernog
Well, who ever gets married in that these states can only move to other states that have or recognize same sex marriage.
And btw, just because someone doesnt agree with something like this, doesnt always mean its political or religiousedit on 11/7/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by detachedindividual
That was our Prime Minister's main argument when it came to not holding a referendum or allowing the public to vote for whether or not we legalized same-sex marriage. If you want minorities to feel like they are protected or represented by your constitution/charter of rights than you cannot allow majority to decide major issues for them.
Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.
The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, same-sex marriage is legal in several states and the District of Columbia. In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state. Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.