Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

That's right, through the legislature.

Before today Vermont had only legalized civil unions, and now my home state has legalized gay marriage, overriding a veto to do so. The result was a 23-5 vote in the State Senate and 100 to 49 in the House, even though the bill initially passed with less than two-thirds supports. I for one am very glad this has finally happened and hope that Vermont will continue to lead the way in providing its citizens with equal rights and opportunity.

Here's a link to the Burlington Free Press, and as a little background I would guess it is a fairly liberal rag, but I can't stand the thought of posting a link to my hometown newspaper because it does such a terrible job of reporting the news.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...EWS03/90407016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

That's right, through the legislature.

Before today Vermont had only legalized civil unions, and now my home state has legalized gay marriage, overriding a veto to do so. The result was a 23-5 vote in the State Senate and 100 to 49 in the House, even though the bill initially passed with less than two-thirds supports. I for one am very glad this has finally happened and hope that Vermont will continue to lead the way in providing its citizens with equal rights and opportunity.

Here's a link to the Burlington Free Press, and as a little background I would guess it is a fairly liberal rag, but I can't stand the thought of posting a link to my hometown newspaper because it does such a terrible job of reporting the news.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...EWS03/90407016

---

How the system is supposed to work :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

How the system is supposed to work :thumbsup:

---

Yeah right?

I mean ideally for someone supporting the bill (me) the governor never would have threatened to veto, but we did it right this time. The only problem I can see in the way this went is that groups outside of Vermont tried to get involved and apparently spent money in the state, but I can't say how big the presence was as I wasn't back home.

I'm sure there will be some complaints that this didn't go to the people, but they'll probably be sparse and people will move on just as they did after the Civil Union bill.

I'm guessing we'll be seeing a domino affect happening here with a lot of other states. This is very good news in my eyes.

Good for Vermont. :yes:

Not sure how this will end up being received by other states, but I hope it at least restores a bit of confidence in state legislatures as opposed to letting the courts do everything.

Iowa now Vermont. I thought California was going to set the movement back for a bit, but I guess I have been proved wrong.

Vermont FTW!!

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

---

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really.

Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor's veto on same-sex "marriage" as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."

Remember kids, eat your crazy flakes every morning and maybe you too can grow up to be Tony Perkins.

-edit-

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

I congratulate the people of Vermont for asking the right people to ammeliorate their issues - themselves. They got the wrong answer mind you, but we can't all be right 100% of the time.

Bravo!

Nate Silver runs some numbers (using polling and demographic variables) on when States could be expected to vote down a gay marriage ban (Not legalise gay marriage, just declare it not-illegal):

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.

[...]

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.

I wonder if we're gonna see an amendment on the ballot in November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

---

I understand the point of view that the legislature should be involved. It makes sense. But isn't the "technicality" being used in these cases the concept of "equal rights"? Isn't the purpose of the court system, and of having rights in the constitution, to protect against a democratic majority when that majority infringes on a group of peoples rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

---

Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

Vermont, it's bigger than Texas! :us-vermont:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

---

When the fascist Vichy traitors were installed, the very first thing they did was to chance 'liberty, equality, fraternity' to 'family, work, fatherland'. Quite literally so, as the Republic's ancient motto is physically present everywhere, much to the chagrin of family value groups, who somehow consider 'fraternity' a grave threat to 'family'.

'Family' is a watchword for the far-right everywhere. The antithesis to liberty. It is never about family values, it is about an attack on diversity, individuality, and personal freedom.

Good that they did it the right way. :yes:

More reaction from the rightwing crazysphere:

There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has signaled that during his reign it will be acceptable to impose gay marriage on the people of the United States. He's being very cleverly used as a tool of the gay puppet masters. He is personally masculine, has a beautiful family and was used by the gay mafia to convince real American families that they should support him.

And now that Obama the Trojan horse has been taken inside the gates, so to speak, the contagion from within his administration is spreading throughout the country. One state at a time seems to be falling. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, California is teetering on the brink. Will Texas be next? Will Obama say that in order to make up for the oppression caused by slavery that the Deep South will now have to accept gay marriage under duress? Is this a sexual reconstruction of the entire country? Don't ask, because Obama won't tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

the gay mafia

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

---

:sweetheart::belly:

I mean the tax breaks would be amazing.

Good for Vermont though, now I wonder if this will turn into another CA mess though.

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

---

Yes, I know what the words mean, I was wondering about different benefits, state involvement in each, etc.

Vermont is awesome. As it is a former french state, I'm not surprised :clown:

On to the differences. I believe Civil Unions were treated the same way under Vermont law, but federal law did not recognize these unions. I'm not sure if this bill actually changes anything, though the it will perhaps be recognized more broadly? I am not sure. What I do know is that the federal government basically does not recognize any sort of same-sex union.

An interesting note, Civil Unions are now going to be made null and void though with a little paperwork people can have their civil union become a marriage without any special ceremony. So in the future Vermont will only offer marriage with no distinction between same-sex and hetero marriages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

---

No, the bill specifically states that churches are not required to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

---

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

---

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

---

:laugh4: I'm not even married... I just have common sense.

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

---

Nvm, XOXOXO