538's Nate Silver, on whether the Iowa marriage equality ruling will stand:

[Occam Bandage]

Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.

So what does this mean for Iowa? The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote. By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail...

The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they'd previously passed.

By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.

It is entirely possible, of course, that past trends will not be predictive of future results. There could be a backlash against gay marriage, somewhat as there was a backlash against drug legalization in the 1980s. Alternatively, there could be a paradigmatic shift in favor of permitting gay marriage, which might make these projections too conservative.

Overall, however, marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-upho...

Follow the link for much more great analysis. A very heartening look at a fight we're making real progress on.

[msongs]

1. hmm didn't think california has such a high religiosity - but we had gavin newsome's big mouth :-)

featured in those highly effective prop 8 ads (cut into little bits and repeated ad nauseum).

Msongs

[dsc]

2. I am amazed that age wasn't mentioned in his analysis

Iowa has one of the highest average ages in the country and given the fact that the elderly are the least likely to support gay rights that would likely be a big deal.

[Massacure]

3. At some point, a decision is going to have to be made at the federal level.

If the Supreme Court ever decides to take a case in favor of the 'full faith and credit' clause it only takes a few states to open up the flood gates. I think it would be extremely unlikely they would allow one state to ignore another state's marriage licenses.

Congress would have to pass a law to do away with gay marriage if the Supreme Court chipped in.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Full faith and credit is one of four clauses that apply to gay marriage.

A gay couple from Conn. or Mass. will move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage. And their marriage will have to be honored by the state they move to.

The other clauses are due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against ex post facto laws (California banning gay marriage after 40K marriages were solemnised).