Results 1 to 30 of 135

Thread: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Re: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

    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.
    Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 04-08-2009 at 14:26.
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2. #2
    Poll Smoker Senior Member CountArach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9,029

    Default Re: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

    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.
    Last edited by CountArach; 04-08-2009 at 14:28.
    Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
    Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

  3. #3
    Upstanding Member rvg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    3,818

    Default Re: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

    I wonder if we're gonna see an amendment on the ballot in November.
    "And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman

    “The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett

  4. #4

    Default Re: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff View Post
    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?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO