Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage via Legislative Override

[Brainonska511]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...e-Vermont.html?_r=1&hp

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Good for Vermont for being the first state to legalize gay marriage without people having to fight for their rights in court.

 

[Titan]

Interesting. I live in VT, grew up here. They had to make a huge effort because Douglas threatened to veto from the beginning.

I don't think it's worth debating. Any damage done to the culture of the state was done 9 years ago when civil unions were passed. Many stories of VT cars getting vandalized while out of state came after that. Then we became a beacon for all thing gay and have wonderful controversial child molestation court cases with sentences lighter than for people who smoke weed.

I personally think govt. should get out of the marriage business all together. It is a spiritual and religious practice. This basically undefines the basic nature of traditional marriage, which most of us find fundamentally important to continue the species. Government applying laws to marriage just makes another form of discrimination when it comes to taxes, insurance, etc.

I wonder now if Civil Unions will go away? It was nice to have a prospect to maybe get one say, with your roomate to help get medical insurance. Don't know if anyone actually did that though.

I don't disagree with the decision, I think it is irrelevant and an issue that has eaten up so much time in VT that other issues could have been addressed.

EDIT: I am not like most VTers, we are a strange mix of old hillbillies and yuppie-hippies with the yuppies gaining more ground every day. There are more non-natives living in the state than natives, has been that way for a while. Most kids leave, we are the oldest state in the country in terms of average age. It is a strange and unique place.

 

[PricklyPete]

I'm getting tired of this...just let them get married...I just don't see the problem. If anything, it will just create more jobs in the "divorce" business.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Titan
Interesting. I live in VT, grew up here. They had to make a huge effort because Douglas threatened to veto from the beginning.

I don't think it's worth debating. Any damage done to the culture of the state was done 9 years ago when civil unions were passed. Many stories of VT cars getting vandalized while out of state came after that.

I personally think govt. should get out of the marriage business all together. It is a spiritual and religious practice. This basically undefines the basic nature of traditional marriage, which most of us find fundamentally important to continue the species. Government applying laws to marriage just makes another form of discrimination when it comes to taxes, insurance, etc.

I wonder now if Civil Unions will go away? It was nice to have a prospect to maybe get one say, with your roomate to help get medical insurance. Don't know if anyone actually did that though.

I don't disagree with the decision, I think it is irrelevant and an issue that has eaten up so much time in VT that other issues could have been addressed.

The thing is, government has been controlling marriage for centuries; many laws, such as property laws have parts that strictly relate to the covenant created between two people that are married - such as inheritance, property control, divorce, etc... If government "got out of the marriage business", society would still need laws to cover the contract created between two people entering a union. As long as the government still refers to marriage as marriage, the word should apply to everyone, not just man and woman.

As for the "continuing the species": that's bullshit. We allow sterile people to marry; we allow old people to marry; we allow children out of wedlock.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
I'm getting tired of this...just let them get married...I just don't see the problem. If anything, it will just create more jobs in the "divorce" business.

Your name is amusing for the topic. Good for Vermont; CA would have doen this already but for the veto of Republican Gov. Schwarzeneggar. Hopefully soon.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
The thing is, government has been controlling marriage for centuries; many laws, such as property laws have parts that strictly relate to the covenant created between two people that are married - such as inheritance, property control, divorce, etc... If government "got out of the marriage business", society would still need laws to cover the contract created between two people entering a union. As long as the government still refers to marriage as marriage, the word should apply to everyone, not just man and woman.

As for the "continuing the species": that's bullshit. We allow sterile people to marry; we allow old people to marry; we allow children out of wedlock.

1) That's fine, but that's what contract law is for. Do we really need a definition for every possible relationship or can people just relate to each other without a pile of laws? Do we need to issue licenses for other relationships as well as marriage? Or should we all just incorporate? This reminds me of the South Park where Cartman claims he is vegetative Kenny's BFF and has say in what happens to him. My personal stance is I will never get married because I don't see how any good can come from inviting John Q Law into my relationship - all I see is possible disaster, especially because I am male. I am all for monogamy and civility, just not the anal rape of divorce court.

2) I don't disagree with any of that, I was merely pointing out that one of the traditional purposes of marriage from a governmental perspective is to perpetuate the species, as it helps facilitate that; and at the 10,000 foot level, some people see gay marriage directly flying in the face of that, by it's very definition. I don't know if I agree with that, but it is a fair point. We don't even replenish what we lose in this country anymore. And if government has no place in repopulation, then it's one less reason to have a place in marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Titan

2) I don't disagree with any of that, I was merely pointing out that one of the traditional purposes of marriage from a governmental perspective is to perpetuate the species, as it helps facilitate that; and at the 10,000 foot level, some people see gay marriage directly flying in the face of that, by it's very definition. I don't know if I agree with that, but it is a fair point. We don't even replenish what we lose in this country anymore. And if government has no place in repopulation, then it's one less reason to have a place in marriage.

This comes from a fundamentally flawed perspective on fundamental rights. Does the government have a compelling interest in perpetuating the citizenry? I'd say yes. Fundamental rights like the right to marry aren't like getting a drivers license, because in the case of fundamental rights they are retained by everyone unless the government can find a good reason to restrict them. In order to restrict gay marriage you would need to show how gays getting married interferes with perpetuating the citizenry... and for the life of me I can't see how you would do that. I mean it's not like gay people currently decide to stop being gay, straight marry, and produce lots of kids because gay marriage is illegal in most states.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Titan
2) I don't disagree with any of that, I was merely pointing out that one of the traditional purposes of marriage from a governmental perspective is to perpetuate the species, as it helps facilitate that; and at the 10,000 foot level, some people see gay marriage directly flying in the face of that, by it's very definition. I don't know if I agree with that, but it is a fair point. We don't even replenish what we lose in this country anymore. And if government has no place in repopulation, then it's one less reason to have a place in marriage.

Holy contradiction batman.

You directly disagree with everything he said by claiming the government's perspective is to perpetuate the species. It clearly isn't as brainonska511 already pointed out with his examples. Marriage has always been about a special union between two people (female/male by religious standards), it is not some dry thing meant to continue the species.

 

[Adam8281]

At least it was done legislatively this time

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
At least it was done legislatively this time

While it's better for the public to favor the right and pass it legislatively, there is nothing wrong with the courts doing their job and enforcing the equality rights in the constitutions.

 

[Harvey]

:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court restores equal rights, here, as well.

 

[BoberFett]

Vermont's motto: Freedom and Unity

:thumbsup:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Vermont's motto: Freedom and Unity

:thumbsup:

That was a runner up. I believe "Vermont: Worst roads in the Northeast" won. Or maybe it was "Vermont: Home of Million Dollar Mountain Castles and Burnt Out Welfare Trailers" I wasn't really paying attention.

Anyway, I generally think the governor was on the wrong side of this one...but I feel like this was mostly just an attempt by the legislature to distract from their pathetic failures at fixing the budget and generally waste time. This is the kind of thing the legislature enjoys, walking around with their chests out and acting like heroes. When it comes time to do boring things like balance the budget, repair our horrible infrastructure or try to develop economic policy they seem to treat it as an annoying afterthought to be half assed.

I suppose thats the same old bullshit with any politics though.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Adam8281
At least it was done legislatively this time

While it's better for the public to favor the right and pass it legislatively, there is nothing wrong with the courts doing their job and enforcing the equality rights in the constitutions.

Assuming you live someplace where that would be a right under its constitution. Fortunately not a case in the US.

 

[Titan]

Everyone who has quoted me is completely misunderstanding my position and claiming I said things which I didn't say. I am simply stating some philosophical points; not even trying to make an argument, or even trying to state concrete points. You guys are like blood-sucking ravaging weasels.

I really don't have a stance on this issue. As I SAID, it is interesting and am looking at it from odd angles to engage in some investigative discourse. My personal opinion is it's a waste of time. That's my opinion, and me having it isn't going to change a damn thing in this state.

Instead of telling me about what I didn't say and why it's wrong, why not offer your own philosophical view and tell me a positive of why you believe gay marriage is important and should be legal. Some might call that rational discourse.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Vermont's motto: Freedom and Unity

:thumbsup:

That was a runner up. I believe "Vermont: Worst roads in the Northeast" won. Or maybe it was "Vermont: Home of Million Dollar Mountain Castles and Burnt Out Welfare Trailers" I wasn't really paying attention.

Anyway, I generally think the governor was on the wrong side of this one...but I feel like this was mostly just an attempt by the legislature to distract from their pathetic failures at fixing the budget and generally waste time. This is the kind of thing the legislature enjoys, walking around with their chests out and acting like heroes. When it comes time to do boring things like balance the budget, repair our horrible infrastructure or try to develop economic policy they seem to treat it as an annoying afterthought to be half assed.

I suppose thats the same old bullshit with any politics though.

Amen, brother.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Titan
Everyone who has quoted me is completely misunderstanding my position and claiming I said things which I didn't say. I am simply stating some philosophical points; not even trying to make an argument, or even trying to state concrete points. You guys are like blood-sucking ravaging weasels.

I really don't have a stance on this issue. As I SAID, it is interesting and am looking at it from odd angles to engage in some investigative discourse. My personal opinion is it's a waste of time. That's my opinion, and me having it isn't going to change a damn thing in this state.

Instead of telling me about what I didn't say and why it's wrong, why not offer your own philosophical view and tell me a positive of why you believe gay marriage is important and should be legal. Some might call that rational discourse.

My discourse is completely rational, and this post like your previous one is misunderstanding the concept of fundamental rights on a basic level. The whole point of fundamental rights is that you don't HAVE to give a positive for why it is important and should be legal, it is legal until the government can give a cause to restrict it. You don't have to prove to the government why you should have a right to free speech, do you?

The rub with all this is that federally gays aren't (yet) a protected class, and homosexuality is not recognized legally as an unchangeable and immutable part of someone's identity. That's the primary reason why it hasn't been federally legalized everywhere by the Supreme Court. (well that and politics)

So my basic argument is that what you stated in 2.) was NOT a fair point, because it is based on a flawed understanding of rights.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court redefines equal rights, here, as well.....again

fixed!

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Titan
Everyone who has quoted me is completely misunderstanding my position and claiming I said things which I didn't say. I am simply stating some philosophical points; not even trying to make an argument, or even trying to state concrete points. You guys are like blood-sucking ravaging weasels.

I really don't have a stance on this issue. As I SAID, it is interesting and am looking at it from odd angles to engage in some investigative discourse. My personal opinion is it's a waste of time. That's my opinion, and me having it isn't going to change a damn thing in this state.

Instead of telling me about what I didn't say and why it's wrong, why not offer your own philosophical view and tell me a positive of why you believe gay marriage is important and should be legal. Some might call that rational discourse.

My discourse is completely rational, and this post like your previous one is misunderstanding the concept of fundamental rights on a basic level. The whole point of fundamental rights is that you don't HAVE to give a positive for why it is important and should be legal, it is legal until the government can give a cause to restrict it. You don't have to prove to the government why you should have a right to free speech, do you?

The rub with all this is that federally gays aren't (yet) a protected class, and homosexuality is not recognized legally as an unchangeable and immutable part of someone's identity. That's the primary reason why it hasn't been federally legalized everywhere by the Supreme Court. (well that and politics)

So my basic argument is that what you stated in 2.) was NOT a fair point, because it is based on a flawed understanding of rights.

What part of I'm not here to make an argument did you not understand? I was just pointing out a view which many people have, no matter how erroneous it is. Just because people are dumb doesn't mean they don't get their way, especially when they gang up in large groups.

Again you completely miss my point. Let's see if I can spell it out here. What do you believe marriage is? Why does any individual have a right to it? Since this process of legislation is in a way about redefining marriage, I am asking you to say what you believe marriage is. Why is it necessary. Not what the laws say. You make the laws by participating in this government. Why is marriage a right? What do you believe marriage is and why should anyone care?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court redefines equal rights, here, as well.....again

fixed!

No, you broke it. Thanks, BIGOT! :thumbsdown: :|

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court redefines equal rights, here, as well.....again

fixed!

No, you broke it. Thanks, BIGOT! :thumbsdown: :|

Yay, I get to agree with Harvey. This is new. :thumbsup:

Down with Hate. :thumbsdown:

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Titan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Titan
Everyone who has quoted me is completely misunderstanding my position and claiming I said things which I didn't say. I am simply stating some philosophical points; not even trying to make an argument, or even trying to state concrete points. You guys are like blood-sucking ravaging weasels.

I really don't have a stance on this issue. As I SAID, it is interesting and am looking at it from odd angles to engage in some investigative discourse. My personal opinion is it's a waste of time. That's my opinion, and me having it isn't going to change a damn thing in this state.

Instead of telling me about what I didn't say and why it's wrong, why not offer your own philosophical view and tell me a positive of why you believe gay marriage is important and should be legal. Some might call that rational discourse.

My discourse is completely rational, and this post like your previous one is misunderstanding the concept of fundamental rights on a basic level. The whole point of fundamental rights is that you don't HAVE to give a positive for why it is important and should be legal, it is legal until the government can give a cause to restrict it. You don't have to prove to the government why you should have a right to free speech, do you?

The rub with all this is that federally gays aren't (yet) a protected class, and homosexuality is not recognized legally as an unchangeable and immutable part of someone's identity. That's the primary reason why it hasn't been federally legalized everywhere by the Supreme Court. (well that and politics)

So my basic argument is that what you stated in 2.) was NOT a fair point, because it is based on a flawed understanding of rights.

What part of I'm not here to make an argument did you not understand? I was just pointing out a view which many people have, no matter how erroneous it is. Just because people are dumb doesn't mean they don't get their way, especially when they gang up in large groups.

Again you completely miss my point. Let's see if I can spell it out here. What do you believe marriage is? Why does any individual have a right to it? Since this process of legislation is in a way about redefining marriage, I am asking you to say what you believe marriage is. Why is it necessary. Not what the laws say. You make the laws by participating in this government. Why is marriage a right? What do you believe marriage is and why should anyone care?

The burden of proof is not on those who are giving rights, but on those who are taking them away. We need no reason to allow gay marriage; you need a reason to prohibit it.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court redefines equal rights, here, as well.....again

fixed!

No, you broke it. Thanks, BIGOT! :thumbsdown: :|

Yay, I get to agree with Harvey. This is new. :thumbsup:

Down with Hate. :thumbsdown:

Remember what you ask for when you want equal rights for AAALLLLL!!!!

Oooooh, and I love that bigot word too. Bigots calling other people bigots is my fav!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Titan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Titan
Everyone who has quoted me is completely misunderstanding my position and claiming I said things which I didn't say. I am simply stating some philosophical points; not even trying to make an argument, or even trying to state concrete points. You guys are like blood-sucking ravaging weasels.

I really don't have a stance on this issue. As I SAID, it is interesting and am looking at it from odd angles to engage in some investigative discourse. My personal opinion is it's a waste of time. That's my opinion, and me having it isn't going to change a damn thing in this state.

Instead of telling me about what I didn't say and why it's wrong, why not offer your own philosophical view and tell me a positive of why you believe gay marriage is important and should be legal. Some might call that rational discourse.

My discourse is completely rational, and this post like your previous one is misunderstanding the concept of fundamental rights on a basic level. The whole point of fundamental rights is that you don't HAVE to give a positive for why it is important and should be legal, it is legal until the government can give a cause to restrict it. You don't have to prove to the government why you should have a right to free speech, do you?

The rub with all this is that federally gays aren't (yet) a protected class, and homosexuality is not recognized legally as an unchangeable and immutable part of someone's identity. That's the primary reason why it hasn't been federally legalized everywhere by the Supreme Court. (well that and politics)

So my basic argument is that what you stated in 2.) was NOT a fair point, because it is based on a flawed understanding of rights.

What part of I'm not here to make an argument did you not understand? I was just pointing out a view which many people have, no matter how erroneous it is. Just because people are dumb doesn't mean they don't get their way, especially when they gang up in large groups.

Again you completely miss my point. Let's see if I can spell it out here. What do you believe marriage is? Why does any individual have a right to it? Since this process of legislation is in a way about redefining marriage, I am asking you to say what you believe marriage is. Why is it necessary. Not what the laws say. You make the laws by participating in this government. Why is marriage a right? What do you believe marriage is and why should anyone care?

You said something is a fair point, and I was showing you why it wasn't. It doesn't matter if you're trying to make an argument to support that position or not, the position was based upon a false premise.

Marriage is only important because legally we have decided it was important. Because of this, we have attached significant social, legal, and tax benefits to it. So not only are the laws and court decisions important, in my mind they are the ONLY things that are important because marriage's significance lies in its recognition and interface with the government. More importantly this is the only thing that CAN be important in this debate, because same sex couples can already be married by churches all over the country, they just forego the state sanction.

And so, people have a right to it because the Supreme Court has stated we all have a right to it through the vehicle of the 9th and 14th amendments.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsup: I hope California's Supreme Court redefines equal rights, here, as well.....again

fixed!

No, you broke it. Thanks, BIGOT! :thumbsdown: :|

Yay, I get to agree with Harvey. This is new. :thumbsup:

Down with Hate. :thumbsdown:

Remember what you ask for when you want equal rights for AAALLLLL!!!!

Oooooh, and I love that bigot word too. Bigots calling other people bigots is my fav!!

Yes equal rights for all, you make it sound dirty.

To think, a man and a man might even be kissing in your city park right now!