The Vermont Senate has voted for same-sex marriages. Now it need to go to the House. What is really surprising is that 4 out of 7 Republicans voted FOR this bill-including one or our state senators.  :o :o :o  He was on the sub-committee to decide whether this bill would go to the entire Senate-which voted unanimously. When we heard that, we called his office to say, "Thank you."


http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20090324/NEWS04/903240344/1004/NEWS03


http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/03/24/same_sex_marriage_bills_gain_in_ne/



Cat

Wonderful news.  Very promising to know that the Republicans can come around!

Great, all though I hear the Governor isn't too keen on it.  Wonder if they can override a veto if he does veto it.  I've also notice that the reasons against it are starting to be pr oven irrelevant.

Whether or not the governor signs onto it, it's still a step in the right direction.

Vermont Senate... more progressive than California voters.... who knew?  ???

Excellent news!  Let's hope it catches on!!

Score another for Truth, Justice, and the American Way

http://www.texasstartupblog.com/files/2008/11/american-flag.jpg

Vermont Senate... more progressive than California voters.... who knew?  ???


For the most part, the Northeast is the most progressive part of the country.

California has a reputation for being liberal, but you have to remember that the rural inland areas are equally as conservative as San Francisco is liberal.

With Vermont, it's basically 100% liberal, but liberal Republicans do enter office as the more moderate candidates usually.

For the most part, the Northeast is the most progressive part of the country.

California has a reputation for being liberal, but you have to remember that the rural inland areas are equally as conservative as San Francisco is liberal.

With Vermont, it's basically 100% liberal, but liberal Republicans do enter office as the more moderate candidates usually.




It is NOT 100% liberal. Our area is VERY conservative and is probably the most conservative of the entire state. In fact, we only have 1 Dem in Montpelier and the rest are Repubs. 



Cat

It is NOT 100% liberal. Our area is VERY conservative and is probably the most conservative of the entire state. In fact, we only have 1 Dem in Montpelier and the rest are Repubs. 



Cat


Proof that there is a difference between between being a conservative and being a controlling, paternalistic, @$$hole

Great, all though I hear the Governor isn't too keen on it.  Wonder if they can override a veto if he does veto it.  I've also notice that the reasons against it are starting to be pr oven irrelevant.


The Dems have the numbers to override, but it ism't cleaer that they have the will.

It is NOT 100% liberal. Our area is VERY conservative and is probably the most conservative of the entire state. In fact, we only have 1 Dem in Montpelier and the rest are Repubs. 



Cat


Exactly.  You could say the same thing about Vermont as Mac's saying about California.  Burlington is what people think of when they think of Vermont: Hippies, crunchies, tie-dyes, socialists, Ben & Jerry's, Phish, Bernie Sanders, etc.  Drive across the state to the Northeast Kingdom and you've got stodgy old Yankees who are still living in 1948!
A-yuh, hoss gone up the road a piece...

Exactly.  You could say the same thing about Vermont as Mac's saying about California.  Burlington is what people think of when they think of Vermont: Hippies, crunchies, tie-dyes, socialists, Ben & Jerry's, Phish, Bernie Sanders, etc.  Drive across the state to the Northeast Kingdom and you've got stodgy old Yankees who are still living in 1948!
A-yuh, hoss gone up the road a piece...





You don't even have to go to the Northeast Kingdom, just go to Rutland County.

Oh yeah, another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post, if Vermont was 100% liberal, we wouldn't have a Republican governor who was very pro-Bush. And the last election he won by over 50%. Granted, he had 2 challengers, a Dem & a Progressive who decided to become an Independent in the middle of the race. But, the two of them together didn't equal 50%. That doesn't sound 100% liberal to me.



Cat

I'm loving this New England sibling rivalry thing. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, suddenly Connecticut's like, "Hey, we're cool too!" Now Vermont's getting jealous because they were the first one to do civil unions and they'll be damned if they'll be one-upped by a bunch of Atlantic coast wannabes... If this keeps up, before you know it, the whole northeast is going to have gay marriage legalized! ;D

Update:

Yesterday our glorious (not) governor, James Douglas (rep) announced that he would veto the marriage equality bill when it passes the house.  This is the first time he has threatened a veto before legislation has passed.  He claims it's because he wants to avoid distractions from debate on our economy.  What an a$$.

I'm loving this New England sibling rivalry thing. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, suddenly Connecticut's like, "Hey, we're cool too!" Now Vermont's getting jealous because they were the first one to do civil unions and they'll be damned if they'll be one-upped by a bunch of Atlantic coast wannabes... If this keeps up, before you know it, the whole northeast is going to have gay marriage legalized! ;D


That's the plan.  Legislation gets passed easier and faster up north than in most parts of the south or some parts of the west.

Update:

Yesterday our glorious (not) governor, James Douglas (rep) announced that he would veto the marriage equality bill when it passes the house.  This is the first time he has threatened a veto before legislation has passed.  He claims it's because he wants to avoid distractions from debate on our economy.  What an a$$.


That's a lousy excuse.  All he has to do is pick up a pen a sign where he's told.

It is NOT 100% liberal. Our area is VERY conservative and is probably the most conservative of the entire state. In fact, we only have 1 Dem in Montpelier and the rest are Repubs. 



Cat


Right, but if you compared the Repubs there, I'd bet you they are probably more moderate than Repubs here.

Liberal and conservative are relative terms.  A typical Democrat here in North Carolina could probably run as a Republican in Vermont.

This is good news for equal rights and personal freedom. I still don't know why homosexuals would want to get 'married', but if they want to there is no reason at all to forbid it.

In my opinion, the union of two people legally is a State affair, and the State must not discriminate against consenting adults. I don't think clergymen should have the authority to pronounce two people legally united. If two people want to pursue a religious ceremony because they think it marries them in the eyes of some god, then that's their business. They should still have to go through a separate process if they want to be united legally by the State.

If then two people, once legally united, wish to refer to that as 'marriage', and want to call each other husband or wife, that too is their business. 

Wonderful news.  Very promising to know that the Republicans can come around!


There are many Gay Republicans, they're known as Log-Cabin Republicans.

And from what I heard, New England is a very Liberal area.

There are many Gay Republicans, they're known as Log-Cabin Republicans.

And from what I heard, New England is a very Liberal area.


Statistically, about 1 in 10 people are gay or lesbian, so on e might conclude that those numbers applied to repubs as well as anyone else.  Problem is that many of those repubs are in denial or are just plain hypocrites.

Statistically, about 1 in 10 people are gay or lesbian, so on e might conclude that those numbers applied to repubs as well as anyone else.  Problem is that many of those repubs are in denial or are just plain hypocrites.


karma to you sir!

I know several gays who are against gay marriage. It has nothing to do with denial. A lot of homosexuals don't feel they need to imitate heterosexual couples by calling each other husband and husband, wife and wife. They find it ridiculous, and reasonably so. It's odd for anyone, even homosexuals, to hear men talking about their husbands. And a lot of them are just as uncomfortable with it as many heterosexuals are.

In any case, I don't think it matters whether one is for or against it, I see no reason to deny legal household union to two consenting adults. You'd be hard-pressed to find any homosexual who's against same-sex union. I think it's just all the hetero marriage jargon that makes it all seem so weird. 

I know several gays who are against gay marriage. It has nothing to do with denial. A lot of homosexuals don't feel they need to imitate heterosexual couples by calling each other husband and husband, wife and wife. They find it ridiculous, and reasonably so. It's odd for anyone, even homosexuals, to hear men talking about their husbands. And a lot of them are just as uncomfortable with it as many heterosexuals are.

In any case, I don't think it matters whether one is for or against it, I see no reason to deny legal household union to two consenting adults. You'd be hard-pressed to find any homosexual who's against same-sex union. I think it's just all the hetero marriage jargon that makes it all seem so weird. 



You can always use the generic term, "spouse".



Cat

You can always use the generic term, "spouse".



Cat


Precisely.

I know several gays who are against gay marriage. It has nothing to do with denial. A lot of homosexuals don't feel they need to imitate heterosexual couples by calling each other husband and husband, wife and wife. They find it ridiculous, and reasonably so. It's odd for anyone, even homosexuals, to hear men talking about their husbands. And a lot of them are just as uncomfortable with it as many heterosexuals are.

In any case, I don't think it matters whether one is for or against it, I see no reason to deny legal household union to two consenting adults. You'd be hard-pressed to find any homosexual who's against same-sex union. I think it's just all the hetero marriage jargon that makes it all seem so weird. 


The thing is, there are lots of benefits to being legally married that are not available to civil unions.  There is, I think, a big difference between being married and holy matrimony.

The thing is, there are lots of benefits to being legally married that are not available to civil unions. 



We were just talking about this the other day.


I'm sure most of know, that Carlos & I have lived together for 5 years before "tying the knot". We were perfectly happy being co-habitators but decided that it was time to get married. When we did, we realized that we each benefited from it. I was put on his health insurance (which includes dental & chiropractic services), and I got pay increase since the VA categorizes Carlos as my "dependent" (which cracks me up). He got a Government ID card which entitles him to BX/PX/Commissary/Class VI access and when he hits 65 and his insurance ends, he can than get on Tricare (which he could now but the insurance he gets through his job is better for us right now). Unfortunately, at that time, we both will have to pay for dental & chiropractic services.



Cat 

Well, I have to say I take the more Libertarian view on this (surprise, surprise).

I think the problem started when government and marriage united.  Marriage is generally a private religious institution and should have remained that way.  If a congregation wants to hold a gay marriage ceremony or if it refuses one, that's the business of that church, not the government.

To have the government intervene on marital matters violates the Separation of Church and State.  Many conservatives have shown their true big government colors by supporting things like gay marriage bans because this is a gross violation of the aforementioned principle.

Yet, this ban issue would have likely never happened if we had kept government out of marriage to begin with.

If government is to recognize the union of two people for legal and tax purposes, that union should be a civil union.  There should be no marriage in government.  Tax benefits and penalties should not apply to marriage, but civil unions should suffice for both the legal recognition of heterosexual and homosexual unions.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why polygamy is illegal either.  It's not the government's business how many people you marry as well.  I'm no fan of Mormonism or the other religions that have histories of polygamy, but if that's what they want to participate in, who am I to stop them?

Statistically, about 1 in 10 people are gay or lesbian, so on e might conclude that those numbers applied to repubs as well as anyone else.  Problem is that many of those repubs are in denial or are just plain hypocrites.


I live near the 2nd-Gayest city in America, Lakewood, Ohio.

My brother and half of my church members live there, and no...none of them are gay, but I know one who acts like a Metrosexual.

Well, I have to say I take the more Libertarian view on this (surprise, surprise).

I think the problem started when government and marriage united.  Marriage is generally a private religious institution and should have remained that way.  If a congregation wants to hold a gay marriage ceremony or if it refuses one, that's the business of that church, not the government.

To have the government intervene on marital matters violates the Separation of Church and State.  Many conservatives have shown their true big government colors by supporting things like gay marriage bans because this is a gross violation of the aforementioned principle.

Yet, this ban issue would have likely never happened if we had kept government out of marriage to begin with.

If government is to recognize the union of two people for legal and tax purposes, that union should be a civil union.  There should be no marriage in government.  Tax benefits and penalties should not apply to marriage, but civil unions should suffice for both the legal recognition of heterosexual and homosexual unions.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why polygamy is illegal either.  It's not the government's business how many people you marry as well.  I'm no fan of Mormonism or the other religions that have histories of polygamy, but if that's what they want to participate in, who am I to stop them?



I never thought I'd say it Mac, but I agree with you 100%.  I am married...but it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  It is more or less a civil union in our eyes.  The reason people get so up in arms about the gay marriage issue, is because they so closely relate marriage with religion.  They think that if gay marriage is legalized, churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples.  But that idea is ludicrous.  Religions would still have the right not to marry anyone they didn't want to.  I can't tell you how many people I have argued this with, and said "it's not like the Mormon church would suddenly have to allow gay people to get married in their temples."  And the people honestly didn't realize that.  Marriage and religion are so intertwined in our culture, it blinds people to basic logic.

I never thought I'd say it Mac, but I agree with you 100%.  I am married...but it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  It is more or less a civil union in our eyes.  The reason people get so up in arms about the gay marriage issue, is because they so closely relate marriage with religion.  They think that if gay marriage is legalized, churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples.  But that idea is ludicrous.  Religions would still have the right not to marry anyone they didn't want to.  I can't tell you how many people I have argued this with, and said "it's not like the Mormon church would suddenly have to allow gay people to get married in their temples."  And the people honestly didn't realize that.  Marriage and religion are so intertwined in our culture, it blinds people to basic logic.


Pretty much...  it's an irrational fear they often have, but then again, there are some countries where churches have been forced to do the gay ceremonies.  Sweden apparently was where some of this happened.

Then again, that's Sweden.  It would never happen in this country, because as soon as it did, the legislators or other officials involved would be ousted from office.

We may disagree on the race issue, but I think you and I probably have more in common than you'd expect.

The problem is definitely the mélange of church and state. As I said in my first post on this thread, I think that if two people want to unite into a single, legal household, that is the State's affair. We can call that a marriage if we want, but it's a legal issue. When two people want to be married religiously, that's a religious issue and should have no legal bearing or ramifications. I do not think clergymen should have the State's authority to unite two people legally. There lies the problem.

A clergyman who holds the sole State authority of legally uniting households has to exercise that authority without discriminating. Since many of them cannot do that in good conscience, they should not have that authority to begin with. That authority belongs to the State. Let people get married by a priest if they want to, but let that marriage be in no way legally recognised by the State. Legal union should always be a separate process, done before legal authorities and institutions. 

The problem is definitely the mélange of church and state. As I said in my first post on this thread, I think that if two people want to unite into a single, legal household, that is the State's affair. We can call that a marriage if we want, but it's a legal issue. When two people want to be married religiously, that's a religious issue and should have no legal bearing or ramifications. I do not think clergymen should have the State's authority to unite two people legally. There lies the problem.

A clergyman who holds the sole State authority of legally uniting households has to exercise that authority without discriminating. Since many of them cannot do that in good conscience, they should not have that authority to begin with. That authority belongs to the State. Let people get married by a priest if they want to, but let that marriage be in no way legally recognised by the State. Legal union should always be a separate process, done before legal authorities and institutions. 


This is sort of what I meant when I made the distinction between marr5iage and holy matrimony, although I see no reason why a religious shouldn't be empowered to perform marriage for the state just to save time.

The problem is definitely the mélange of church and state. As I said in my first post on this thread, I think that if two people want to unite into a single, legal household, that is the State's affair. We can call that a marriage if we want, but it's a legal issue. When two people want to be married religiously, that's a religious issue and should have no legal bearing or ramifications. I do not think clergymen should have the State's authority to unite two people legally. There lies the problem.

A clergyman who holds the sole State authority of legally uniting households has to exercise that authority without discriminating. Since many of them cannot do that in good conscience, they should not have that authority to begin with. That authority belongs to the State. Let people get married by a priest if they want to, but let that marriage be in no way legally recognised by the State. Legal union should always be a separate process, done before legal authorities and institutions. 


Well said.


This is sort of what I meant when I made the distinction between marr5iage and holy matrimony, although I see no reason why a religious shouldn't be empowered to perform marriage for the state just to save time.


I completely disagree.  Religion has too much power in this country as it is.  If it's important enough for people, they shouldn't have any problem having a separate ceremony in their place of worship.  But when legal rights are involved, the clergy needs to stay out.

If a country has an official church, then by all means, no reason to keep the clergy from exercising State-sanctioned authorities. But in a country where the State is lay and indiscriminate, it is difficult to conceive of allowing that authority to be given to people who we know will exercise it discriminately.

The State House voted for it but unfortunately, they didn't get enough votes to override Gov. Douglas' veto-that he has threatened to do. There may be another vote next week to try to override the veto.



Cat

The governor vetoed it but both the House & the Senate has over-ridden the veto.

VERMONT IS THE NOW THE FOURTH STATE IN THE UNION TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES!!!!! 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont_3




Cat

The governor vetoed it but both the House & the Senate has over-ridden the veto.

VERMONT IS THE NOW THE FOURTH STATE IN THE UNION TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES!!!!! 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont_3




Cat



Yep, it's official!!! :)

Hooray!  :D

The governor vetoed it but both the House & the Senate has over-ridden the veto.

VERMONT IS THE NOW THE FOURTH STATE IN THE UNION TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES!!!!! 


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont_3




Cat



And the first to do so without a court order.

And the first to do so without a court order.


That is the most significant part of the legislation.
:)