10 years after same-sex marriage became legal in U.S., support falls among Republicans
A decade after the Supreme Count decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S., support among Republicans now sits at 41 per cent, while among Democrats it's 88 per cent — the biggest gap between the two parties since Gallup started tracking the issue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
29 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — All money paid to South Carolina lawmakers while they aren't in session has been stopped by the state Supreme Court as the justices sort through a lawsuit from one of their members, alleging legislators improperly gave themselves an $18,000-a-year raise. The raise is what is called 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent and requires no receipts or other documentation. Lawmakers voted, in the budget set to start July 1, to increase it from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members. Republican Sen. Wes Climer sued his colleagues, saying the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their terms. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection. Lawyers for the House and Senate disagree. They said the money isn't a 'per diem' considered part of legislators' salaries, but a reimbursement for expenses, even though there are no reporting requirements. They also said the money isn't an extra cost to taxpayers because it came out of funds already set aside to operate both chambers. The compensation is usually paid monthly, but neither the $1,000 that has been paid for decades nor the $1,500 raise will land in lawmakers' direct deposits in July since the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday to suspend the budget item containing the money until it rules. The justices set out a schedule with a deadline in early September for the final legal filings, meaning lawmakers won't get paid for at least two months. If the justices rule the raise is legal, then lawmakers would get back pay for both the raise and their regular pay. In South Carolina, the Supreme Court justices are elected by the Legislature. Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 annually, paid in a lump sum that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to the state capital in Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May, and outside of the in-district compensation, they don't receive any money when not in session. The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. It is meant to pay for computers or other equipment, travel to events in their districts, or holding town halls. More than 40 of the state's 170 General Assembly members have refused the increase. All are Republicans.
Winnipeg Free Press
41 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Funding of Olympic sports a bargaining chip as NCAA seeks antitrust help, AP sources say
College sports leaders seeking antitrust and other protections from Congress have a potential bargaining chip: School assurances that they will provide funding for their increasingly imperiled Olympic programs, by far the biggest pipeline of talent for Team USA. Four people familiar with the talks told The Associated Press that lawmakers, mostly from the Democratic side that will need to provide votes to help any legislation pass the Senate, have been approached by college sports experts and policy shapers to explore options in exchange for support of a bill that some Democrats oppose. One of the clearest tradeoffs would be for an idea that enjoys bipartisan support: helping collegiate Olympic sports programs. Those programs produce around three-quarters of U.S. Olympians at a typical Summer Games, but some are on uncertain footing in the wake of the $2.8 billion House settlement that clears the way for schools to begin sharing revenue directly with their athletes as early as next week. Most of that money will go to football and basketball — the moneymakers — in this new era of name, image and likeness payments to players. The people who spoke to AP did so on condition of anonymity because of the still-evolving and uncertain nature of the talks. But it's no secret that the NCAA and its biggest conferences are not convinced that the House settlement will end all their problems. In the halls of Congress The NCAA is lobbying for a bill that would supersede state laws that set different rules for NIL; ensure athletes do not get employment status; and provide limited antitrust protection. One key issue is the handful of lawsuits challenging the NCAA's longstanding rule of giving athletes five years to complete four seasons of eligibility. 'I get why limited liability is a big ask,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said. 'But when it comes to limited liability around basic rulemaking, the consequences of this for the next generation of young people if you play this thing out are enormous.' In a sign of the difficulty the NCAA might have in getting legislation passed, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has played a large role in shaping policy for college sports, told AP that athletes 'deserve real reform and independent oversight of college sports.' 'Congressional legislation must provide strong and enforceable protections for their health, safety, and economic rights and transparency to protect non-revenue-generating sports, rather than merely offering a blank check to the NCAA to return to the status quo,' Blumenthal said. While the U.S. government is forbidden by law from funding Olympic teams, there is no such prohibition on government funding for universities and their sports programs. One idea would be for the bill to include promises of certain levels of funding for college Olympic sports programs — some of which could be raised through federal grants to help the schools offset the cost. 'It would depend upon what they have in mind,' Baker said when asked about the idea. 'We'd be open to a conversation about that because those sports are important and they matter.' The issue is complicated and funding sources are going to be under pressure: Over the next year alone, each D-I school is allowed to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with its athletes and there are extra millions being committed to additional scholarships – for instance, in the case of Michigan, $6.2 million. All those figures are increasing under terms of the settlement and the money has to come from somewhere. Olympic sports in peril As of late May, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee had tallied about 40 Olympic sports programs cut in Division I since the beginning of 2024 (but also 18 programs added) as schools prepare for the new financial realities. Only three – the Virginia men's and women's diving programs and the Utah beach volleyball program – came from schools among the Power Four conferences that were co-defendants in the House case. Still, countless other teams have been reconfiguring their lineups with roster caps in place alongside unlimited scholarships, a combination that is forcing hard decisions. Leaders inside the USOPC are optimistic that schools that generate the most talent – for instance, the 39 medals won by Stanford athletes at last year's Paris Games would have placed the school 11th on the overall medal table – will retain robust Olympic sports programs and that Congress is on board with helping. 'We have no reason to believe that there's not real alignment from all the parties, including members of Congress, who have indicated to us a very real concern for Olympic and Paralympic sport,' USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland said. Though a strictly partisan bill could pass the narrowly divided House, for it to become law it would need at least seven Democratic votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. In 2023, Blumenthal and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., teamed with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., to draft a bill that would have provided some antitrust protection in exchange for a number of guarantees, including the establishment of a health and safety trust fund for athletes who deal with long-term injuries from college sports. Among the NCAA's 'core guarantees' put in place last year, schools are now required to cover medical costs for athletic-related injuries for at least two years after players leave school. 'One of the messages was 'clean up your own house first, then come talk to us,'' Baker said of his conversations with lawmakers. 'So we did some of the things that were aligned with some of the previous legislation.' The big question is whether those moves, added to any guarantees for Olympic sports, would be enough to overcome Democratic reluctance to strip or limit legal rights of college athletes. ___ AP college sports:
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Funding of Olympic sports a bargaining chip as NCAA seeks antitrust help, AP sources say
College sports leaders seeking antitrust and other protections from Congress have a potential bargaining chip: School assurances that they will provide funding for their increasingly imperiled Olympic programs, by far the biggest pipeline of talent for Team USA. Four people familiar with the talks told The Associated Press that lawmakers, mostly from the Democratic side that will need to provide votes to help any legislation pass the Senate, have been approached by college sports experts and policy shapers to explore options in exchange for support of a bill that some Democrats oppose.
