Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Lemur]

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[rvg]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Vermont, it's bigger than Texas!

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Good that they did it the right way.

[Lemur]

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.

[seireikhaan]

the gay mafia

[Strike For The South]

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

[BigTex]

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

I mean the tax breaks would be amazing.

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

[PowerWizard]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

Boo!

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.

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

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 religious right has taken things way too far in this respect. When I see these US Christian families sitting eating dinner together and saying grace it sends a shiver down my spine - they say the left wants to attack the individual! I think they are forgetting that 'family' meant an economic arrangement to their Puritan forefathers. But then, I'm maybe not the best to comment, since people tell me my family's like the one in Malcolm in the Middle.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I'd just like to add that, in my parents' opinions, there was very little outside influence on this legislation. Apparently there were clergy from both sides testifying before the legislature, but really very little action was taken by outside groups and this bill passed with far less conflict than the civil unions legislation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

The Knights support the position of the Church which defines marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments. Though the church also opposes civil unions between same-sex couples, this stance seems less adamant.