Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage via Legislative Override

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: TruePaige


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![/quote]


And to think...........THAT wasn't even what I was talking about.

 

[schmedy]

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. 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.

I could care less about this, but once again if the legislature really cared what the "people" wanted they would let it go to vote. This is a nonissue for me and it is sad they are putting this much focus on this and not trying to balance the budget. They aren't nearly as worried about all the state workers being laid off it seems. Of course the fix all is to raise taxes more, add a nickel to fuel, and auto increases so they don't have to vote on it and be the bad guy come the election cycle. I wrote everyone one in the legislature about this issue saying this is a good cause but put this on the back burner till the important issues are out of the way, not one response of course. Funny how when many of them were interviewed they were unsure to vote what their constituents wanted or their beliefs, that should be easy, and if they don't like what the people have to say they should talk to them or step down if it is against their morals.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Lets see, reasons against gay marriage.

1- It's against my religion. (Fine, don't do it yourself then but you have no right to force your beliefs onto others.)
2- Marriage was created by religion. (Give me proof your religion or any other created/owns marriage, and explain life long mating pares of animals such as albatrosses. Religion makes use of existing social concept of marriage, it did not make it.)
3- Marriage is for procreation only. (Then sterile, old people, those who do not want kids and those who have stopped having kids can not get/be married.)
4- Hetro marriage is needed to continue the species. (As stupid as this one is, since it popped up I'll mention it. There are 6 billion of us and counting, AND homosexuals can have children, be it lesbian couple with in vetro/sperm downer, male gays at sperm banks/"helping" a couple conceive a child.)
5- But gays can't have kids so why would they want marriage anyway? (They can have kids, lesbians can give birth to kids, both men and woman can adopt children.)
6- We will all turn gay if we let them marry! (So do you secretly want to have anal sex with a big harry man? I thought not, and you are not alone so don't worry.)
7- They want to turn our children into homosexuals! (No they don't, as far as we know homosexuality is more genetic then physiological. If you raise your child to believe homosexuality is how they have to/should be regardless if they are gay or not, then it's your failure as a parent.)
8- They are all/mostly child molesters! (No, they are not. Many studies have been done, ranging from gathering of information form abuse cases to measuring the physical response of homosexuals, there is no link between the two.)
9- God punishes gays [eg, with HIV]so it must be wrong! (God got nothing to do with it. Stupid choices such as unprotected sex is the cause and you are no more immune to whatever effects them then they are.)
10- Gay marriage will destroy my marriage. (Once again, do you secretly want to have anal sex with a big harry man, and your wife secretly want to bed another woman? I thought not. If your relationship is so fragile that gay marriage will destroy it then you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. You are married to someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, gay marriage, government and whatever else isn't going to change that.)
11- Gay marriage will make a mockery of my marriage. (I'm assuming you where married in a church, so already most of the worlds marriages make a mockery of yours because you do not agree with them or are unacceptable to you, gay marriage is no different. The real reason though is probably that you hate gays so much that you can not stand the thought that they get the same rights as you even if they have no impact on your life.)
12- They will make their children gay! (No, they won't. Studies have been done and no link has been found.)
13- Their children will turn out "wrong" somehow! (No, they won't. Studies have been done and on average children of gay couples do as well or better then children of heterosexual couples.)
14- Their children will be mercilessly picked on by other kids! (Aside from being a weak excuse, this is blaming the victim. It is the fault of the child & his/her parents that pick on the one with gay parents, and if allowed/encouraged then the fault of those in authority.)
15- It's not natural so it shouldn't be allowed! (Actually it is. Homosexuality has been widely observed in animals, both in the wild and captivity. This included life long breeding pairs. We are not some sort of alien life forum to this world that we share nothing with life on this planet.)
16- It will destroy our society. (No, it will not. Several countries have already allowed gay marriage so you can see the results for yourself. Those who are not gay will not change if gays marry, and gays will not fulfill their secret evil agenda that you believe they have once gay marriage is allowed.)
17- Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. (Stop picturing a big harry man anally raping you then. What they do is behind closed doors, you don't have to watch. But I do agree that no man should walk around in public in a speedo.)

So, am I missing any? If you disagree, please provide facts (quoting your holy book does not count unless you clearly back up what it says with facts, and no cherry picking facts while ignoring others that discredit what you say).

As for USA laws, not my country and not my problem.

 

[sapiens74]

Marriage is a religious ceremony and the state shouldn't be in the business of marrying anyone.

If you want a civil partner, for any reason you should be allowed to do so. Just don't call it marriage, leave that up to religion

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
Marriage is a religious ceremony and the state shouldn't be in the business of marrying anyone.

If you want a civil partner, for any reason you should be allowed to do so. Just don't call it marriage, leave that up to religion

What a load of shit. FYI there are churches that do marry same sex couples. Do you want to infringe on the way they practice their religion because it doesn't jive with yours?

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
Marriage is a religious ceremony and the state shouldn't be in the business of marrying anyone.

If you want a civil partner, for any reason you should be allowed to do so. Just don't call it marriage, leave that up to religion

The issue is not about the function of marriage as a religious ceremony, it is it's function as a civil legal one. We should immediately terminate the authority of all religious figures to perform legally recognized marriages, which should be performed only by civil authorities. Then there is absolutely no reason not to deny marriage to citizens who are gay.

And reply the absurd federal "Defense of Marriage" Act. This law denies gays, married under valid civil law, recognition as married persons under federal law. Over 500 federal laws so discriminate, including such major ones as federal income tax law. Legally married gay couples still must file their federal income taxes as single persons.

 

[schmedy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
And reply the absurd federal "Defense of Marriage" Act. This law denies gays, married under valid civil law, recognition as married persons under federal law. Over 500 federal laws so discriminate, including such major ones as federal income tax law. Legally married gay couples still must file their federal income taxes as single persons.

This is what Gov Douglas said here, that this is more symbolic here, it did nothing more for rights of same sex couples here in Vermont, others states are not obligated to recognize a marriage done here, and the Fed Govt wont recognize it either. This was just a dog and pony show in the end, with the legislature flexing its muscles to override a veto. I am really curious how many hours they spent on this and how much in tax payers dollars, maybe they can take that out of their pay and put it into the unemployment fund for the state workers who lose their jobs or tax relief when they raise taxes. They need to work on Sanders, Leahy, and Welch to take this to the hill if they want something with teeth which will help them.

 

[Hacp]

I'm fine if they did it with the will of the people. But the "legalizations" by overreaching state courts need to go. We also need to check if any of these VT legislators were paid off. Supporters of Gay Marriage have large funds and we can't deny that some extra cash during a recession can sound tempting,

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

Every place that the courts have ruled the constitutions require equality for gay marriage, it's been based on the state, not the federal, constitution. Note my plural usage above.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm fine if they did it with the will of the people. But the "legalizations" by overreaching state courts need to go. We also need to check if any of these VT legislators were paid off. Supporters of Gay Marriage have large funds and we can't deny that some extra cash during a recession can sound tempting,

Those pesky blacks going through court systems to push for civil rights in the 60s :roll:. Sometimes you have to go through the courts to get the protection for your rights enforced. We do not live by majority rules and we do not live by the rules that a majority can withhold a right from a minority without good reason (extremely negative consequences if that right wasn't withheld). Plus, that's what the courts are for, to settle disputes and contradictions in the law.

Edit:
And as Craig just said, the rulings are based on equal protection clauses in the STATE constitutions. How are these state courts overreaching? Their doing their job by interpreting the state constitution and what laws are allowed within it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Its too bad these courts pick and choose which rights they wish to uphold based on political pressure.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its too bad these courts pick and choose which rights they wish to uphold based on political pressure.

It's too bad you lie about their motives, which you don't understand.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: schmedy

Originally posted by: Thump553
And reply the absurd federal "Defense of Marriage" Act. This law denies gays, married under valid civil law, recognition as married persons under federal law. Over 500 federal laws so discriminate, including such major ones as federal income tax law. Legally married gay couples still must file their federal income taxes as single persons.

This is what Gov Douglas said here, that this is more symbolic here, it did nothing more for rights of same sex couples here in Vermont, others states are not obligated to recognize a marriage done here, and the Fed Govt wont recognize it either. This was just a dog and pony show in the end, with the legislature flexing its muscles to override a veto. I am really curious how many hours they spent on this and how much in tax payers dollars, maybe they can take that out of their pay and put it into the unemployment fund for the state workers who lose their jobs or tax relief when they raise taxes. They need to work on Sanders, Leahy, and Welch to take this to the hill if they want something with teeth which will help them.

Your governor grossly oversimplified the law, then. It is far more than symbolic-it affects such important rights as hospital visitation, medical decision making, adoption, intestate inheritance, etc. as well as bringing in the entire sphere of family law (divorce, support, property division, custody, etc). The law is far more than symbolic, but far less than it could be without the federal government's nanny state "morality." And yes, I'm aware VT has a marital partnership law-we have one here (CT) also. Those laws are pretty cumbersome and inadequate-there was a large article in the Connecticut Bar Journal a few years back detailing the shortcomings of both and setting forth workarounds.

Given today's political climate though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a repeal of the federally legislated discrimination.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Thump553
...
Given today's political climate though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a repeal of the federally legislated discrimination.

In the last 4 years, 10% of the states have legalized gay rights (CA flipped but should flip back)

It may be a long time to wait, but as the momentum starts rolling and 30-40% of the states have fallin into common sense, then the Federal political climate should change (if the rabid religious folks are kept isolated).

 

[schmedy]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: schmedy

Originally posted by: Thump553
And reply the absurd federal "Defense of Marriage" Act. This law denies gays, married under valid civil law, recognition as married persons under federal law. Over 500 federal laws so discriminate, including such major ones as federal income tax law. Legally married gay couples still must file their federal income taxes as single persons.

This is what Gov Douglas said here, that this is more symbolic here, it did nothing more for rights of same sex couples here in Vermont, others states are not obligated to recognize a marriage done here, and the Fed Govt wont recognize it either. This was just a dog and pony show in the end, with the legislature flexing its muscles to override a veto. I am really curious how many hours they spent on this and how much in tax payers dollars, maybe they can take that out of their pay and put it into the unemployment fund for the state workers who lose their jobs or tax relief when they raise taxes. They need to work on Sanders, Leahy, and Welch to take this to the hill if they want something with teeth which will help them.

Your governor grossly oversimplified the law, then. It is far more than symbolic-it affects such important rights as hospital visitation, medical decision making, adoption, intestate inheritance, etc. as well as bringing in the entire sphere of family law (divorce, support, property division, custody, etc). The law is far more than symbolic, but far less than it could be without the federal government's nanny state "morality." And yes, I'm aware VT has a marital partnership law-we have one here (CT) also. Those laws are pretty cumbersome and inadequate-there was a large article in the Connecticut Bar Journal a few years back detailing the shortcomings of both and setting forth workarounds.

Given today's political climate though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a repeal of the federally legislated discrimination.

Before you say it is oversimplified read the body of the bill. Mainly what it changes is "Marriage License" to "Civil Marriage License" as well as some form stuff from groom and bride to groom, bride, or spouse.

As Written into law

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: schmedy

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: schmedy

Originally posted by: Thump553
And reply the absurd federal "Defense of Marriage" Act. This law denies gays, married under valid civil law, recognition as married persons under federal law. Over 500 federal laws so discriminate, including such major ones as federal income tax law. Legally married gay couples still must file their federal income taxes as single persons.

This is what Gov Douglas said here, that this is more symbolic here, it did nothing more for rights of same sex couples here in Vermont, others states are not obligated to recognize a marriage done here, and the Fed Govt wont recognize it either. This was just a dog and pony show in the end, with the legislature flexing its muscles to override a veto. I am really curious how many hours they spent on this and how much in tax payers dollars, maybe they can take that out of their pay and put it into the unemployment fund for the state workers who lose their jobs or tax relief when they raise taxes. They need to work on Sanders, Leahy, and Welch to take this to the hill if they want something with teeth which will help them.

Your governor grossly oversimplified the law, then. It is far more than symbolic-it affects such important rights as hospital visitation, medical decision making, adoption, intestate inheritance, etc. as well as bringing in the entire sphere of family law (divorce, support, property division, custody, etc). The law is far more than symbolic, but far less than it could be without the federal government's nanny state "morality." And yes, I'm aware VT has a marital partnership law-we have one here (CT) also. Those laws are pretty cumbersome and inadequate-there was a large article in the Connecticut Bar Journal a few years back detailing the shortcomings of both and setting forth workarounds.

Given today's political climate though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a repeal of the federally legislated discrimination.

Before you say it is oversimplified read the body of the bill. Mainly what it changes is "Marriage License" to "Civil Marriage License" as well as some form stuff from groom and bride to groom, bride, or spouse.

As Written into law

I think was referring to his oversimplifying the effects of the law, not the technical changes that said 'now gays have the same right to marry', which is pretty basic.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'm fine if they did it with the will of the people. But the "legalizations" by overreaching state courts need to go. We also need to check if any of these VT legislators were paid off. Supporters of Gay Marriage have large funds and we can't deny that some extra cash during a recession can sound tempting,

I'm sure you are just as determined to look at legislators when a gay marriage bill is rejected, as opponents of Gay Marriage have even more funds.

 

[keird]

It's intersting to note that this would have been impossible to debate openly 30 years ago in the U.S. and impossible to conceive of this debate 50 years ago.

I wonder at the chain of events that precipitated this and where it will lead. Would anyone know what human rights subject was vigirously debated 1000 years ago? 2000? 3000?

Does it even matter in the terms of human history or do these new rights pave the way for something inconceivable to us, now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: schmedy

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. 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.

I could care less about this, but once again if the legislature really cared what the "people" wanted they would let it go to vote. This is a nonissue for me and it is sad they are putting this much focus on this and not trying to balance the budget. They aren't nearly as worried about all the state workers being laid off it seems. Of course the fix all is to raise taxes more, add a nickel to fuel, and auto increases so they don't have to vote on it and be the bad guy come the election cycle. I wrote everyone one in the legislature about this issue saying this is a good cause but put this on the back burner till the important issues are out of the way, not one response of course. Funny how when many of them were interviewed they were unsure to vote what their constituents wanted or their beliefs, that should be easy, and if they don't like what the people have to say they should talk to them or step down if it is against their morals.

A few things: First of all we live in a representative democracy. The representatives aren't supposed to govern based on how they think the people in their district would vote, they are supposed to represent the interests of the people in that district. (which may or may not coincide) If the people don't like how they are represented, they vote them out. Representative democracy is not just some sort of way to cut down on polling costs by having just one guy vote for or against a bill instead of thousands. So no, they most certainly should not step down if their beliefs are different than their constituents.

As for the legislature 'wasting time' on these sorts of things, I always find that argument silly. In fact if I never heard it again it would be too soon. First of all they are salaried employees, so they get paid the same amount no matter what. Secondly, important issues are pretty much NEVER left unsolved because there just isn't enough time in the legislative session to deal with them, they don't get resolved because of issues that make them unable to compromise for whatever reason, stuff like that. I sincerely doubt the passage of this bill in any way affected the legislatures ability to deal with these other issues, they were either going to deal with them or they weren't.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

equal protection