I think it might be important to note that Nate wasn't saying that in those years a gay marriage bill or constitutional amendment would pass, but that an anti-marriage statewide amendment would fail. The campaigns would be very different -- effectively asking voters to open the door to marriage, rather than closing it on gays. My intuition is that these numbers would probably be overly optimistic if used to say the states would vote for marriage on this schedule.

First of all, his model predicts when a ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage would pass, which is a somewhat different question.

Second, the small sample size means that we are probably missing the impact of, say, having a large foreign-born Hispanic population.

Oh, my, this is going to get lots of panties twisted and intestinal gas blocked from passing.

If Congress doesn't override the DC council, then the DOMA (Defense? of Marriage Act) passed by Congress becomes entangled.

Evan Bayh will try to fill his diapers with a load or two of moderation, but unfortunately for him, this is kind of binary. Either they let the laws collide, or uphold DOMA/Reject DC recognition and yet again overrule democracy.

If I were in the DC Council, I'd suggest the DC Countil submit this to a vote on the council action by the entire DC electorate at the next general election to approve or not the DC ordinance. It would be much harder probably for Congress to reject a popular vote.

Longer run, DOMA will have to be repealed by Congress (a long time coming) or overruled by SCOTUS (a long, long time coming).

Being "the folks at Map Scroll" as I am, I feel I should second the point made by the first two commenters that Nate was emphatically NOT predicting when gay marriage would be legalized in the states, nor does this map reflect such a prediction. It is simply a prediction of when a hypothetical gay marriage ban, if brought before the voters, would fail. Presumably actual legislative enactment of full marriage equality would take longer - perhaps several years longer, especially in any state where Republicans control any branch of the state government.

(I mean, it's Vermont)

Come on, Ezra. Just because we're a bunch of Subaru-driving liberals up here doesn't mean this wasn't a big deal. It's the first time it's been done through a state legislature rather than the courts. Toss a little credit to VT.

Great post Ezra. “Marriage” is just a man made term and carries very little weight these days. Look at the high divorce rate and the level of infidelity, what does marriage really stand for. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage

[tossing credit, and then tossing more credit]

To Vermont, the Green Mountain State.

To "Freedom and Unity" (motto).

To the Sugar Maple (tree).

To Red Clover (flower).

To the Hermit Thrust (bird).

To the State Legislature (courage and fortitude).

To the citizens (common sense).

[tossing even more credit].

Is that enough?

To agree with anonymous, I think you're being too dismissive of Vermont. The fact that a state legislature has approved gay marriage has blown a gaping hole in the right's argument that gay marriage is solely the result of activist judges.

Comments, in no particular order:

1) blue22 has it right, that anon has it right.

2) Are there still more cows than people in Vermont?

3) The DC vote immediately puts in my mind the full faith and credit clause, and I wonder what will happen there. You've got the whole "DC is not a state" issue, and I can see congressmembers using that to overturn the Council's vote.

4) The "Capitol" will not automatically approve gay marriage, but the "capital" probably will.

5) Was anyone here my waiter at Oyamel lastnight? He mentioned to the tourists at the next table how he was a health-policy type. I thought of this crowd instantly! Also, he made us some seriously tasty guacamole.

You misspelled Capital.

Capitol refers to the building and hill where Congress is housed. Capital refers to the city.

@ Vince. Your list has Louisiana at number 8. What, exactly, is your reasoning behind this?

To the Hermit Thrust (bird).

Kinky.

And just to play Devil's Advocate Re: Vermont, Iowa does seem like a bigger deal. Remember, the people complaining about judicial activism for gay marriage would have been complaining about judicial activism for interracial marriage 50 years ago. Don't buy into their framing. There's no good reason to prefer voting on individual rights unless you're opposed to the existence of those rights in the first place.

It would be much harder probably for Congress to reject a popular vote.

Ha ha ha.

When they don't like the way we think in the District of Columbia, not only is Congress happy to ignore the popular vote, they'll try to ignore our ability to hold a popular vote. I'm not kidding. In 1998, a medical marijuana referendum made it on to the District's ballot. In response, Congress passed the Barr Amendment to try and prohibit us from counting the votes on the referendum. (The Barr Amendment was thrown out by the courts on a technicality and the referendum passed overwhelmingly, but Congress stepped in and prohibited the District from implementing it.)

More important than Vermont's recent vote to approve gay marriage (I mean, it's Vermont)

A lot of hard work went into that victory so don't demean it. It's this type of attitude about "blue" states that caused us to lose in california, oregon, wisconsin, and florida. I for one will take no victory for granted.

Alaska? This year? Really? Palin's Alaska?

This is Raman from Hire Wordpress Experts.com, I am here to offer you offer you free consultation for your wordpress blogs. Please get back to me with your queries and I would be happy to solve them. In return I just need a small link to my website in your blogroll. I look forward to hear from you.

Thanks
Raman Ladhani
http://hirewordpressexperts.com
info@hirewordpressexperts.com

A lot of hard work went into that victory so don't demean it.

And to be fair to the other side - wow, I'm contrarian - gay marriage in Vermont is unsurprising not because it's a blue state but because it's already had civil unions for 10 years. Yes, a lot of work went into getting gay marriage in Vermont, but the bulk of that happened while Clinton was in office.

A thought (though not perhaps an appealing one): Congress could finesse this by simply declaring home rule on this one (or a few) issues - pass a law stating that the decisions of the DC Council on gay marriage will receive automatic ratification. They can throw on a few other purely housekeeping issues, too, keeping the budgetary stuff for themselves, and pitch it as a step forward for democracy and states' (District's) rights. Never mention gay marriage, and sweep it off the table without taking an explicit vote on the issue but without banning it. That would put the GOP in the position of having to vote against states' rights. If they wanted to be really cynical, they could vote against the civil union ordinance and then vote in favor of automatic ratification for all internal matters - leaving the road clear for the DC Council to immediately re-pass civil unions or gay marriage off their own bat.

I don't like this solution because it's disingenuous, and because I don't like seeing human rights treated as a football for scoring points with, even for the right side. I'd much rather see real home rule, and if not that then the Democrats to stand up and say "Hell, yes, we ratified civil unions in DC, and we're going to ratify gay marriage and Congressional representation, too, just as soon as we get the chance, because it's the right thing to do."

But I'm not holding my breath for that day. Until then, there are ways to give DC residents what they deserve that don't require provoking the GOP bigot base at the same time.

Progressive Midwestern states like Illinois and Wisconsin would legalize it long after conservative Montana and others? Not the best map.