Religious Connections has the years of Pew Forum polling data and commentary.
Sociologist Darren Sherkat explains his analysis:
While conservative Christian activist scholars have touted the myth that younger sectarians are less homophobic and just like everyone else, actual analyses of data show that the gap between sectarians and other Americans has actually grown across [age] cohorts (even though younger sectarians are less homophobic than older Sectarians).
Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics astutely amplifies:
But it’s still the case that the under-30s are somewhat more liberal on the issue than their evangelical boomer parents–and way more liberal than over-60 evangelicals. So even though they look at this point like over-60 non-evangelicals, the evidence is of a liberalizing generational trend within the evangelical community. What the data show is most segments of American society moving quickly (the younger they are) towards acceptance of SSM, with a few–under the influence of conservative religion–moving more slowly in the same direction.
We’re all in the same parade, but some are dragging their ideological feet.
Unsurprisingly certain evangelicals reject gay partners in immigration bill.
Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission czar Richard Land joined Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver and at best a handful of other Religious Right leaders in signing a statement of opposition to the proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
You may struggle to make heads or tails of the Baptist Press story on Richard’s out-Land-ish stunt here. Or visit Right Wing Watch’s review of the little band of others attempt to kidnap the larger group’s spotlight here.
Former First Lady Laura Bush said “yes” to gay marriage:
Pope Benedict XVI in his visit to a famous Portuguese shrine to the Virgin Mary on Thursday denounced gay marriage:
In a speech here to Catholic social service groups, Benedict called for initiatives aimed at protecting “the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”
Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn’t did (68 percent).
There is a lot more, none of which implies that states which permit gay marriage pay a consequent divorce-rate penalty. There is in Silver’s analysis no empirically demonstrated need for Christian groups to rally to support “traditional marriage.”
Regarding gay marriage and environmental issues, Eduardo Peñalver reports that the pope, as a part of his disappointment over failure to reach a climate change agreement in Copenhagen, said:
Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes.
Peñalver sees in this an attempt to link environmental damage and gay marriage. He reasons his way through the associated papal moral logic, concluding:
There seems to me to be a consistent failure here to acknowledge the existence of a point of view that largely accepts the Pope’s suspicion of liberal rights and autonomy talk, but that nonetheless supports gay marriage (and contraception) on grounds rooted in the same traditional beliefs in duty, the family and public morality on which the Pope relies. I don’t support gay marriage because of a radical conception of individual autonomy, but because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. And, because I don’t think it is immoral, I think the law should encourage and assist gay couples, as it does for heterosexual couples, to root their sexual lives in the stability of legally sanctioned marriage.
Very different paths through altogether different thickets to very similar conclusions.
Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill. Congress has rejected such action only three times in the last 25 years. So Tuesday’s 11-2 vote all but does the deal.
The Washington CityPaper’s Mike DeBonis reported that on Tuesday:
The D.C. Council, in a long anticipated move, voted to legalize the performance of same-sex marriages in Washington. Only two members, Ward 7’s Yvette Alexander and Ward 8’s Marion Barry, voted against the measure, which continues now to a second and final vote next month.
ABC News reported:
The D.C. Council voted in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, moving Washington, D.C., a big step closer to becoming the first jurisdiction below the Mason-Dixon Line to allow full civil equality for gays and lesbians.
. . .
To ensure that the D.C. Council — a unicameral body — does not act in haste, its full membership votes on all bills twice before any legislation becomes law.
As a result, the gay-marriage bill will come up for a second vote of the full Council on Dec. 15.
If, as expected, it is approved a second time, it will then go to Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, who supports the legislation, for his signature.
After Fenty signs the legislation, Congress will have 30 legislative days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval and see it signed by the president — a strategy which expected to fail. Absent such a joint resolution, the measure then becomes law.
Read the Washington Times version of the story here.
Focus on the Family Action is making telephone calls to drum up support for a measure would let Wyoming voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to specify that the state won’t recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.