Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

Lets Gekiga In

Neon Night Rider
20 Year Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Posts
11,915
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-gay-mar_n_184034.html

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont, which invented civil unions, on Tuesday became a pioneer again as the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislature's vote, suggesting growing popular acceptance of the idea. The House barely achieved the votes necessary to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill that will allow gays and lesbians to marry beginning September 1. Four states now have same-sex marriage laws and other states soon could follow suit.

Bills to allow same-sex marriage are currently before lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey. The three other states that currently allow same-sex marriage _ Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa _ each moved to do so through the courts, not legislatures.

"For a popularly elected legislature to make this decision is a much more democratic process" because lawmakers have to answer to the voters every other November, said Eric Davis, a retired Middlebury College political science professor.

Courts typically deal with arcane points of constitutional law. While legislatures debate some of the same principles, the process may become much more personal. In Vermont, some of the most gripping debate came when gay and lesbian lawmakers took to the House floor last Thursday and told their own personal love stories.

Getting gay marriage approved in a political, rather than purely legal, forum is a big step, said Boston University law professor Linda McLain, an expert on family law and policy. "What may give courage to other legislatures is that this legislature managed to do it," she said.

She added that using the civil rights language of equality _ the measure in Vermont was dubbed the marriage equality bill _ could help make gay marriage more acceptable elsewhere.

Opponents said they, too, believe activists will be emboldened in other states. The action comes just days after the Iowa Supreme court ruled that not permitting gay marriage there was unconstitutional.

"To the millions of Americans who care about marriage, we say get ready: President Obama and Democrats will use Vermont as an excuse to overturn the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which waged a radio campaign against the measure. "The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states."

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and provides that states need not recognize the marriage of a same sex couple from another state.

To date, the same-sex marriage movement's main gains have been in New England, which some attribute to Yankee liberalism and the gradual acceptance of gay relationships after Vermont's groundbreaking civil unions law took effect in 2000.

Douglas had announced his intent to veto the gay marriage bill two weeks ago, saying he believed marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and calling the issue a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

In Tuesday's vote, a "yes" was needed from two-thirds of those present to override the governor's veto. The goal was easily achieved in the Senate, which voted 23-5, but in the House it was much closer, 100-49.

The speaker's announcement of the results to a packed Statehouse chamber, set off whistles and cheers among supporters whose hopes had been temporarily dashed last month when the Republican governor announced he would veto the measure if it passed the Legislature.

Among the celebrants: Former state lawmaker Robert Dostis and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said his side was outspent by supporters by 20-1.

"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."

The measure had only 95 "yea" votes when it passed the House on Friday. But some changed their votes Tuesday.

Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who voted no twice because he's philosophically opposed to gay marriage, joined most other Democrats in voting to override Douglas' veto.

"I think if I wanted to continue my career here and have any chance of being effective, I had to vote with my caucus," he said.

"You have some pet projects, you think you can help your district back home with things that need to happen," he said. "I want to get a railroading bill through. I wouldn't even have had a chance to testify, let alone get it through. Now, people will listen to me. It's the way the political game is played."

House Speaker Shap Smith said he didn't use any specific arguments to get lawmakers to switch. He said he had argued mainly that they should support the will of the legislative majorities on the bill's initial approvals _ 95-52 in the House and 26-4 in the Senate.

"I thought it was to some degree just a vote to recognize the work that the Legislature had done," the speaker said.

Sitting next to him was Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, a gay man who championed both the 2000 civil unions bill and this year's gay marriage legislation.

"It's been an incredibly powerful personal journey," Lippert said. "I consider it my personal great good fortune to be a member of the Vermont Legislature under the leadership of speakers who have in fact prioritized civil rights for the community of which I'm a part. It touches me deeply."
 

RocketLawnChair

Dyslexic Mods FWT!, , got me 2 scalps, ,
15 Year Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
2,088
What's the world coming to? Next they'll want to vote or drive, just like people.
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said his side was outspent by supporters by 20-1.

The political equivalent of the "my opponent was a cheap bastard for using a Shoto" excuse.
 

Average Joe

Be water, my friend.
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Posts
15,540
"which some attribute to Yankee liberalism and the gradual acceptance of gay relationships"

Acceptance and equality.

*shakes fist in air angrily*
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,755
Good for Vermont.

Now if only the Federal Defense of Marriage Act would be stricken down from the lawbooks.
 

GregN

aka The Grinch
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Posts
17,570
The lead worker at my new job looks like a stereotypical lezzie.
 

Jedi276

n00b
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Posts
40
Who said anything about hate? Sorry I disagree with gay marriage, why don't we just go ahead and allow bigamy while we are at it?
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
11,203
Who said anything about hate? Sorry I disagree with gay marriage, why don't we just go ahead and allow bigamy while we are at it?

Why don't we?

Why is the Government involved in the partnerships of consenting adults in the first place?
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,054
Why don't we?

Why is the Government involved in the partnerships of consenting adults in the first place?

Word.

I'm against government sanctioned gay marriage.

Because I'm against all state-sponsored marriages.
 

-Hibikster-

Bead Banger
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Posts
1,488
Why don't we?

Why is the Government involved in the partnerships of consenting adults in the first place?

Reason being there are tons of government programs, incentives and tax reliefs for people who are married vs. people who are single, and since tax money is involved here, the government feels that they have a say into what they define as marriage and what they don't. All the legalities and paperwork involved in getting married is utterly ridiculous.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
11,203
Reason being there are tons of government programs, incentives and tax reliefs for people who are married vs. people who are single, and since tax money is involved here, the government feels that they have a say into what they define as marriage and what they don't. All the legalities and paperwork involved in getting married is utterly ridiculous.

Those are good examples of how thoroughly govt. has involved itself in marriage, though I'm still not sure *why* we allow it to do so. :)
 

fenikso

Slug Flyer Pilot
15 Year Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Posts
3,937
Good for Iowa, too!

Iowa's Supreme Court just struck down any ban on gay marriage as Unconstitutional.

Wiki article said:
"On this subject it is exceedingly unlikely that anything will happen on this subject in the Senate this year," Gronstal said. He also let it be known that it was unlikely to be brought up for a debate in 2010 either.[13] In a joint press release with House Speaker Pat Murphy on April 3, Gronstal himself has welcomed the court's decision, saying "When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency. Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.”

670px-Flag_of_Iowa.png
 

Jedi276

n00b
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Posts
40
I too agree that the government sanctioned marriage is the root of the problem. Marriage is a religious institution (hence why I disagree with the government altering its definition) and should be left as such, and I would personally be willing to give up my tax benefits to make it so.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
26,969
I too agree that the government sanctioned marriage is the root of the problem. Marriage is a religious institution (hence why I disagree with the government altering its definition) and should be left as such, and I would personally be willing to give up my tax benefits to make it so.
...which means most likely that you are a kid and unmarried, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I can't imagine that your bigotry is so important to you that you'd be willing to give up tax benefits in this economy, if you were actually an adult who maybe owned a home and paid taxes. Speaking as someone who actually happens to be a married, adult homeowner who is being hammered by taxes, I wouldn't be so fast to give up any advantage available if I were you. You'll find out about this some day when you grow up.

And if you are not interested in state-sanctioned marriages, and only care about marriage as Christian sacrament, then this vote doesn't concern you one way or the other anyway, so again, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

So sad that in the year 2009, there are still people so filled with fear and bile that they feel it is their duty to make sure that life is as hard as possible for people different than them, for absolutely no reason.
 

Jedi276

n00b
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Posts
40
...which means most likely that you are a kid and unmarried, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I can't imagine that your bigotry is so important to you that you'd be willing to give up tax benefits in this economy, if you were actually an adult who maybe owned a home and paid taxes. Speaking as someone who actually happens to be a married, adult homeowner who is being hammered by taxes, I wouldn't be so fast to give up any advantage available if I were you. You'll find out about this some day when you grow up.

And if you are not interested in state-sanctioned marriages, and only care about marriage as Christian sacrament, then this vote doesn't concern you one way or the other anyway, so again, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

So sad that in the year 2009, there are still people so filled with fear and bile that they feel it is their duty to make sure that life is as hard as possible for people different than them, for absolutely no reason.

Gotta love the internet. I am actually 26, married (for almost 5.5 years), have two kids (3yr and 19mo, cutest kids in the world, maybe I will send you some pics), and do in fact pay my taxes (not state taxes though, thank you TX!). I know it is a rediculous thought that someone would give up some money to make a moral stand, absurd (and what about those people that just go and GIVE money away for nothing in return, donations I think they call it...)! Reading back on both of our posts I find it ironic that I am the one being called hateful. Either way, it does concern me just as if we started giving people a legal status of "christian" and then the government goes on defining what that means.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
26,969
I know it is a rediculous thought that someone would give up some money to make a moral stand,
How is bigotry a "moral stand"? You are a bullshit Christian. What's your next moral stand going to be? Keeping minorities out of white eating establishments? Protesting a mosque being built in your neighborhood? Lord save us from the bigot jedi's "morals."
 

Jedi276

n00b
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Posts
40
How is bigotry a "moral stand"? You are a bullshit Christian. What's your next moral stand going to be? Keeping minorities out of white eating establishments? Protesting a mosque being built in your neighborhood? Lord save us from the bigot jedi's "morals."

I am pretty sure if you read my earlier post again it will be clear that the moral stand I would be sacrificing my money for would be to keep the government out of the institution of marriage, something I think many of us would agree to (although apparently some of us wouldn't give up any of their hard earned money for). What I have already stated I support is a strictly religious institution of marriage where that marriage is (guess what!?) governed by the rules of that religion (which does not include gay marriage). So me wanting to practice my religion makes me a bigot? This world IS crazy!
 
Top