Daylife/AP Photo
|
The Vermont Legislature today overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering one more vote than needed to preserve the measure.
Approval had been expected in the Senate, where the vote was 23 to 5. But the outcome in the House of Representatives was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. In the end the vote was 100 to 49, just slightly more than the required two-thirds majority of members present.
After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.
“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”
Vermont is now the first state where the legislature deemed same-sex marriages legal – rather than letting the courts take the political heat from the holier-than-thou crowd.
So are you therefore saying California is Holier-than-thou?? Strange, I’ve often thought of them as a bit pretentious, but not holier than thou.
Of course this does pose the question of what happens if they get a majority to change the law again.
Would that be ok with you Mr. Democracy??
Little by little the US catches up to the rest of the world. Great point on this being a legislative outcome and not court order.
We need Cheney and Bush to visit and see Vermont and all its beauty. The town of Marlboro, Vt awaits their visit!
http://bit.ly/12HJr
DC Council voted to accept other state gay marriages as valid in the district.
Likely to be signed by Fenty, always nice when the capital does the right thing.
Yes. Soon we can redefine other words to fit things we want!
Isn’t this like the Indiana legislature declaring pi=3?
#4 Agreed. Hopefully this opens the way to marry pets and vegetables. We need more tax deductions.
More vegetables marry nutballs, anyway. Of course, the question of deductions means more than civil rights to Republicans, anyway.
I thought the holier-than-thou crowd invented marriage.
RBG
I don’t just support homosexual marriage, I demand they be exposed to the rotten government institution. Trust me, I’m not doing them any favors. They have no right to be protected from the divorce industry. All they’re going to get is giving a judge the right to decide how their assets and future income get divided.
Accountants invented marriage. Accountants and lawyers.
Where’s the fire’n’brimstone crowd, loudly proclaiming the death of the Republic and of Civilization As We Know It? They’re sleepin’ on the job here…
Good point Stinker, what happens if they change it back again? But I’d say, given the 2:1 support in the House and 23-5 in the Senate, that probably won’t happen. A LOT of people would have to be voted out of office on this one issue.
Hey Dallas… if you can find a consenting adult vegetable, don’t just marry it, take it to Hollywood and make it a star! 🙂
The Acorn voters in California stomped the gay marriage idea. They were black and Hispanic Christians. Vermont just doesn’t have that many Acorn voters yet.
See, this is the problem with the liberal/left movement. The subgroups are all contradictory to one another. The only thing that holds them together is hatred of someone else. That’s why they jumped on Rush Limbaugh a couple of weeks ago — they had to have someone to hate.
Right now they are desperately looking around for someone else for this group to hate. I expect show trials of Bush’s old administration members to satisfy the mobs.
If gay couples were equal why do they distinguish themselves unequally? Ever call a lesbian gay, the usually correct you and say they are not gay they are lesbian. How is that equal? They demand equality and act unequal and never pop-out kids like a toaster shoots out a pop-tart. Until the day kids are conceived by the union of gay couples, and thus immediately become eligible for citizenship & state welfare, gay couples are not equal. Gay marriage is equal in the realm of Tele-Tubbies and their kids, not with people. This decision is yet more proof that government doesn’t know what it’s doing.
Again, why are lesbians who are so passionate about gay marriage so damn ugly?
Thanks for a textbook case of projection, Timuchin. The various factions of the Republican party — the religious fundies, the libertarians, the plutocrats, the gun-lovers — are all battling with each other and the Republican ship is on the rocks. So what is a good Republican to do? Why, pretend it’s the Democrats who have the problem!
Thanks, Timuchin. Good example.
And the only people jumping on Limbaugh are the few rational people left in the Republican party. Us liberals, we’re glad to have Rush be the face of the Republican party — a thrice-divorced, drug-addicted, closet case hypocrite with a mean streak and a huge ego. What could be better for the Democrats? Go Rush! Megadittos! 🙂
Not a bad rant, Tele-Quality, but you forgot the part about the decline and fall of the American Empire, hollowed out by immoral homosexuals, etc., etc. Try harder next time, OK? 🙂
#6 Dallas,
“Hopefully this opens the way to marry pets and vegetables.”
The last time I checked, the ideal Christian wife was nothing but a pet with a vegetable for a brain.
dvorakguy,
Your “re-definition” argument seems to be the most common one used these days by the anti-gay — I think because it has some legal plausibility.
Past arguments from the bible, biology or sociology have been widely rejected by society, science and surely would not hold-up in court.
But the “definition” argument is pretty weak, too.
I keep the current copy of Merriam-Webster on my desk (old school, I know) and its definition of marriage says nothing about one man and one woman.
The bible certainly has not always defined it as one man & one woman. Many current cultures and religions don’t define it that way, either. (usually one man, multiple wives.)
I don’t know, for sure, but I’d be very surprised if historians or anthropologists couldn’t find precedence for definitions of marriage that allow homosexuality.
As for me, it comes down to this:
Are homosexuals Americans or not? If so, you need a damn-good reason to deny them equal rights. _YOUR_ definition of marriage is not good enough.
Are all woman over 40 that are ugly and single gay? It looks like it…
dumbassedliberals,
Don’t take this the wrong way, but guys who post women-bashing comments on blogs are rarely fully straight.
guiltywhiteliberal/dumbassliberals — I bet you’re a real charmer with the ladies. 🙂
phydeau,
You think so!? He. He.
In my experience, guys who bash women for their looks are never well-adjusted straight guys.
They aren’t well-adjusted gays guys, either!
They usually have some conflicted, closeted thing going on.
Sweet! We are only weeks away from the only thing I wanted from the Obama administration! Getting to watch a church full of republicans burn themselves alive on tv. I can’t wait!
Marriage has a specific meaning and it is a union between a man and a woman. I have gay friends who don’t believe in gay marriage, civil unions yes, marriage no.
It’s sort of like our mulatto president. He isn’t black so why call him something he isn’t.
I’m all for the gays getting together, just don’t call it marriage. Other than that I don’t give a shit.
Are we going to have to listen to the conservatives whine every time something like this happens?
The genie is out of the bottle.
Deal with it.
I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords.
#25 Olo Baggins of Bywater said “The genie is out of the bottle.”
Lucky for you, now you are free to shove that bottle up your Hershey highway. Could you be any more of a fag?
This is the way it should work. Make law in the legislative body….not the courts.
I wonder how much Ms. Cheney got for that vote?
I’ve never understood why people get their panties in such a wad over this issue.
I also don’t understand why anybody would give a damm who marries who. I suspect anybody who thinks this is a real issue has real issues in their own marriages.
BTW — I’m straight. Married. Got kids and really don’t give a rats ass about people’s sexuality.
If my friend Ray wants to marry his BFF of 40 years why stop him? I’d be happy to be there to give the first toast.
Can’t we all just get along you Republican douche bags?
#29–Flip==of course you do. Religion and morality is all about controlling what other people do. How can you be “free” if other people openly disagree with you??????
So==don’t call it religion because that involves Constitutional Prohibitions. Just call it morality for all the same motives, goals, laws, enforcement, power, ego stroke, stupidity.
When considering anything “moral”===think of images of the Taliban whipping young girls in the street.
Same thing. Christian Taliban.