Vermont lawmakers legalize gay marriage

[Oracle of Delphi]

MONTPELIER, Vt. - Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

Override 'not unexpected'

Douglas called override "not unexpected." He had called the issue of gay marriage a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

"What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, 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. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

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."

The House initially passed the bill last week with a 95-52 vote.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30089125/

Edited April 8, 2009 by Pontiac Custom-S

[balthazar]

What the hell is the fascination with state-by-state gay marriage rulings lately ?????

Are we to look forward to 40-something more topics on this ??

[Intrepidation]

Haha, the governor can go f**k himself.

Don't want it to be an issue or waste time and money? Should have been legal from the start you stupid douche.

[Intrepidation]

What the hell is the fascination with state-by-state gay marriage rulings lately ?????

Are we to look forward to 40-something more topics on this ??

Well, I'm going to go with...

• It's important to several members on this site
• It's important to the whole"equality" thing our country was supposedly built upon.

[Justin Bimmer]

The nice thing about headlines is that if you don't want to read the whole story, you have just wasted 10 seconds of your life.

[Satty]

Washington D.C. is close to passing a law recognizing civil unions. Its going to continue to be a story until people quit being concerned about it, so it will be in the news until its either legal everywhere or the group(s) that oppose it realize they're fighting for a lost cause.

[balthazar]

Are there members here looking to 1. get married, and 2. travel to whichever nearest state there is to do it ??

Because I somehow missed that heart-wrenching, earnestly-pleading thread.

If there is such a pair, would not a friendly PM serve the same purpose with less bandwidth ?

Yea, yea: if I don't like it, don't click in.

While more than aware of the lounge's function/practice over the last 7 years, it's just recently been disproportionally weighed, IMO, esp vs. the million other things this country (and us, in turn) should be concerned with... (nearly all of which border on forbidden politics by the end of page 1).

[vonVeezelsnider]

Washington D.C. is close to passing a law recognizing civil unions. Its going to continue to be a story until people quit being concerned about it, so it will be in the news until its either legal everywhere or the group(s) that oppose it realize they're fighting for a lost cause.

Which based on the benchmark of abortion groups could be centuries...

[Intrepidation]

Yea, yea: if I don't like it, don't click in.

[Satty]

The writing was on the wall

[Intrepidation]

[Drew Dowdell]

Are there members here looking to 1. get married, and 2. travel to whichever nearest state there is to do it ??

Because I somehow missed that heart-wrenching, earnestly-pleading thread.

If there is such a pair, would not a friendly PM serve the same purpose with less bandwidth ?

Yea, yea: if I don't like it, don't click in.

While more than aware of the lounge's function/practice over the last 7 years, it's just recently been disproportionally weighed, IMO, esp vs. the million other things this country (and us, in turn) should be concerned with... (nearly all of which border on forbidden politics by the end of page 1).

I'll post it if you really want me to.... but suffice it to say that 25% of this site's population are of alternate sexuality and a large segment of the "regulars" are gay.

A great many more members of this site care about gay marriage than there are members who care about B-pillars....... not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Satty]

I'm straight. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are straight. I see no personal benefit from gay marriage being legalized, but I feel very strongly that it should be legalized.

[Intrepidation]

I'm straight. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are straight. I see no personal benefit from gay marriage being legalized, but I feel very strongly that it should be legalized.

What he said.

[Johnny Quest]

It'll be interesting to see if NH passes a seatbelt law before gay marriage.... Any bets?

[Nick]

What he said.

.

[Oracle of Delphi]

What the hell is the fascination with state-by-state gay marriage rulings lately ?????

Are we to look forward to 40-something more topics on this ??

I posted it because the Governor fought it so much. Did someone force your hand on the mouse, and make you click on the thread and read it? You might think you're an Admin here, but you're not ...

[vonVeezelsnider]

What he said.

Same here.

[ocnblu]

Is this your way of proposing, PCS? Because I don't mean to embarrass you in front of everyone, but I'll have to think about it.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Is this your way of proposing, PCS? Because I don't mean to embarrass you in front of everyone, but I'll have to think about it.

You're not my type ...

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I have no problems supporting the rights of others provided they support my rights as well.

Lets get some interesting threads in here instead of gay marriage ones since the argument usually turns out: with the same responses. Either It should be legal for all. Or the government shouldn't recognize any of it (defacto approval). Or maybe one person opposing it.

And since Olds does not disagree with the non-recognition of marriage so long as the legally binding papers exist to distribute your own rights (such as property and such) provided that heterosexuals are not granted recognition either, it is not really even a fun thread to go through. (just no abortion threads cause those will always be divided and there's no point, its been nearly 50/50 since it was legalized).

Here we go:

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-military-bla...0,5041991.story

Military Used Pigs In Blasts To Test Armor

discuss.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

And since Olds does not disagree with the non-recognition of marriage so long as the legally binding papers exist to distribute your own rights (such as property and such) provided that heterosexuals are not granted recognition either, it is not really even a fun thread to go through.

That's really what it boils down to. Sexuality should not determine how laws apply to you.

[K.C.]

This is great news for those in the gay community who wish to get married. It's not for me personally, but I am happy for those who now have the opportunity to join in marriage.

[Justin Bimmer]

This is going to take time. Just like recognizing that people that were not white deserved the same benefits as being white took time.

[Paolino]

I like VT. It's not overly far from me and it's a beautiful state. Good, I'll have my wedding there.

[balthazar]

I posted it because the Governor fought it so much. Did someone force your hand on the mouse, and make you click on the thread and read it? You might think you're an Admin here, but you're not ...

'I think I'm an Admin' ?? I asked a few questions and gave an opinion; I did not demand anything.

You might think you know what others are thinking, but you don't...

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I have heard that there will be a proposition on the upcoming Cali ballot that redefines marriage in California. Under the proposal:

1. the government will NOT recognize marriage of ANY kind.

2. It will however issue "Civil Unions" to anyone who wants one.

This is a big in the right direction imo should it pass

Edited April 9, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[regfootball]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marraige

interesting reading. perhaps the govt should get out of the marraige business altogether........

alas, marraiges and divorces and property and transferring wealth etc are the main ramifications in civil order with regards to marraige so since it ends up in courts eventually which is why the govt has to dabble in it in the first place i guess. sadly, domestic violence also.

those mormons got shot down long ago didn't they. i would actually consider that ruling to be quite significant. honestly if polygamy had survived that time period it probably as a concept would have remained and even outside the mormom world would likely exist in greater amount than you might think.

i imagine that there will be a growing market for divorce attorneys in the future......

Edited April 9, 2009 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I have heard that there will be a proposition on the upcoming Cali ballot that redefines marriage in California. Under the proposal:

1. the government will NOT recognize marriage of ANY kind.

2. It will however issue "Civil Unions" to anyone who wants one.

This is a big in the right direction imo should it pass

this would need to mesh with the IRS tax code...........if not, it has no chance.......

[Drew Dowdell]

this would need to mesh with the IRS tax code...........if not, it has no chance.......

No it doesn't. DOMA basically takes the Feds out of the state level decisions.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

No it doesn't. DOMA basically takes the Feds out of the state level decisions.

Pfft, like that ever stopped the Feds from overstepping their authority

[Drew Dowdell]

Pfft, like that ever stopped the Feds from overstepping their authority

DOMA itself is an overstep of authority. It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution quite blatantly. Parts of it have already been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit. I expect a full ruling against it will come as soon as Scalia or Thomas is off the bench. Those two will rule in favor of keeping it but be incredibly hypocritical and partisan when they do.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

DOMA itself is an overstep of authority. It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution quite blatantly. Parts of it have already been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit. I expect a full ruling against it will come as soon as Scalia or Thomas is off the bench. Those two will rule in favor of keeping it but be incredibly hypocritical and partisan when they do.

Yeah and the liberal(?) judge who replaces them will be hypocritical and partisan when it comes to gun rights & other issues.

Too bad there are no libertarian types on the supreme court.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah and the liberal(?) judge who replaces them will be hypocritical and partisan when it comes to gun rights & other issues.

Too bad there are no libertarian types on the supreme court.

It's not a liberal v. conservative thing so don't take it there. Quite honestly, I don't know which way Roberts would fall as a conservative but not (as much) a constructionist.

Scalia and Thomas are both self avowed constructionists when interpreting the Constitution. They claim that they strictly interpret the Constitution in the way the framers intended it to be read. They cannot hold that position AND hold that DOMA does not violate the Full Faith and Credit clause. It's one or the other. It would be extraordinarily hypocritical <even for these two> to try and hold both positions.

The "liberal" justices subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is a living document that was intended to be changed over the years. (this is the position I hold, the framer's wouldn't have provided an amendment process otherwise). If you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, it's not hypocritical to suggest a different interpretation of your own.

I'm not saying the "liberal" justices are never hypocritical.... just that they aren't in terms of constructualism.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

This is one of the last signs of the apocalypse for fundamentalist Christians...

Me... Well, I really couldn't care less. The country is falling apart right now, the last thing I care about is who's screwin' who.

As far as what I think of the issue in general. Well, I am a Christian and I do believe that marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman (as the bible states).

HOWEVER, I do NOT think that MY God would ever condone his followers intentionally trying to regulate the lives of, or dscriminate against any of his children. Therefore, I'm fine with it, so long as it isn't a "marriage"

I do believe that same sex couples should have the same benefits available as traditional married folk. I have a dear friend who is in a same sex relationship. He also has MS and cannot (under NC law) have access to his partners (yes, they had a ceremony in another state) insurance benefits that would greatly benefit his MS. I think that's a load of and it needs to be corrected.

Edited April 9, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[David]

In regards to the thread topic, Congrates that the people of the state stood up to the idiot Gov as the gov has no right to give certian rights to a marriage and ban it from others just due to a choice of sexual partner.

In regards to the body armor link on testing with Pigs. Hey better they test on pigs than humans. Course in that regards the pigs can have 32 orgasims compared to a human male of 1 and they are very loving to each other, so maybe the death row inmates should be used since this could save tax payers money from wasting it on a person who deserves to die from sitting on death row and our brave soldiers gain the benefit of the test results.

H'mmmmmmmm Interesting thinking.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The "liberal" justices subscribe to the idea that the Constitution is a living document that was intended to be changed over the years. (this is the position I hold, the framer's wouldn't have provided an amendment process otherwise). If you subscribe to the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, it's not hypocritical to suggest a different interpretation of your own.

Eh i tend to take the constructionist view because the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as the way it was meant to be read. If congress doesn't like it that's why the Amendment process is there. So while it IS a living document, it is not from the Supreme Courts point of view.

If the supreme court was to interpret the document as a living document, then it can be changed by the whim of the supreme court and there would be no point in having Amendments... The Constitution in this case is no more than the base work for Common Law, which imo, it is not. There is a reason they made it hard to amend the Constitution.

But uh, i tend to generalize constructionist and living document types with conservative and liberal - especially considering that conservative and liberal mean almost nothing because they are such broad generalizations.

But from your point of view, yes i can understand how those judges would be hypocritical in their decision.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Oracle of Delphi]

This is one of the last signs of the apocalypse for fundamentalist Christians...

And here I thought the Last Sign of the Apocalypse was that — Knight Rider Got Full Season Pick-up ...

[Paolino]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marraige

After reading the URL, I just couldn't bring myself to read anything that calls itself a "dictionary" and misspells marriage.

[K.C.]

I have heard that there will be a proposition on the upcoming Cali ballot that redefines marriage in California. Under the proposal:

1. the government will NOT recognize marriage of ANY kind.

2. It will however issue "Civil Unions" to anyone who wants one.

This is a big in the right direction imo should it pass

Interesting. . . My first thought about this is of a daughter running to her dad and say, "Daddy daddy! He proposed civil unity with me daddy! I'm getting civilly united!"

[loki]

After reading the URL, I just couldn't bring myself to read anything that calls itself a "dictionary" and misspells marriage.

it's only wrong in the link... it corrects it on the page

[Drew Dowdell]

See? It's not us! Webster changed the definition way back in 2003! Gays aren't redefining marriage! Dictionaries are!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Speaking of dictionaries, who decided that Merriam Webster was the dictionary to follow anyways? Because of him/her we are all stuck with stupidly spelled words!

[Drew Dowdell]

What the hell is the fascination with state-by-state gay marriage rulings lately ?????

Are we to look forward to 40-something more topics on this ??

I hope so.

[Camino LS6]

All too often that which is self-evident takes generations of arguing and political wrangling to actually be adopted.

Opposition to this, at its core, is unsupportable - and its opponents are simply afraid to admit that they know it.

So many of our long-standing debates have been this way - we waste so much time protecting what we know to be wrong it is a wonder that we make any progress at all.

We have a long history of pissing into the wind.

[daves87rs]

All too often that which is self-evident takes generations of arguing and political wrangling to actually be adopted.

Opposition to this, at its core, is unsupportable - and its opponents are simply afraid to admit that they know it.

So many of our long-standing debates have been this way - we waste so much time protecting what we know to be wrong it is a wonder that we make any progress at all.

We have a long history of pissing into the wind.