Continental promo
||   Winning Marriage Equality   ||
Results for the following question: Do you think a federal or state-by-state strategy is the best approach to win marriage equality?

Federal
 55.7%

State-by-state
 38.4%

Undecided
 5.9%

Total Votes: 557

Comments:
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Jonathan
Less confrontational to the Bible Belt, Christian crazies.

Anonymous
I live in the most ignorant state in the union known as South Carolina. Federal is the only way to go.

Mark
As long as DOMA is on the books it hurts us at the State level.

Michael Phillips
I want to be able to travel to any state in this country and not have to worry if my rights or my marriage is valid or respected. I'm an American and nothing else will do. The other side to this is to lobby for adding LGBT Americans to the Civil Rights Act. State by state is important but it is not the way to win lasting civil rights.

Southern California
As a straight man, I take the Jay Leno platform on marriage. Everyone can have equal opportunity to be miserable.

Lilly
Actually, yes. It would be great for a federal law to get marriage equality, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon, not even with Obama in the White House. So let it start in a few states until it snowballs into most states, and then maybe think about a federal law.

Anonymous
i dont live in america

Christian
Enough of our country being divided up state by state, the government needs to recognize freedom and equality for all.

Patrick May
I do feel that eventally the federal government will have to reconize the marriages and Like LBJ gave cival rights to all african americans a president will have to sign a law so the southern states will be forced into it.

Jay
Why are we relegating this to either/or? Are we as easily distracted like President Obama by multiple priorities that we can't think up a more inclusive strategy?

Mary W. Thompson
In some large public/private employers (United Nations) Only when or if a country with FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages will the spouse also be fully covered. Therefore the best and most expedious approach for our full equality is to go federal and DO IT NOW.

Angel Fuentes
The US federal system puts at the State level civil matters including civil marriage. But also Full Faith and Credit caluse of the federal constitution should be enforced to have states that dont perform marriage equality to give full faith and credit to marriages from other states.

bri.
I think that just making all the states accept that gay marrage is the same as straight marage is the way to go. Just like slavery when they were fighting to get uit removed, there's always going to be states that are not going to accept this, and some people live in those states and may not have the means to move, so even if 40 states say yes what about those people?

Anonymous
If certain conservative states never option to vote on minority civil rights, then are those people in that state just screwed? Until the federal government recognizes all its citizens equally, this issue will not be resolved.

Frank E.
With the current SCOTUS make-up, I'm afraid the state-by-state strategy has to do for the moment. Not ideal, but that is the reality. If a couple more progressive justices can get in there, then SCOTUS is the way to go, but with the current bench, it all rests on Justice Kennedy in terms of the "swing vote", and who knows how he would go on equality issues, so really, for now I think state-by-state is the better approach.

James Sweet
With the federal approach being so uncertain, and more final I think the state by state will give us the time needed to win over the opposing side.

Matt Rider
Interracial marriage fought hard fights in many states with some staes being more favorable than others. It wasn't until the federal government stepped in to legalize it did the battle finally get one. Leglislators who want it to be decided by the states say so because they know they won't have to take heat for their decisions either way. And in most states the protections vary from one state to another. Lastly, the benefits of full marriage equality will never be felt until the federal government legalizes it for everyone.

Anonymous
Federal Courts won't rule on gay marriage it is a STATES RIGHTS issue. Gay marriage will never be legal in the south. I honestly wish every state would just vote on this. I am honestly tired of hearing about this issue. If we get universal health care passed I would be happy. And, the gays should be too. I KNOW most of those queens don't have that.

Anonymous
Isn't that how interracial marriage was legalized? I believe it should be done at the Federal level and the Administration and Congress should be asked why they think it is so important to give the rights of citizenship to people who knowingly violated our laws and disrespected our country to come here while the civil right to a monogamous, committed relationship is not given to same sex partners. Isn't that implying it is okay to discriminate against legal, law abiding citizens?

Ed-zo
Its a bad precedent to begin to allow one state to be able to ignore another state's laws. The best way to avoid that from happening is to make Human Rights Laws Federal like Civil Rights.

Mike
Domestic relations law has traditionally been deeply rooted in state statutes. Same sex marriage rights and duties clearly fall within the pervue of family law and, just like any other laws that address the "family," those that address marriage equality should be left to the states. Federal laws that provide protections and that set forth rights and responsibilities related to "marriage" must, however, correlate with state legislatures' decisions to promote marriage equality.

Joseph Martz
State-by-state until we hit some kind of tipping point. Then federal. No other strategy could possibly work.

Anonymous
Same with Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. Until marriage equality is recognized at the federal level, it won't be "equality."

Bobo
My partner and I live in Florida. If were waiting for the people to vote for equality in the state we are going to be waiting a very long time. Minority Civil Rights should not be put up to a vote by the Majority in any case. Marriage Equality is a Federal Issue. The Feds control taxes, social security and inheritance rights.

D. Owens
State by state is far too slow and in many cases could take decades before it passes. We need and should demand Equality now. Federal is the only quick and sure way to get it.

Jake
I am a huge supporter of the 10th Amendment, I don't believe in Federalism. I used to support marriage equality being achieved by state, but then I thought about it. As long as there is a gay or lesbian couple in any one of our states or territories who still can't be equal, that's not good enough. Obama needs to grow a pair and start making this happen.

Anonymous
It's going to end up there, anyway.

Anonymous
An international research approach will provide ample precedents and strategies.

Anonymous
Of course on the federal level, states would have to abide by equality for gay marriage, even if a state apposes the decision, much added pressure would be put on state goverment to allow same sex marriage. This I believe would be the quickest way; Also the most dangerious. There is no telling how the majority of our socity would feel about it, and from that, what action would be taken. A State-by-state, is the slowest way yet the most effective. It gets people thinking about gay marriage were they can become use to the idea, which would soften the blow if gay marriage is legalixed through out the country. I prefer not too wait this long though.

Kristin
Start with the small states, pour in money to support the movement, over time it will sweep the nation.

Anonymous
State-by-state legalization of same-sex marriage is just a huge mess. It's ridiculous to have such hairy patches as far as what states allow gay marriage on the map and which don't. If a gay couple decided to travel, how difficult would it be if half the states decided to recognize their marriage and the other half didn't? It's just one big mess.

Dirk
Marriage is not a federal issue. Even if federal-level marriage rights were awarded to married same sex couples, that would not guarantee that each state would have marriage equality.

ms
The oldest military maxim is "divide and conquer." If we get momentum going in the states then eventually the tide will become unstoppable, if it isn't already. This is how women won the right to vote and how racial discrimination was defeated. When enough states back our rights, the feds will swing into line. Without the states, federal initiatives are doomed to fail.

Viks
I think we have reached a stage where it is important to get a Federal level equality. State marriages are not recognized by the Federal government so what is the point of getting half way there....

Anonymous
Approximately 27% of the public favored interracial marriage, we have better odds today for SSM. The time has come.

Anonymous
We have to crush the oposition. That is the only way to defeat extremism. Would you pacify Hitler by taking on Nazis one at a time? These supposed straights are nothing but Nazis. We must destroy them in toto. Annihilate. Devestate. Crush Kill Destroy (no will robinson). There is no such thing as straight, anyway, there is only gay, and ungay. Which are you sister?

wafuu
I'm afraid pursuing a federal strategy would result in an all-or-nothing outcome. Better, for the time being, to chip away at the states until a positive federal outcome can be guaranteed.

Jasen Frederickson
"All Men are created equal"! But not in all matters such as the Right to Marry ( a federally recognized right). Governmental rights should be open to all persons regardless of gender, race, origin or sexual orientation. At the Federal Level, equality is paramount, and it's time for Marriage In-Equality to end. I believe that there should be an amendment to the US Constitution regarding Marriage, and that by leaving it up to the States only continues to foster an inconsistent and unjust approach towards Marriage Equality if a marriage is not recognized from one state to another.

Karen Jensen
It needs to be a state decision otherwise it will be years before we get the right to marry. I don't want to have to wait that long.

Barbara
Sometimes "slow and steady" wins the race. I would be concerned that marriage equality would not pass on the federal level at this time (in Congress or the Supreme Court), and that failure would severely slow down the momentum that has been building on the state level. For now, state by state... Who would have thought we would have come so far already?

John Bosch
What makes the difference on your FEDERAL income tax return -- what Massachusetts or Iowa says or what the federal government says?

Anonymous
Many out gays and lesbians are frankly insane. While at Pride in Houston last year I saw why many people are afraid of us. My partner and soon to be wife and I will refrain from attending this year. Remember that the media and conservatives are trying to paint us this way so let's not help them. I think that since so many outlyers still exist and make themselves prominent that we should and can win with less opposition if we do this state by state.

Rick
Another ballot initiative in California is no less risky than a federal challenge. Two successive defeats will be just as devastating and will make victory in California seemingly impossible through initiative process. Like other 29 states, California has hit a dead end with its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Gay rights organizations have probably persuaded most state supreme courts and state legislatures that could be persuaded on the issue of marriage equality. With all this in mind, time is ripe for a federal suit.

Mack
Forget marriage right now! Go for civil unions first which we could then fight for our federal and civil rights. I think this may be tolorated at this time. Go for marriage at a time when the atmosphere might be much better.

Isaiah
We have done great things on a state by state approach. We must however move towards a Federal Approach. Womens rights and African American rights were won on the Federal level. This is a civil rights issue and all Americans deserve the same rights. We need to put fear aside and fight for our rights as Americans. We should not make it an us against them issue we need to take religion out of it. (Seperation of Church and State) We should also make it were church's don't have to perform gay marriages. We must stand for those that can't so many young people are dying, so many families are suffering. We must be proud of whom we are and fight for our rights. Do all things in love and never give up.

Patrick
If I pay FEDERAL taxes, then I should have FEDERAL protection.

Anonymous
I marked undecided because there was not an option for a two pronged strategy.

Anonymous
If we don't go federally, we will be getting rights county by county, state by state, and it will be a mish-mash of different variations, labels, and stategies. California now already has 3 marriage classes.

Paul
With the current composition of the Supreme Court I believe state - by -state is the better alternative . That being said , I believe that current efforts to take it to the federal level will result in a Supreme Court decision within 3 years .

Anonymous
The Federal Government will be forced to decide on this issue someday soon, but we need to have a considerable amount of states in our favor before that happens.

Craig
The only real solution will be through the federal system. Let’s face it; if the civil rights law of the 60’s had to go through the individual states, we would still have racial segregation in the South.

Rich
This is a straight-forward (no pun intended!) 14th Amendment issue. Even an uptight homophobe, who also claims to be a "strict constructionist" would be at pains to find otherwise. It only needs to be explained to them in language they understand and which gives them cover from the right-wing kooks who'll howl after we win.

Will Wilson
Instead of fighting for "marriage equality" we need to be directing our energies on a Federal Level to have the term, "marriage" replaced with "civil union". The Government ought not be in the marriage business, as marriage is a religious institution. Instead, for the sake of rights and record keeping, the Government needs to keep track of those who want the rights (and responsibilities) incumbent upon individuals who choose to enter into relationship with a significant other. To qualify, I am a 51 yo Gay male, independent politically, social liberal, fiscal conservative. At this point, with the seizing of marriage as "the" rights issue, we are in fact ignoring the reality that marriage is not a cure all for other rights abuses, such as Don't ask, Don't tell and State adoption discrimination. Once the hot button of marriage is eliminated I believe that we would develop a much larger base of support for equal rights under a civil union based concept. It would also be much simpler to take this issue through the court system.

Anonymous
i live in texas and gay equality will never happen with all the yahoos who live here. federal is the only way we will ever get rights

Warren Cole
State-by-state will leave too many behind. People in every part of the country deserve the same rights to marriage equality not just a few states.

John Durkin
This is a GENDER issue, not really a gay issue. In states that explicitly disallow gay marriage do so on by specifying that only GENDER DISCORDANT couples can marry. DOMA-type laws never actually specify sexuality, since it is so subjective and difficult to discern, and instead they specify GENDER because that is already documented on birth certificates and is considered a fixed state of being (although we know it is not.) So, it is not the SEXUALITY of the couple, but the GENDER of one half of the couple that is preventing the state from sanctioning the marriage contract. A simple federal statute that bans the use of gender as a discriminating factor in any law would nullify all the DOMA laws and allow gay marriage in every state, without interfering in any other of the regulatory laws states may pass with regard to marriage. Only GENDER DISCRIMINATION would be disallowed... so any of the laws that are GENDER SPECIFIC would be tossed. JD

Sharae Spears
It is a constitutional right, and therefore should be a federal issue. Prohibiting gay marriage by making it a moral issue is simply ignorant. I am a straight 25 year old female, and it is my responsibility to speak up for our rights as Americans too. If we allow a government to decide who may or may not be married judged on issues of morality then we will have to ban marriage altogether. To think that in this country we would allow someone's rights to be taken away because of their religious, moral, or sexual preferences just saddens me. Gay or straight we have the same responsibilities and should have the same rights... isn't that what made this America?

JohnVisser
State by state will take decades and its exactly where the GOP wants us to be. They know the public vote will go against us, the state legislatures will go against us (with obvious exceptions), and courts are a toss-up. But we should be doing both - state and federal.

Anonymous
You've got to go where the rights are found, and they are found at the Federal level. We're wasting time with these State campaigns, especially when we know a majority of state legislatures will never support marriage equality.

Skeloric
It has to start in a state by state process. enough people growing up with positive images of homosexuality in committed "marriage" will defeat most arguments against homosexuality in general. With that broad base of positive portrayal, movement towards a federal Equal Marriage law can eventually occur.

Anonymous
If a gay marriage case ever got to the existing Supreme Court, the result would be disastrous. I can even conceive of a decision that would have the effect of making marriage illegal in those few states that have already legalized it. We must wait for a different makeup of the Court before allowing a case to reach the Supremes.

Dave Martin
The Federal government provides most of the the rights & privileges of marriage. Since all states in the union MUST comply with federal laws, we have allowed the far right to distract us from our true goal. How much money has been wasted fighting state by state already?

Anonymous
State by state will create a patchwork that will ultimately prove unworkable, requiring a Federal fix, ie Supreme Court. That's the only wasy we'll make progress at the Federal level in this century. No Federal politicians would stick their necks out far enough for marriage equality.

John Viser
Federal - The barrier to equality is not establishing the right to marry. That has already been determined by the "states' rights" strategy. The federal government has allowed marriage to "become" legal in 5 states at this point (soon to be 6 - fingers crossed). They cannot take that away. This has created two distinct classes of people who are similarly situated: the married with full federal rights and the married with no federal rights. It's a clear violation of equal protection. Additionally, Loving v Virgina established that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Its a very strong precedent supporting due process. DOMA is so weak constitutionally that I am surprised we haven't taken the federal route yet. I think the only reason we haven't is that we have been trained to be fearful. How can the court justify how two identical contracts can be applied differently to full faith and credit clause. And going a little bit further, five of the six justices that gave us Lawrence v Texas are still sitting on the SCOTUS (granted Souter is being replaced). And public opinion has shifted and will continue to shift, the anti-gay marriage tide has reached its highest mark and is now receding and the justices know that. The only question in my mind is will the SCOTUS take the case?

Jeff
This should never have been a States issue. The only way that the same rights can apply to all is through the Federal government.

Dale Peterson-London
I would think Federal however whatever works and gets us to were we want to be will work for me!! I just want to be married!!!

Joe Laux
We will never have TRUE equality until EVERY LGBT American has it. The only way to achieve this is on the national level. Besides, what good does it do to have rights in one state if those rights will not be recognized in another, not to mention the over 1,000 Federal rights that are not covered by anything a state does?

TC
I believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must and will do the right thing in allowing equal protections for all the people of this country.

Lisa
If your serious about boosting the economy legalize marijuana and gay marriage....we all know what a cash cow pot would be but lets face it...gay weddings! Talk about stimulus!

steve
If there is a Federal approach, there will at least be some consistent aspects.

Anonymous
I live in a state that will NEVER pass any laws protecting it's LGBT citizens no matter what happens in other states. I would like to see Federal Domestic Partnership laws in place first. The state marriage battles could could continue while I try to leave this gawd awful place.

Steve in Chicago
Why should it be allowed for some states to harbor prejudice and some not?? Gay marriage equality should be mandated on a federal level. If "they" don't want to be equal with us then we can just stop paying taxes and let "them" pick up the slack! I most likely pay more taxes than 98% of these ignorant & fearful people opposing gay marriage.

paul Clary
I live in Missouri, which bans same sex marriage, and all relationships that give the rights of marriage to same sex couples. Its in the constitution. It would never be overturned at the ballot box. The possibility of Missouri, acting on its own, granting civil rights to a minority is non-existent. Work at the Federal level is the only hope my husband and I would have of having any kind of rights.

Sandy Ceppos
The current political climate is ripe for legalzing marriage equality on a federal level. We must stand united. We need to get our straight family and friends to support us. We are on the cusp of a new generation of acceptance. Clearly the polls show our greatest support is from the younger generation. We will gain full equal rights. If not now, certainly in the very near future.

Anonymous
The composition of the Supreme Court is not right for a federal challenge (and will not likely be by the time the newly filed suit reaches SCOTUS). Plus, even if the Supreme Court was more liberal, we would need a consensus of states behind us for the Court to be likely to act in our favor. State-by-state is the way to go for now - even without California, we've gotten nearly six states.

karen
if i get married in a state that allowes me to marrry then my job moves me to a state that doesn't recognize my marriage, am i still married. the term "married" is just that, a term. people all over he U.S. get "married" by a justice of the peace every day. no church involvement at all. even for heteros this is a civil union. sanctioned only by the government of the state they live in. and they call themselves "married" not civil unioned. athiests don't get married by any religious entity yet they are considered married by the government. even people who get married by a church still have to be licenced by the state and thats a civil agreement. so all marriages are technically civil agreements.

Greg Portland Or.
Someone needs to just take a stand and do the right thing at the federal level. But no politician wants to piss of the nutty church people so they always cower down on gay rights issues. But since nutty church people outnumber gay people that kind of makes sence. I say let the moral superior have their way but give the people who are discriminated against a big tax break. that would make sense since we do not receive equal government services. Oh and maybe tax churches since they are so interested in running the Gov.

Kathleen O'Neal
As with the black civil rights movement, there are some states that will never voluntarily come on board (most of them the same states as in the black instance) and it will take a federal law or court decision to force them to give justice to their gay and bisexual citizens. Because Southern gays and bisexuals have just as much worth and right to live in the states of their choosing as New England gays and bisexuals, I support a federal strategy.

Anonymous
Do you want rights in this lifetime or in the next? I'm so tired of seeing amateurs run our weak campaigns and dictate what legal strategies are safe - and fail! It's time to go federal.

Kian R. High
I believe that we won't achieve real progress until marriage equality is accepted on a federal level, but I think right now that state by state is all that we can really hope for.

Anonymous
I think attempting a federal case right now could prove to be risky. The results could cause more damage than good. The state by state strategy will take longer, but be more effective in the long run.

Doug McBride
It took a Federal ruling to ensure a citizen's right to interracial marriage and I suspect the same will be true with gay marriage. I imagine that the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution will need to be invoked to get Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee on board. I believe that States should have the right to make marriage law as long as they treat all their citizens equally under that law.

David
A state-by-state approach will guarantee some successes in the short term, but it runs the risk of promoting the notion that some matters of equal rights are matters of taste rather than aspects of equality. Human rights should be distributed among humanity generally, not in accordance with arbitrarily drawn borders that confine people and minds. Now that we are on the brink of a major cultural awakening, we need to demand an end to this and all other forms of institutionally endorsed discrimination. This battle for justice did not begin with the LGBT community and it won't end with us--unless we complacently accept less than what we deserve.

Jeffrey
Civil Rights is a national issue. I see no justice in having my marriage recognized in one part of the country and not recognized in another.

Jay
I think we have to continue the state-by-state strategy until we have at least a large minority of citizens covered by either full marriage rights or robust civil unions and domestic partnerships. Then we have to take the issue to the federal courts to enforce the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution and the equal protection under the law. A favorable ruling from the U. S. Supreme Court should result in our marriages or unions or partnerships recognized even in those benighted states that will never actually permit us to marry.

Debora
Do we still know what the fight is about? What is a "win" in this case? We will not achieve equality if we are not united in our thinking and objectives. Gay rights, including that of "marrying" or as I prefer to call it, forming a union, is a civil liberty. We are entitled to them simply because we are citizens of this country. If that is the argument, then we should STOP asking the neighboors, the church, etc to vote on it. We ought to have this discussion of discrimination with the entity charged with the responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure that our libirties are protected. We are making a big mistake by putting this issue on ballots, time and time again. We say one thing then what we do invalidates the argument. The federal government has failed to protect a large section of its constituents. We need to ask why and go from there. Again, it is not a voting issue. The debates will continue forever, homophobia will always exist (just as racism) and not everyone will agree/accept that gays ought to have equal rights. Its irrelevant. What matters is that we are protected by the law, federal law.

Catherine
We need to take it take it all the way!

Jonathan
I actually think we must move on all fronts.

Drew R. Hood
The south would never give it to us. We'll have to force them. Just like in the 60s.

John W Beck
Given the insertation of the Federal Government into marriage (which, constitutionally, is reserved for the States) with the erroneously named "Defense of Marriage Act", we need both Federal and State action to ensure marriage equal rights in this country. Not everyone wants to move to New England or Iowa I know. We'll see what happens in California later today.

Corey
In the long-run a federal strategy must be implemented if we are to gain our rights in all 50 states. State-by-state may work for now and be satisfying to those who live in states with a chance of passing marriage equality bills, but what about those of us who live in states like Texas? We want our rights too, and if we wait on our states to give them to us we will be waiting a very long time.

Sonya Amberson
It's easy, prevent the discrimination of people according to their sexual orientation and the states will have to stop banning us from getting married.

Greg
Most Federal representatives, particularly Republicans and Talibangelicals, don't have the guts to stand up for civil rights. It's odd that these same people were the ones to support "states rights" in the past. State by state, truth & justice (& "the American way?") seem to be making progress.

Keith Andrews
A state by state campaign will eventually lead to a Fourteenth Amendment conflict that will take it to the federal level. State by state is the way to go federal.

Anonymous
I think that there are so many govt representatives worried about being reelected that they will vote against marriage equality to maintain a safe distance from so-called negative publicity. I think if the states show they support it then they will "quiet as kept" change the law.

Anonymous
The benefits that matter are all federal.

Anonymous
lets get it all done at one time.this is bs makeing us wait one state at a time

Brian
I think for this effort to succeed, you have to have a level of popular support, and that can best be achieved state by state. Once we've reached a critical mass of states, though, (I'd say about a dozen with marriage rights and another dozen with domestic partnership), it will by necessity turn into a federal issue. As people married in one state move to another, their marriage should continue to be recognized, and it becomes an issue for federal courts to enforce the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

ap
there was no public vote to allow women the right to vote, blacks the right to vote, or for blacks and whites to be able to marry one another. does anyone think those amendments would have passed in those respective eras if left up to the majority?

William Flora
Do you honestly think that without the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, that African Americans would have been able to vote in many regions of this country? The state by state approach is at best quaint. I say this as a man who had to travel to Massachusetts to marry my partner of 25 years - not surprising considering that we reside in Dallas, Texas. We must demand federal recognition of our unions.

Anonymous
The federal level for now is abandoning the lgbts anyway

Roger Ross
Having voted for state-by-state, I do need to add that DOMA needs to be repealed so that marriages that are valid on a state-by-state basis will be repected for federal purposes.

Bernard Charles
The times are changing and today's youth is more perceptive for such a lifestyle. I think we just have to sit and wait.

Anonymous
A persons preferences are personal and should remain so,... just as medical history, sexual preferences, marital status,... get the point,... this is the land of the free and the home of the brave!! One nation, under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!!!

CatholicMomOf4
the dumb states should not be permitted to discriminate, simply because they are filled with uneducated, bigoted rednecks. The rights of minorities have no place on a ballot, to be voted on by a bigoted majority.

Anonymous
State by state, for sure. President Obama has shown that he supports "civil unions"- separate but equal. I'd rather states decide on their own slowly than Barack Obama propose his civil unions. If the people in California can stop gay marriage rights there, then the President should have no problem.

Liz
Ultimately, things will not change until DOMA and DADT are repealed at the Federal level. I think it will take a state by state approach to accomplish this. I think we are on the right track. Every week we seem to have some uplifting news in different states. I think, like most things, the key is to mount small victories in order to win the war.

Anonymous
it is too touchy of a subject for the federal government to get involved. the states seem to be the one who need to decided, but with the recent voted in CA, one of the more liberal states, i am really undecided. all i know is that no matter what we are called legally, my "husband" and i are as committed as any other married couple

Amy
We're winning state by state. (Except for California in '08, which was a malpractice campaign, even willful malpractice, and the reckoning has not really come yet for that.) The ball is moving inexorably down the field. New York and New Jersey are teed up next. Wisconsin is going to review its marriage ban. Why abandon things now for a Congress that is still discussing job discrimination protections 25 years later, a President that is still thinking about when to kill Don't Ask Don't Tell, and a DNC power structure view that will, at the very best. be comfortable with some kind of segregated domestic partner registry or "civil unions?" Why would we bail as we're winning? It would be a DNC sellout move.

Anonymous
The states in the deep south will never grant equality to us as long as the issue remains in the hands of the jesus freaks.

Anonymous
Equality at the federal level is the most important strategically. States could be essentially be forced to acknowledge gay marriage as federal funds could be withheld if states did not follow federal laws.

Rob
The question makes no sense. We need to be pursuing change both at the state level and at the Federal level. In the short term, we need more states to legalize gay marriage. We also need legislation extending Federal recognition to gay marriage in those states where it is legal. In the long run, we are going to need either Congress or the Supreme Court to get our marriages recongized in deep-red states. This won't happen until several states with anti-gay constitutional amendments overturn those amendments at the ballot box.

Ricardo Banconi
Absolutely FEDERAL. What good is having marital rights in the state you live in but can't apply them to the IRS and Social Security which are federal entities. Let's have a National Gay Civil Rights act enacted into law. This is supposed to be the United States not the Divided States of America!

Anonymous
Federal, state-by-state, nuts. As a PFLAG Dad, I say the change must come heart by heart by heart, and that means gays must want it, claim it, shout it, and demand it. You'll only get it when you wear them out; when our national leaders say, "Well, they really seem to want it and they won't shut up about it. I guess we'll have to give it to them..." YOU HAVE TO BE OUT.

Adrianus
I am suggesting that the civil union should ONLY be the legal vehicle for the government to identify the union between two committed adults, and leave the marriage business to the private sectors and religious extremists. It means others who do not believe in particular dogma, do not have to suffer the discrimination. By ONLY acknowledging CIVIL UNION, between two committed adults, nobody will be single out from the protection of the law.

carol O'Brien
NOT IN OHIO

Anonymous
State-by-state takes too long and gives the Supreme Court too many opportunities to strike down progress. Federal on the other hand is fast and not as prone to being stricken down.

Tom
Historically, equal protection issues have been addressed at the state level presenting a legal foundation at the Federal Level. Takes a long time, but we will get there.

John Bittinger Klomp
Actually, why not both? Why must we always create an opposition on every question? There are so many other possibilities when we open ourselves up to them. On this particular question there are merits to a state by state approach, and merits to a federal approach, so it is only logical that an approach using both might actually be more effective than either by itself.

Tom Brown
We should be fighting for our rights on both fronts. The time may be right for a constitutional ammendment affirming that bisexual, transgendered, lesbian, and gay folks are indeed real people.

Anonymous
state by state first, but we need a something enacted at the federal level to get all the rights that straights have.

Don S
Continue to build more momentum with more states recognizing marriage equality. When critical mass is reached, federal recognition will be a lot easier to achieve.

Robyn Ochs
I'll take the fourth choice, which wasn't offered: a combination of both. State-by-state WAS heretofore the only feasible strategy. But we may be nearing the point where it's time to get the federal government to recognize marriages performed in states that allow them, and also to pass a permanent partner immigration act.

Steven Rains
until it's a federal law we really have no major rights. social security, pensions, joint taxes, immigration rights, etc.

Javier Iriarte
Just like with the civil rights movement, legislation at the federal level will need to be enacted in order to begin the long process of absence of discrimination and equality.

David Gregg
Same rights for everyone. States' rights is an outdated concept.

Anonymous
Rediculous that this issue must be "played out" in 50 individual states. Would slavery ever have been voted down in the South? Those who expound that "civil unions" are the "same" just don't get it. It's like telling black people in the 50's that they're not being discriminated against by telling them that they have to..go to the back of the bus..even though it takes everyone to the same places. NOT equal. The tax dollars spent by State courts through each of these individual rulings are a waste of resources, and "certain churches" which have raised millions to defeat our rights could best spend this money on more noble persuits.

Bobby
I don't care, just so long as it gets accomplished -- and ASAP!

Sue
Fight the battles that can be won. At this stage it is the individual States that can be won over. The Federal Government will eventually follow, as history has shown us.

Anonymous
State by state for now, federal within the next 5-10 years. This is ridiculous.

Brian Wood-Koiwa
Federal is the only way to go. I am basically in exile since my partner is not American, and I do not have right to sponsor him based on our relationship. Kudos to the States that have given this right, but unfortunately it only means something if the entire country allows us the right.

a friend
I BELIEVE IN STATES RIGHTS AND ALSO DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERFERE IN STATE GOVERNMENTS DECISIONS TO PROMOTE A VARIETY OF FREEDOMS THAT OTHER STATES DONT HAVE. I THINK THAT STATES RIGHTS ARE THE BEST WAY TO GO. ONCE THERE IS A TWO THIRD'S MAJORITY THEN A FEDERAL RULE COULD BE ENACTED TO ALLOW FOR MARRIAGE FREEDOM ON A FEDERAL LEVEL ALTHOUGH I THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES.

Anonymous
I don't think the votes are there for a federal strategy. Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court is on our side -- yet. We need to build grassroots support for marriage equality, one state at a time until the polls show a solid majority of Americans backing our cause -- maybe in 10 years from now. If we push the federal solution, it is liable to backfire, resulting in a push for a US constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- that's not something we want bringing Republicans and conservative Christians to the polls in 2010 or 2012.

Anonymous
State-by-state at first, then when we can safely say a majority of the US is on board, make it federal (for those hold-outs that would fight to the death to stop it)

Jeremy
Only the Federal government can be responsible for the removal of DOMA in order to restore our rights under the Constitution. Ultimately it is the States' responsibility to pass Civil laws such as marriage. The best example of the co-responsibility of State and Federal government was the Loving v. Virginia case in which the Federal government amended the Constitution to allow interracial marriages but it was ultimately left up to the individual States to create the laws and privileges of them.

Mario
There are states that have a tremendous amount of people living in them that are openly and violently homophobic. I use to live in Oklahoma and every moment I was there I experienced racism and homophobia, it was horrific. Never underestimate the power of anti gay religious fanatics, they will stop at nothing to get their way. Unfortunately moving to a different state didnt change much, even though I live in the pacific northwest I still experience violent homophobia frequently. Hate knows no boundaries.

Ian Palmquist
Federal change has always followed progress in the states. Our movement wasted too long thinking the federal government would give us everything without us having to do our homework in the states. The only bill that strategy got passed was federal DOMA. Without strong state-based strategies, federal efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Anonymous
Moving forward on a state-by-state basis lets people get used to the idea first, a way for Americans to dip their toes in the water. If just plow on ahead without using the states as a testing ground first, it will be shot down. Baby steps, guys. And gals.

dan
State-by-state, it seems to me, is the reactionary approach. Didn't most of those "fights" begin with some type of ballot question to the voters making it "illegal" to be or even want to be in relationship with someone of the same sex? The country as a whole needs to allow us the rights we deserve. The country needs to step up and stop letting individual states try to control what happens in our country. We are all Americans. Federal, that's the way to go. End of story.

Natre
It has to start with the states and go to federal once a lot of the states have demonstrated that it can be done.

Randall
The same approach worked in Canada. After the wins came province by province, and in the end there were only a couple left, marriage equality was enacted federally. If the cluster of states in and around New England pass marriage equality, and Prop 8 is overturned in California, the strength of this, plus the Iowa win, may be the tipping point for more states to follow suit.

Lindsey
State-by-state is what the politicians will agree on, and that is why currently gay people can marry in Iowa but not California. Wish it was in CA though, because thats where Im from, but alas justice will come in ripples.

Tara
State-by-state, because trying to force all states to accept marriage equality at the same time is bound to produce much more protest than state-by-state. If each state is won over individually, it would mean that a majority of people in each state support marriage... meaning less protest :) I'm not american, nor do i live in america, but i think that getting marriage equality in the US is very important to the rest of the world.

Geoff
Keep going state-by-state until Mr. O and the dems when in '12 and then go nationwide.

Mike
I'm tired of waiting. I pay the same taxes; give me the same rights.

Art Burlington
For most gay couples federal marriage or at least civil union rights are essential for financial security. Federal taxes alone could wipe out a surviving partner financially.

Michael Willis
It's got to be state-by-state at first, but it will eventually get to the Federal level and the Supreme Court. I think our fight is going to follow the pattern for the miscegenation fight for inter-racial marriage. It was eventually decided by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

Anonymous
state by state. It would be very difficult to pass federal, that's like Canada

Barbara J. Chambliss
State by state is nothing but federal cop-out. Depending on states to do the right thing will leave states such as mine (VA) forever in the dark ages.

Michael Smith
Once 1/3rd to 1/2 of the states have some sort of marrigae equlity law on the books federal regognision will dollow.

John McDermott
For now it has to be state-by-state. Maybe in a few years the nation as a whole will be ready.

Anonymous
I believe marriage equality will be won state by state, however, the only way to ensure equality is at the federal level. Eliminate DADT, DOMA and allow the IRS and census bureaus to count gay families as legitimate families (which they are).

Anonymous
While I see the argument for federal, I believe at this point in time we would be defeated if this were put to a vote on a federal level. The majority of the United States is conservative, and though they may be slowly joining the ranks of the democratic party, their views on gay marriage clearly haven't changed much. It's best to do this on a state-by-state level at first, and when we have enough states behind us, then perhaps take it up federally. Right now only 5 out of 50 states approve gay marriage. Do we really think that's enough to win?

SwingVoter
If President Barack Obama does not enact Civil Unions protections, then he will go down in history as the most homophobic modern day president in history which will always be an asterisk to his trail-blazing legacy. Our time is now, this issue is current and we will fight for Gay Marriage once we are safely protected and treated equal under the law. I plan not to vote for him in the next election if this is not done. The Republicans could make a great leap forward in endorsing civil union protections thus forcing the Democrats hands. Otherwise, I am a Green Party voter for the rest of time.

Previous Polls

April 6, 2009
Porn
Do you pay for porn?

March 4, 2009
Gay Rights Legislation
Do you feel more optimistic about the prospects for gay rights legislation than you did last year?

February 2, 2009
Matthew Mitcham
Do you think Matthew Mitcham's sexual orientation hurts his endorsement chances?

January 5, 2009
PrEP
Are you -- or is someone you know -- using PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis)?

December 3, 2008
Prop. 8
Should Prop. 8 be overturned through the courts or at the polls?

November 19, 2008
Pride and Prejudice
Is gay the new black?

November 6, 2008
The Economy
Are you afraid of losing your job?

October 22, 2008
Harvey Milk
Has there been a gay leader comparable to Harvey Milk since Milk's death?

October 9, 2008
International LGBT Rights
Do you think the next U.S. president will champion LGBT rights on the international stage?

September 24, 2008
The High Cost of Being Gay
Can you afford to be gay?

September 10, 2008
Job Stability
Do you think the company you work for is financially sound?

August 28, 2008
Proposition 8
Is the defeat of California's Prop. 8 worth it if Arizona's antigay Prop. 102 passes?

August 13, 2008
A Gay President
When do you think the U.S. will elect a gay president?

July 30, 2008
Jesse Helms
Do you think Jesse Helms's style of bigotry will work in politics anymore?

July 16, 2008
Obama and Faith
Do you support Barack Obama's plan to give federal money to faith-based charities if LGBT-friendly programs get equal access to it?

July 2, 2008
Silver Foxes
Do you find gray hair sexy?

June 19, 2008
It Takes a Village
Is Your Family a Village?

June 4, 2008
California Weddings
Do you plan on getting married in California?

May 7, 2008
Religion
Do you still practice the same religion your family did when you were growing up?

April 23, 2008
Thomas Beatie
Did Thomas Beatie's going public with his pregnancy hurt the transgender movement?