Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[jjnow]

Obviously Vemont was the first state with civil unions. But this is for full-fledged marriage benefits, no distinction between straight and gay.

The bill is in the hands of the state House now. The Senate approved it 26-4. Gov. Jim Douglas (R) has already said that he will veto the legislation. The bill must receive a minimum of 100 votes in the House to override that potential veto. There's really no doubt it will pass, they just have to get those 100 votes to ensure it can't be overturned.

From the AP:




Vermont gay marriage bill in hands of state House

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont is in the hands of state House lawmakers.

Last month the state Senate overwhelmingly approved similar legislation.

It's expected the bill will pass the House during the vote on Thursday, but it's unclear if it will receive a minimum of 100 votes, the margin needed to override a promised veto by Gov. Jim Douglas.

House leaders say they don't expect the voting to be along party lines so they're unsure of what the final count will be.

Lobbying has been heavy on both sides of the issue.

Supporters argue the legislation is needed to move forward Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law while opponents argue marriage should remain between a man and a woman.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD97ABQH00

[ponchi101]

But the issue is that you do not vote on rights. The rights of the people can not be granted on a vote because then, by logic, they could be taken away by another vote. You can vote on legislation, because that is a mechanism on how people rule themselves. But you can not vote on Rights, because as the Constitution/Bill of Rights say, they are self evident and unalienable. And, even if you were to grant that a vote can decide whether a group of people are given "rights", are you properly ensuring that the vote is held by people that are unbiased towards the results of the vote?
Take it to an extreme case: what if two hermaphrodites want to marry? Can they? Or better yet, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so, in any of the two possible configurations (same sex or different sex marriage)?

[craighickman]

But the issue is that you do not vote on rights.

This is why the courts end up "legislating."

[jjnow]

They fell five votes short of a 2/3 majority. 95-52. It's in the governor's hands now.

A sample of the dialogue:




Opponents of the measure spoke of their respect for its advocates. One, Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, D-South Burlington, expressed sadness at having concluded he was required by his church to vote no.

"I am a devout Catholic," Audette said. "My religion at this point would not want me to vote for this. I wish that I could and I hope for the best and I congratulate the people who are trying to get this through."

Only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed it before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships, as do a handful of other states.

Rep. Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport, said he feared that people who oppose same-sex marriage would have their beliefs impinged upon by the law. He said a Massachusetts court had ruled against parents who objected to their children being taught in a public school that gay and lesbian couples have "an acceptable lifestyle."

"You do not have the right to demand that we approve same-sex marriage, even if you pass a law saying it's the law of Vermont," Kilmartin said.

Rep. Rick Hube, R-Londonderry, said he favored limited government and maximizing the ability for people to choose their own lifestyles. He said he had voted against Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil union law in 2000 but had changed his thinking.

"This to me is not about religion, civil rights or the institution of marriage," Hube said. "This to me is about being true to a set of principles. People should have the opportunity to make choices and have control over their own lives."



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD97ANCJ00

[craighickman]

The legislature just overrode the governor's veto!!!!




Vt. House and Senate have voted to override the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill-- legalizing gay marriage in Vermont.

The Vt. Senate voted to override the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill. This morning, the Senate voted 23 to 5 to override that veto. Two senators were absent and Washington County Republican Bill Doyle who had initially supported same sex, this time voted to sustain the veto.

The Vt. House voted around 11 a.m. to override the veto. The vote was 100-49. 100 votes were needed. Rep. Sonny Audette of South Burlington did not vote. It wasn't clear whether he intended to vote to override. Audette opposed gay marriage but also opposed the governor's early announcement of a veto as "interference."

Governor Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, promptly vetoed the bill when it was delivered to his desk last night-- as promised.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10143110&nav=menu183_4_21

[jjnow]

Wow! So they convinced five more to come on board.

And I thought Snowe and Collins were the last two New England moderates alive.

Great stuff.

[craighickman]

Maybe someone can changes the title of this thread to

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

:overhead_clap:

[craighickman]

Wow! So they convinced five more to come on board.

And I thought Snowe and Collins were the last two New England moderates alive.

Great stuff.

Maine has a public hearing on gay marriage legislation at the end of the month.

It looks promising.

[Moose]

Maybe someone can changes the title of this thread to

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

:overhead_clap:

Done, Craig. Though to be honest, I look forward to the day that the sentence doesn't require the modifier "gay".

Actually, I look more forward to the day when this isn't even news.

[craighickman]

Done, Craig. Though to be honest, I look forward to the day that the sentence doesn't require the modifier "gay".

Actually, I look more forward to the day when this isn't even news.

I feel you.

This is the first state to provide marriage equality through the legislature. California tried twice, but Gov. Terminator voted it successfully both times.

Here's hoping Maine can be the second state to grant marriage equality in the legislature.

Two states in a week. Perhaps this is Prop 8 backlash?

[bea26]

Awesome.

[jjnow]

I feel you.

This is the first state to provide marriage equality through the legislature. California tried twice, but Gov. Terminator voted it successfully both times.

Here's hoping Maine can be the second state to grant marriage equality in the legislature.

Two states in a week. Perhaps this is Prop 8 backlash?
Agree across the board. This is big stuff in national history. The first legislature to actually represent everyone in their state where marriage is concerned.

Connecticut doesn't count with those "civil unions."

[garp6]

I'm extremely happy that this has passed but .... as someone earlier pointed out, basic rights should not be a state legislative matter.

Excuse my ignorance of American judicial process but isn't it high time the Supreme Court dealt with this? Of course with the conservative leaning of that court, I might be asking for something I don't want.

The argument quoted by a politician in an earlier post that he fears that schools will teach that gay lifestyles are acceptable was so silly. I can't believe he could say it with a straight face.

Good for you, Vermont!

[craighickman]

I'm extremely happy that this has passed but .... as someone earlier pointed out, basic rights should not be a state legislative matter.

Excuse my ignorance of American judicial process but isn't it high time the Supreme Court dealt with this? Of course with the conservative leaning of that court, I might be asking for something I don't want.

The argument quoted by a politician in an earlier post that he fears that schools will teach that gay lifestyles are acceptable was so silly. I can't believe he could say it with a straight face.

Good for you, Vermont!

People don't like compare same-sex marriage equality to interracial marriage equality, but I think as far as politics and jurisprudence in our nation's history go, they'll end up going the same way.

States will continue to provide equal rights locally, some won't, and then, when the time is right, a couple will sue their state, be denied their marriage and the case will eventually be heard before the Supreme Court, which will make marriage equality the law of the land, voiding all those individual state constitutional amendments and statutes that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

[craighickman]

Found this comment on Daily Dish:


It's snowing right now. There are so many things about this place that never cease to amaze me. Snow in April is one. The decency of so many people is another. My partner and I awakened this morning, resigned to what we felt was inevitable. I was too nervous to check the web for the news.

He called me to let me know: We still live in a magical place.

[Moose]

I'm extremely happy that this has passed but .... as someone earlier pointed out, basic rights should not be a state legislative matter.

Excuse my ignorance of American judicial process but isn't it high time the Supreme Court dealt with this? Of course with the conservative leaning of that court, I might be asking for something I don't want.

The argument quoted by a politician in an earlier post that he fears that schools will teach that gay lifestyles are acceptable was so silly. I can't believe he could say it with a straight face.

Good for you, Vermont!

Now is definitely not the time for John Roberts and the Supremes to deal with this, Garp. There's a guaranteed five votes against (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy) under today's configuration.