1 Why is this crap getting non-stop ACE worthy coverage?

2 States' rights, motherfuckas!

3 Why is this crap getting non-stop ACE worthy coverage?

Considering how passionate people are about this issue, figured it was big news.

4 Virginia is for Lovers.

Vermont is for Lovers...of the poop chute.

5 Is this the first actual legislature to do it?

Courts don't count.

6 I go back and forth on this issue... do I think there needs to be some sort of civil union something?  Yes.  Do I have a problem with calling it marriage, yes, to me that is like calling a cat a dog.  Marriage is a dude and a chick living in misery.  Do I think states should be free to have whatever the hell laws they want, sure.  We are a union of 50 states, what works well in N.Y. may not work well in Utah.  Do I think one state should be able to force something on another, no.  Do I have a problem with politicians and judges over ruling the will of the people, usually.  Just because the people want it does not make it right or constitutional.

7 Is this the first actual legislature to do it?

I think so.  Not sure how it was legalized in Connecticut, though.

8 Considering how passionate people are about this issue, figured it was big news.

Well, yes, but it would be better if it were accompanied by Blago!Skull.  God, I miss the Blago!Skull.

9 Well, yes, but it would be better if it were accompanied by Blago!Skull.  God, I miss the Blago!Skull.

He has a trial coming up.  I'm sure the Blago!Skull will get play then.  I hope it does.

10

Considering how passionate people are about this issue, figured it was big news. 

Passionately against, but only every other year not every post.  It's a useful crudgel against the left on election nights (if it's used), it does look to have gotten a bit more useful.

11

Hey this is the state with the only open socialist in the Senate.  What do you expect?  Maybe all the fruits will migrate to Vermont and get syrupy together.

Kemp

12

Yes, Iowa and Vermont should be the last two States to get Republican primaries.

13 In related news, Mike Huckabee has issued a press release calling for a boycott of maple syrup. Also, Congressman Barney Frank has declared "This is a victory for civil rights. Let's get the government out of the business of licensing marriage, and into finally licensing that young man in my basement who is trying to run a simple social club, where men can network, and stuff."

14

Great! That means they'll shut up now, right?

Right?

15 @ 13 ROTFLOL

16

It's all ghey, all day!

17 Considering how passionate people are about this issue, figured it was big news. - Posted by: Slublog at April 07, 2009 10:17 AM (qjKko)

I'm less passionate about the issue than I am about arguing about the issue. I am against gay marriage, but I don't intend on having one, so I don't get too worked about it.

But the meta-argument about the role of morality, of whether marriage is a right or a privilege, about the role of the courts, about whether society has the right to its institutions, that argument interests me.

(Personally, I think giving gay people marriage rights in the expectation that they will settle down into stable relationships makes as much sense as giving mortgages to people with bad credit in hopes of making them fiscally responsible.)

18 Vermont: Canada's Snaggletooth.

Just trying to make sure their maple syrup remains the condiment of choice for tossed salads.

19 I am still surprised (well, not really) that states have the jurisdiction to decide on the legal passage of gay marriage yet not on abortions. So called human right activist are the biggest hypocrites around. On related news, has the CA supreme court made a decision about Prop 8 yet?

20 I am perfectly OK with this.

Legislated, not adjudicated.

21

In related news, all words now have double meanings.

Up is down,

and Stop means go.

Men can marry men and call each other wife.

22 Hey, let's tamper with something that's been one of the basic building blocks of human civilization since the dawn of time!

What could go wrong?

23 Fine by me, as long as it's done this way instead of through judicial activism.

If you don't like it, remember: We wouldn't be in this position if our ancestors hadn't happily accepted yet another government power grab. 100+ years ago, it was between you, your significant [thingy] and your church who you got married to, not you and the state.

24

You know what?  It's lent, which means a lot of Catholics don't eat meat on fridays during this time.  They don't insist you don't eat meat either.

If two gay people want to declare their love for each other, and have a civil union, and want to call it marriage, I don't understand why people have a problem with that.  It doesn't change the sacred nature of a union between a male/female couple who has consecrated their union before man, and in the eyes of their God are calling it marriage as well.

Get over it, people.  Quit trying to run other people's lives.

25 Gay marriage is one of those who-gives-a-shit types things with me.

I don't see why any even cares.

26

Maybe Ace could sell his blog-ad space for wedding announcements.

27 I'm totally opposed to my daughter marrying a gay man. She'll probably do it anyway just to piss me off. She better damned well not come crying to me when he disses her China and flatware patterns though.

28 Yeppers.

Allowing the State to screw with marriage was the fist big mistake ... this new intrusion was made possible by that.

Get the government out of the marriage business. Exchange contracts, powers of attorney, and have your church ceremony. Make divorce/child support a contractual matter.

29 I am perfectly OK with this.

Legislated, not adjudicated.

But remember that Vermont's civil unions were originally created by the legislature in response to a judicial order -- it was, in theory, a compromise that was supposed to satisfy the court order without establishing same-sex marriage.

30 In the on-deck circle: Polygamy.

31 The folks in Vermont did it the right way, so congratulations to them.

32 Why do live and let live supporters try to ignore the financial consequences of gay marriage on society as a whole?  Whistling throught the graveyard.

33 Im not gay, so I guess I dont care. I dont see how I have a dog in the fight. However, what I dont understand is, if this was put to a vote of the people, how is it turned over by the court? It doesnt seem right to me. Otherwise, whats the point in having the vote? Enough lefties on the bench and they get what they want by legislation FROM the bench. Completely removes the reason or motivation TO vote.

34

But remember that Vermont's civil unions were originally created by the legislature in response to a judicial order -- it was, in theory, a compromise that was supposed to satisfy the court order without establishing same-sex marriage.

Yep.  And the Mass case was originally decided when state lawmakers asked the court if civil unions like the ones in Vermont would be good enough and the court said that seperate but equal wasn't.  They instructed the legislature to deal with the definition of marriage if they wanted a ban which they promptly ignored.  It's not really accurate to say that the Vermont case is the first one to be decided by a legislature.  The Mass legislature made a decision and that decision was to do nothing.

35 And after polygamy comes marrying your pet.

36

But remember that Vermont's civil unions were originally created by the legislature in response to a judicial order -- it was, in theory, a compromise that was supposed to satisf[ied] the court order without establishing same-sex marriage.

FTFY. The legislature was under no court obligation to provide gay marriage.

 

37 When and where in America will it first be legal for Dark Ages Muslims to marry children of whatever age they see fit? After all, we can't discriminate against a religion can we?

38

We're taking notes.  Lots of notes...

39 I had a hunch NAMBLA was on.

40 If you care about marriage, then you should care about gay marriage, because the point at which gay marriage becomes legal in a critical mass of states such that the rest of the nation if forced to legalize (or at least recognize) it, then marriage is dead, because it will have lost all meaning.

The reason is that there are two co-equal properties of marriage that define it:

1. It is hetero-normative, meaning it involves people of the opposite sex;

2. It is duo-normative, meaning it involves only two people.

Once a state removes the hetero-normative requirement, there is no reason to deny polygamists their appeal to remove the duo-normative requirement. There is no argument for removing one that can't be used to remove the other. Gays have argued for decades that the hetero-normative requirement is arbitrary and discriminatory; polgyamists can make the exact same argument.

It's the red rubber ball idea in action: You call something a "red rubber ball" because it is red, and it is rubber, and it is a ball. But if at some point you decide a "red rubber ball" can be green - changing the color requirement - then you have no grounds to refuse to let someone else change the material requirement. So now a "red rubber ball" can not only be green, but made of wood. But then you can't refuse to let someone make their ball a cube, and now your red rubber ball... is a green wooden cube.

This is a bad trend, and not one that's helped by people saying, "Well, it doesn't affect me, so I'm not going to worry about it." Unless you really don't care about marriage, and are fine with it being abolished as a legal and cultural institution, then you need to care about gay marriage, and figure out what you can do to stop it.

41 IMPEACH All those in the vermont legistatier that voted to over ride the veto

42 Posted by: Bad Outlaw at April 07, 2009 11:00 AM (VlRqb)

If you don't already understand the difference in how laws apply to two consenting adults and laws as applied to minors, I'm not sure there's any point in trying to explain it to you.

43 I want to marry my Mommy.

44 For all people against marriage equality you have to ask yourself how this effects you? It doesn't--except you could possibly get invited to more weddings. The sky didn't fall in MA, CT or Iowa and it won't fall in VT or anywhere else. Tale your energies and put it toward something meaningful.

45 It is a slippery slope, there are signs of this such as the couple that sued the hotel owner, who was Christian, for not renting them a room. Or the case of the couple that sued a Church that denied them a ceremony on Church grounds.

All with the argument of "if you want your tax exempt status, give us what we want". Its about humiliating the Church, and rubbing their noses in it. At what point does it end? That they should be able to "rent out" the Church after ceremonies to proselytize their views under threat of calling the IRS?

I have no problem with homosexuals at all, but this won't end until there is affirmative action in the Churches  to force a percentage of priests to be gay, and when there are classes in Middle School teaching the lifestyle.

This is a movement, not just a section of society, and as long as ground is given it will continue to be taken.

46

DrewM. at April 07, 2009 11:05 AM (hlYel)

How about an emacipated 16 year old?

47 emacipated = emancipated

48 For all people against marriage equality you have to ask yourself how this effects you?

Marriage is not between two people.

It's between two people and everybody else.

All the rights and privileges that will now be claimed  (legal status, accomodation, pension/Social Security benefits, death benefits, probate, ad infinitum) are things that do not rely on one partner to provide another, but upon the rest of society to provide to them.

That's how it affects others.

"Rich."

49 Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 11:05 AM (hlYel)

You sound like one of those really smart people with the crinkled eyebrows who might try to explain to Greg Griffith #40 why he's an idiot for thinking marriage might one day be legal for groups of people in excess of 2. Or, between a person and a non-person for that matter.

You obviously don't understand how laws can be changed, especially in this country with all of our sensitivities, selfishness, political weakness, myopia and insanity.

So drop your condescending attitude.

50 Posted by: TendStl at April 07, 2009 11:10 AM (WQ6tO)

DrewM would probably tell you the law can enter into and regulate the church that way.

Myopia, my friends.

51 So drop your condescending attitude.

Posted by: Bad Outlaw at April 07, 2009 11:15 AM (VlRqb)

impossible

52 @polynikes

Emancipated minors can usually get married with no problems already...at least in Virginia if I recall correctly...

53 OK - how about emaciated minors?

54 On the bright side, all the gays who are unhappy in their current state know where to live now.

55

Emancipated minors can usually get married with no problems already...at least in Virginia if I recall correctly...

You're right.  My point though is I see a 65 year old chickenhawk using this as a legal way to get his 16 year old boy companion.  He can divorce them at his leisure to make way for the next one.

56 Posted by: polynikes at April 07, 2009 11:10 AM (m2CN7)

Can't they marry already? Isn't that whole point of being 'emancipated' that you are no longer considered a minor?

Besides, minors can already marry in many states with parental consent.

57 Posted by: Bad Outlaw at April 07, 2009 11:15 AM (VlRqb)

Not surprisingly you are wrong about what I think.

Greg Griffith is right. That's why I don't support court imposed same sex-marriage. Courts have no right to redefine what marriage means. Legislature do however have the right to define what marriage means within their jurisdiction.

As for TendStl, yeah that's a huge problem. I don't like most anti-discrimination laws of any sort. I think individuals have the right to discriminate against whomever they chose in their private dealings. The government should not be forcing individuals to practice and enforce the state's concept of 'fairness'.

58 Posted by: Greg Griffith at April 07, 2009 11:04 AM (6cvPQ)

Tell 'em Greg.

59 I'm wondering if the inevitable pendulum swing back from recent events is going to be enough to undo some of it, or so strong it shakes things apart entirely.  It seems that traditional constructs are being jettisoned right and left.

60 "As for TendStl, yeah that's a huge problem. I don't like most anti-discrimination laws of any sort. I think individuals have the right to discriminate against whomever they chose in their private dealings. The government should not be forcing individuals to practice and enforce the state's concept of 'fairness'.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 11:28 AM (hlYel)"

After thinking about it a little more, I believe the overarching goal is the marginilization of the Church. Keep them in the news as being "mean spirited" with the eventual goal of making the Church irrelevant in societal politics. The same gameplan that was used against Rush, in order to win elections and eventually your policies enacted.

61 And as for those who are so happy about Vermont doing this "right"
I see they got the override in the house by 1 vote. I wonder what that rep, or the 4 or 5 they were short, got in return for their vote?
Still think that's "doing it right"?

When it comes to something as basic as changing the definition of a word like marriage, which is the only thing this law accomplishes in Vermont, it should be left to the people themselves.

62 DrewM, why is it "not surprisingly?"

Why can't you just accept that I was making a point about the potential for drastic long-term degeneration of law and order in the United States of America and stop being an asshole about it?

I never presumed to know what you think. I just said what you sound like, which was, essentially Bill Burton the Eyebrow King.

BTW - in #50, "can" was supposed to be "can't."

I know Griffith is right and I know that you're right about the current treatment of minors. I'm not the dumbass that you for no reason think I am.

63

Vermont is the only state to legalize gay marriage though the legislature and not under a court order.

More democratic than a judge's decree, less democratic than a referendum.

64

Polygamy was legal in the U.S. until 1862 when it was banned by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act sponsored by someone from you guessed it, Vermont. This law was blatantly unconstitutional but like most of the laws passed during this time Constitutionality was ignored.

 

We are doing that now in the age of El DuceII.

65

Why do live and let live supporters try to ignore the financial consequences of gay marriage on society as a whole?  Whistling throught the graveyard.

Because the financial consequences are not as grave as you make them out to be. First, we're not talking about a very large group of people. Second, we have long-established procedures for dealing with the financial consequences of marriage and divorce. Suggesting that somehow they just won't work when it comes to gay marriages is silly, not to mention it lacks evidence. Rather, the opposite appears to be true: Massachusetts and Connecticut have not experienced prohibitively negative financial consequences because of gay marriage.

66 Posted by: TendStl at April 07, 2009 11:38 AM (WQ6tO) #60

I think that's probably more accurate, too. See Europe. I don't know that European churches are all that different from American churches (especially Catholic parishes), but they're definitely more ignored because of all the marginalization and outcasting.

67 I don't like most anti-discrimination laws of any sort. I think individuals have the right to discriminate against whomever they chose in their private dealings. The government should not be forcing individuals to practice and enforce the state's concept of 'fairness'.

Wow, that's far more polite than my version.  My version goes that I support the right of those who wish to call me a hell bound bitch dyke since I demand the right to call them ignorant fucktards. 

Oh and let's not get into my opinion of modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence that makes any and everything effectively a public dealing not a private one. 

68 That is so gay.

69

The folks in Vermont did it the right way, so congratulations to them.

And by not intimidating people and breaking stuff when things don't go their way, Vermonters on both sides of this issue continue to do things the right way.

70 Posted by: Bad Outlaw at April 07, 2009 11:39 AM (VlRqb)

I apologize if I jumped the gun on your comment.

I've just been through this a number of times with people who are quick to equate gay marriage with people who want to screw their dogs or rape little kids. I find equating those things to be reprehensible and insulting to gays. I don't know a ton of gay people but the ones I do know find the idea of screwing kids as death worthy as any straight person I know.

71 And as for those who are so happy about Vermont doing this "right"
I see they got the override in the house by 1 vote. I wonder what that rep, or the 4 or 5 they were short, got in return for their vote?
Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 11:39 AM (Q1lie)

1 vote or 10 doesn't matter in any other vote, why should it some how be different for this one? Besides this wasn't even just some 50%+1 vote but a 2/3 override. That's the rules and it's an overwhelming majority of the House.

So yeah, they did it the right way. If people don't like it, there will be elections soon enough.

72

More democratic than a judge's decree, less democratic than a referendum.

I love meeting Republicans who sound like democrats.

73 OK, Drew. Me too. However, just because some gay people might find the very discussion "insulting" doesn't mean that it's not one that can be had. That's like Michelle Obama saying that a racist act was any act that was perceived to be racist by someone.

Sure, saying "All gay folks want to rape little boys" is just a dumb thing to say. However, commenting on the potential for a turn of legal events initiated partially by the gay rights legal activism movement (even, yes, by a series of accidents and "unintended consequences") should be fair game where intellectual honesty and openness is respected.

So - yeah - you did jump the gun on my comment and your apology is accepted.

Maybe now we can school some folks together.

74 1 vote or 10 doesn't matter in any other vote, why should it some how be different for this one?

You're shitting me right? Tell that to Arlen Spector about the Stimulus bill.
Yeah, the people of PA can vote him out. But it's a hell of a lot harder to reverse something than it is to prevent it. A new fucking highway exit shouldn't be the friggin reason the word marriage gets a new definition in a state.

75 Massachusetts and Connecticut have not experienced prohibitively negative financial consequences because of gay marriage.

It's only been on the books there how long?  Not a lot of widowed gays expecting survivor benefits yet.

76 Of course, I don't much like heterosexual "survivor benefits", either.  Just another reminder that there's still a privileged class and a second class.  "Gay marriage" doesn't change that, just expands the privileged class.

I really wish people would shut up about "marriage equality"; it's obvious they're not interested in real equality.

77 And by not intimidating people and breaking stuff when things don't go their way, Vermonters on both sides of this issue continue to do things the right way.

Are you kidding?
I've been insulted, demeaned, belittled and intimidated by the oh-so open minded Left in Vermont just for suggesting that Civil Unions aren't the moral equivalent of Jim Crow.  And that's just from my friends! Next week there will be some other issue that the Left is shrieking about and anyone who disagrees with them is Pure Evil.  It's always something.
I'm just about ready to shake the dust of this fucking echo chamber disguised as a state from my feet.

78

This vote is a victory for those homosexuals who have fought a decades-long fight to obtain the right to get hauled into court and have 50% of their net worth and an annuity awarded to someone who no longer wants to have sex with them.

Right.  Bit of a pyrrhic victory there, Nancy.

 

79 Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 11:56 AM (Q1lie)

We rightly beat up on liberals who want to move the goal posts all of the time or rewrite the rules when the don't win. I don't think that's a behavior we should be emulating.

80 However, commenting on the potential for a turn of legal events initiated partially by the gay rights legal activism movement (even, yes, by a series of accidents and "unintended consequences") should be fair game where intellectual honesty and openness is respected.
Posted by: Bad Outlaw at April 07, 2009 11:54 AM (VlRqb)

Absolutely.

Again, I apologize for thinking you were morally equating gay marriage to some truly reprehensible behaviors. 

This segues nicely into my personal hobby horse...Lawrence v. Texas. Decoupling morality from law making not only flys in the face of several thousand years of experience and history has done tremendous damage to our society. Unfortunately, I think we've seen only the tip of the iceberg.

81

A new fucking highway exit shouldn't be the friggin reason the word marriage gets a new definition in a state.

You don't like how the sausage gets made. That's not a new observation and it does not mean that the VT marriage law lacks legitimacy the way the court-imposed laws in MA and CT do.

82 Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 12:04 PM (hlYel)

Drew legally this is all fine and good. But that's it, at least it isn't a judges decision based on thin air. I'm not looking to rewrite the rules here. I'm just asking for the people's actual voice to be heard on such a fundamental issue.  That's always been my goal post and it always will be. States that passing a law preserving marriage are all well and good but until they put it into the hands of the people with a vote it don't mean jack.

83 Personally, I don't get the uproar over this.

Marriage is important and special to me because of it's personal value. I could give to shits if some fucktard in a robe (be it a priest or judge or whatever) waves their magic wand over me and my wife and says we get to fuck on a less regular basis and drive each other nuts for the rest of our natural lives. That's a contract between me and my wife, so I don't really need anyone else help in the matter.

So, if guy's in VA or anywhere else want to get married, who cares. They are going to live together and fuck each other anyhow, so why not let them have the benefit of a payday once one of them drops.

Joking aside, I have always viewed marriage as part business contract. When I formed my company, I had shareholders. We had a vested interest in the success of the company and a agreements about what to do when the company relationship ended, either by choice or death of the company. There was nothing gay about it. Legally, that's all marriage is; a contract of who is entitled to what. Religious and other considerations are irrelevant to the legal aspects of marriage.

So, if two guys, gals, whomever want to get legally married, why is this a problem? No one is asking a church to recognize it or for anti-gay people to accept it's morality. Heck, my family and friends would probably think that I was disturbed and immoral if I decided to marry a legless 18 year old that I adopted through Sally Stuthers, but they can't legally stop me. Besides, I love her... flies, distended belly and all.

84

You don't like how the sausage gets made. That's not a new observation and it does not mean that the VT marriage law lacks legitimacy the way the court-imposed laws in MA and CT do.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 07, 2009 12:09 PM (NWnFp)

The marriage law in VT is perfectly legitimate. It's not about how the sausage gets made, it's the idea that the definition of marriage is just so much sausage.

85 I'm not looking to rewrite the rules here.
Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 12:15 PM (Q1lie)

A quick perusal of the Vermont Constitution and the intertubes doesn't turn up any provision for a referendum. Saying one needs to be held on this issue strikes me as looking to rewrite the rules.

86 This segues nicely into my personal hobby horse...Lawrence v. Texas.

Oh look.  There's the eye twitch I get whenever I think about that case.  It's not quite as bad as the one from Kelo but close.

87 Drew, there is no initiative system in VT. That type of direct democracy is much more common in the West.

88 Posted by: alexthechick at April 07, 2009 12:27 PM (SHHaV)

God help me, I'm such a geek that I find it hawt that a woman has an aversion to a Supreme Court case.

I was on a date with a very liberal lawyer one time who was vehemently pro-choice. Nothing new or interesting about that but I was totally appaled by the fact that I had to explain the difference between Roe and Casey to her.

I can live with the bad politics but the idiocy was a total turn off.

89

Oh look.  There's the eye twitch I get whenever I think about that case.

For Drew, it's not so much a twitch as a full-body convulsion.

90 A quick perusal of the Vermont Constitution and the intertubes doesn't turn up any provision for a referendum. Saying one needs to be held on this issue strikes me as looking to rewrite the rules.
Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 12:21 PM (hlYel)

How? The VT Constitution doesn't have a provision for a binding referendum, but there's nothing stopping the state from having a non-binding one. And there is nothing stopping the state from a vote on a amendment.

If people seriously think a word like Marriage should be changed to suit current circumstances then the time has come to put it in your Continuation and say exactly what it is.

91 Let them all tea bag each other to death, ass bandits....

92

So yeah, they did it the right way. If people don't like it, there will be elections soon enough.

So far, I've kinda played both sides of this coin; now for the edge:

Vermonters who don't like what their elected representatives did can vote them out. But can they install legislators who'll just repeal this law? Or can it be repealed by referendum? Or is this law permanent? (I seriously don't know.)

Because if this law can be eventually undone, then what's the point?

93 Did anyone answer that emaciated monors should be fed?

94 Posted by: FireHorse at April 07, 2009 12:49 PM (5KNeJ)

That's the whole problem with using these processes to decide such a fundamental issue. The only real way to decide it is to have an amendment and have the people vote on it. It requires 2/3s to pass. If it fails the law stays as it is, a man and a woman.

95 I would like to ask a question for those who think an amendment is not Conservative or Republican a question.

Heller upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms but does not affect a states right to ban explosives. What if the 2/3s of VT legislature passed and the Gov signed a law stating that a gun is an explosive. Would anybody hear say that's all honkey dorey? Or would you be advocating a Federal Amendment to define what a gun is?

96

And if they don't? say buh-bye to their tax exempt status, and be prepared to be investigated for civil rights violations. Oh, and those uncomfortable passages in the Old Testament? modify those.

 

No tax exempt status for churches  , is that a bad thing ? It's ok with me.

97 At least the legislature is closer to an actual vote of the people (somehow I expect if it was put to a real vote, the people of Vermont wouldn't support gay marriage, but at least representatives did this instead of a bunch of robed lawyers.

And I don't have a problem with churches losing tax exempt status, I have a problem with them doing so because they disagree with the government on an ethical and religious issue.

98 Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 12:36 PM (Q1lie)

Why is this case so exceptional? I get you and others feel strongly about it but will all due respect, that's not sufficient.

Why not have a national referendum (binding or not) on whether or not to go to war? To me that's a far more consequential action.

Now you can say the Constitution gives that power to Congress but the Vermont Constitution gives the power to make laws to the legislature of Vermont.

Again, this one off carve out simply seems to be an attempt to keep trying until you get the outcome you want.

99 Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 01:06 PM (Q1lie)

Personally, I'd go to state or federal court to have the law ruled a violation of the 2nd Amendment (and of the Vermont Constitution).

There's no state or federal constitutional violation involved changing who is included in marriage laws. There is one in circumventing 2nd Amendment rights by playing with the meaning of the words "bear arms".

100 Sorry, this just makes me sick. Why is it that destroying the fabric of what our country was, bit by bit isn't a big deal to people? We used to have morals and standards in this country, and it is slipping away. Frankly, gays getting "married" is just one piece of it. My daughter got married at 17, she got pregnant on purpose so that she and her boyfriend could push his parents and us into letting them marry. It was not easy. He was also 17, so not only did she have to have a parent present, so did he. Then she had to show proof from the state of GA Health Dept. that was no older than 3 days old that she was still pregnant. Then we had to go before a judge, and he had to decide if they warranted a marriage license. Oh, they had to wait a week from when they applied for a license to the time they could come back to the courthouse and go before the judge. So now, it's harder for young people, who, not that many years ago, would have been the norm for their age getting married, than it is for gays to get married? I guess if you find this great, and don't mind that nothing is a sacred thing in this country anymore, then we will go down this slippery slope. And that's what it is.

101 DrewM,
This case isn't exceptional at all. What's exceptional is that legislators all across this country and in Washington have bought into the idea that you can redefine a word without any vote by the people directly simply to carve out the outcome them want as there is no way to convince people otherwise.

I am against a national referendum on anything. But I would be all for requiring an amendment if the courts and some legislators decided to say war is now the general welfare, since it employs so many,  and we will promote it whenever we can.

I'm not trying to carve anything out. When it comes to something as fundamental as this the only people who should speak for the people are themselves.
Nobody ever envisioned something as crazy as redefining a word like marriage or we would already have referendums for everything. It's friggin lunacy.

102 Posted by: di butler at April 07, 2009 01:18 PM (qPIRP)

This is the definition of irony. A guy lauding a pregnant minor, while decrying immorality and the state of marriage. 
Honestly, I'll take gay marriage over underage pregnancy any day. 

103 Honestly, I'll take gay marriage over underage pregnancy any day.

That's like saying I'd rather have my balls cut off than crushed in a vice. I'll take neither, thank you.

104 What's exceptional is that legislators all across this country and in Washington have bought into the idea that you can redefine a word without any vote by the people directly simply to carve out the outcome them want as there is no way to convince people otherwise.
Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 01:26 PM (Q1lie)

Sure they can. Legislators redefine words all the time (technically they change the application of certain legal provisions all the time, but that's what they are really doing here).


I'm not trying to carve anything out. When it comes to something as fundamental as this the only people who should speak for the people are themselves.

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight but those two sentences are in direction contradiction. You say you don't want to carve anything out but then you say in some cases the people have to speak directly. Well, you are advocating carving out an extra-constitutional procedure for this 'fundamental' (by your definition) issue.

The Constitution of Vermont is the expression of how the people want to organize their government and exercise their sovereignty. They are free to change that arrangement should they see fit but until then, the supporters of this bill have followed the rules and met all the requirements necessary to bring this law into effect.

105 Rocks-

>>This case isn't exceptional at all. What's exceptional is that legislators all across this country and in Washington have bought into the idea that you can redefine a word without any vote by the people directly simply to carve out the outcome them want as there is no way to convince people otherwise.

I'm not sure if you know this or not but what you are describing is the exact process that was supposed to have taken place in MA. After the SC ruling, people collected more than the required number of signature to put the issue of marriage on the ballot as a referendum. What was necessary after that was a minimum vote of 50 legislators in two votes. The legislature in MA voted instead to adjourn rather than even taking up the issue.

People keep insisting that the case in MA was a case of judicial overreach but it was in only the narrowest of ways. What it really was was an abdication of duty by the legislature which deprived the people of a right to vote. The people followed the rules, the state did not.

>>Massachusetts and Connecticut have not experienced prohibitively negative financial consequences because of gay marriage.

***Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance.

http://tinyurl.com/demgcl

Stay tuned. You may soon get to pay for this no matter where you live.

And don't worry, if they lose this one they will be back again. They are always back again.

106

Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance.

Oh, I see. The prohibitively negative financial consequences will be treating spouses (under state law) as spouses (under federal law)...for purposes of pensions (paid for out of salary) and health insurance (also paid for out of salary). Yeah, I'm thinking you're playing quite fast and loose with the idea of what is "prohibitively negative financial consequences."

107

 Yeah, I'm thinking you're playing quite fast and loose with the idea of what is "prohibitively negative financial consequences."

Of course you do.  It doesn't fit your criteria. 

The gay marriage law was passed in MA with the legislature actively going against the will of the people and now gay couples are suing to overturn the DOMA which will set precedent for the country but I'm playing fast and loose with your terms.

So tell me, Gabe, exactly what would you consider prohibitively negative financial consequences?   It is your term so I'm sure you have it well defined.

108

JackStraw, polynikes implied that there would be grave financial consequences for society from gay marriages. I'm saying there will not and that there is no evidence to support that view.

You're telling me that a spouse being eligible for health benefits on his spouse's federal plan (presumably the spouse is a federal employee) is going to be a real problem? You do know that health benefits are paid for out of salary, right?

Similarly, you expect me to believe that allowing a spouse to access his spouse's federal pension is going to be a real financial problem? That we are "whistling past the graveyard" as polynikes put it? You do know that pensions are accumulated out of salary, right?

The loss to society in both cases will be some lost tax revenue (health and pensions are paid pre-tax for federal employees, I think).

I'm willing to believe there are financial consequences from marriage. That's part of the reason gays want them. That those financial consequences represent a dire threat to society is farcical.

109

The loss to society in both cases will be some lost tax revenue (health and pensions are paid pre-tax for federal employees, I think).

And now that I think about it, that's arguably not even a loss to society. It's a loss to government, and we shouldn't conflate the two.

110 God help me, I'm such a geek that I find it hawt that a woman has an aversion to a Supreme Court case.

I'm sure that the stompy boots don't hurt.  There's a family legend that when I was 8 or so I gave a boy a math test before I agreed that he could be my bf.  I have no memory of this but my parents, his parents and assorted friends swear this is true. 

I was on a date with a very liberal lawyer one time who was vehemently pro-choice. Nothing new or interesting about that but I was totally appaled by the fact that I had to explain the difference between Roe and Casey to her.

Yeah, I've had similar experiences.  Smart is sexy.  Sexy is sexy, too, of course, but if there's active ignorance it knocks off a point or two. 

111

You know, I don't think the "religion of peace" is going to look to kindly on this shit. 

Just saying, we don't want to upset "those people". 

Think about it VT.  Do you want the Mohammedans of the world to come up there and kick your asses?

Better reconsider.

Kemp

112 Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 01:36 PM (hlYel)

Drew who is arguing with anything they did it Vermont? Did you hear me say it was illegal or done incorrectly? If they think changes the meaning of a word like marriage is just another days business in the world of law then we really are in a world of hurt.

As far as the rest I don't expect anybody to be forced to do these things. I would think judges and legislators would want such a thing. We do get referendums and amendments all the time. They are part of the procedure. If marriage isn't fundamental then I don't know what is. What exactly do they get to redefine next?
Does Hate become "merely not liking very much or being a downer"?

113 And now that I think about it, that's arguably not even a loss to society. It's a loss to government, and we shouldn't conflate the two.

What happens to society when you take even more money away from everyone that they would have been able to use to care for their own families and loved ones? Good, you figure?

Seems to me that it's unbelievably arrogant to decide that every single major religion and ethical system in the history of the world was all wrong and modern leftist culture is right about homosexuality. As if the modern man is so much clearer and more capable in ethical issues than nearly all of mankind before him.

But then that's the hubris of the "progressive."

114

My version goes that I support the right of those who wish to call me a hell bound bitch dyke

But are you a hawt hell bound bitch dyke? I demand pictures. (I am surprised no one else posted this reply first). :-)

115 Drew who is arguing with anything they did it Vermont? Did you hear me say it was illegal or done incorrectly
Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 02:26 PM (Q1lie)

Not procedurally but you certainly seem to be arguing that it's illegitimate for the legislature to do this. Maybe not in practical terms but you certainly seem to have a philosophical disagreement with their right to do it.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Personally, I think they have the legal and moral right to do this. Whether it's wise or not is a separate issue but I don't think they are exceeding their mandate as a courts have with this issue.

116

Does Hate become "merely not liking very much or being a downer"?

They have already done that out here. "Hate" is anything that opposes the Gay Leftist agenda.Gabe would be self-hater on many issues.

117

Similarly, you expect me to believe that allowing a spouse to access his spouse's federal pension is going to be a real financial problem? That we are "whistling past the graveyard" as polynikes put it? You do know that pensions are accumulated out of salary, right?

Yea, I expect you as a lawyer understand exactly why DOMA was written and passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Clinton.  This is exactly what it was desinged to prevent.  And now, once again, gay activists are suing for a right they don't have and that doesn't exist. 

And who, pray tell, do you think pays for those salaries?  As new beneficiary classes are instituted, do you think that the total pool will shrink or the pool will be made bigger with our tax dollars?  Remember, this is the government we are talking about.  You do know that they have never taken a willing cut on anything, right?  New tax dollars will have to be allocated to cover the cost of a new entitled class if this passes and that means we pay more.  The same thing will happen in the private sector.  If a bigger pool of dollars is required for a new entitlement, either the pool will get bigger through increased product costs or jobs will be cut.  And lawsuits, endless lawsuits, will definitely follow.  They always do.

The time and energy that has already been spent on the gay marriage issue is enormous.  Court case after court case, vote after vote.  You seem to think that is all trivial.  I don't.  And I know that gay rights activists constantly take the court route with activist judges because they constantly lose in the court of public opinion.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, I've said that repeatedly.  But I do have a problem with the tactics of the gay marriage acitivists and to think we haven't already spend absurd amounts of time and money on this issue and won't be spending more for decades to come is beyond farcical.  If gays want marriage benefits, they should spend their own time and money seeking what is in essence a new right by winning in the court of public opinion.  But they won't because they can't and they will go right on suing because they can always count on judges and weak legislatures to invent new rights.

All of this costs money.

118 Drew who is arguing with anything they did it Vermont? Did you hear me say it was illegal or done incorrectly? If they think changes the meaning of a word like marriage is just another days business in the world of law then we really are in a world of hurt.

This is why we elect representatives. If you prefer changing law by ballot initiative, there are several states you could move to so that you can practice your political preference.

119

Similarly, you expect me to believe that allowing a spouse to access his spouse's federal pension is going to be a real financial problem? That we are "whistling past the graveyard" as polynikes put it? You do know that pensions are accumulated out of salary, right?

Does Social Security ring a bell? Or various Public Employee Retirement System plans. There is no assurance that pensions are accumulated out of salary alone.

120

And now, once again, gay activists are suing for a right they don't have and that doesn't exist. 

The right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation has been given protection in many areas of law, including education, housing, employment, and banking. It is well-established, though it has not been extended to all areas of law. That you believe it does not exist does not change the facts. And I take your "it doesn't exist" as shorthand for "it isn't protected by U.S. law", since, of course, rights exist entirely independent from any privileges granted or protections provided by law.

The time and energy that has already been spent on the gay marriage issue is enormous.  Court case after court case, vote after vote.  You seem to think that is all trivial.  I don't.  And I know that gay rights activists constantly take the court route with activist judges because they constantly lose in the court of public opinion.

I don't think it's trivial. I think what use to have courts if it's too expensive to use them?

121 Maybe not in practical terms but you certainly seem to have a philosophical disagreement with their right to do it.

No I have a philosophical disagreement with the idea that this is just a part of governing. Maybe civil unions are but this isn't. The only thing this law changed was how the govt would define and use the word marriage. This isn't tweaking things, this is messing with the gears. To do that you call in the mechanic, just to be on the safe side.  Especially when the car actually belongs to the mechanic.


Personally, I think they have the legal and moral right to do this.

Personally, I think they have the legal right but not the moral right. I don't think it's moral to fall back on the idea that it's really tough to undue something to justify your desire to change it. Which is what lawmakers in the states that have done this so far are relying on.

122

This is why we elect representatives. If you prefer changing law by ballot initiative, there are several states you could move to so that you can practice your political preference.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 07, 2009 02:48 PM (Jp+mD)

You are absolutely shitting me right? You are arguing federal benefits out one side of your mouth here and telling people to find a state that suits them out the other?

I don't  prefer changing law by ballot initiative. I prefer leaving the definitions of words like I don't know Water or Gold or Marriage as what they always were.
especially when so many people seem to think it's vital or something. If you want to come up with something new, get a new word.

123

This isn't tweaking things, this is messing with the gears. To do that you call in the mechanic, just to be on the safe side.  Especially when the car actually belongs to the mechanic.

Vermonters (?) are welcome to amend their constitution to overrule the legislature, as have the citizens of many states. Are you suggesting that there are some issues so important they can only be determined by ballot initiative? What happened to federalism? Let the states that want direct democracy have it; for the rest, not.

124

You are absolutely shitting me right? You are arguing federal benefits out one side of your mouth here and telling people to find a state that suits them out the other?

Federal employees and their spouses are eligible for federal benefits. You have a problem with that?

And damn skippy I say move to a state that suits. Frankly, I'm shocked by what I've read in this thread today. We've got conservative suggesting that we should abandon federalism. We've got others suggesting that we should keep cases out of the courts because it's just too expensive to have 'em. To borrow a phrase from a friend: "I'd cut nearly everything government does but running a judicial system is actually a fundamental role of government."

125 And Gabe you think this is so great I would ask again. If the people throw these bums out and the new bums pass a law repealing this law and the governor signs it you okay with that? I mean it was done right, right?
If the VT court then says "Well, you made it a fundamental right so you can't go repealing it" then that would  be wrong, right?

126 Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 03:09 PM (Q1lie)

I simply don't get the distinction you are making. There's no provision in the Vermont Constitution to decide what is too important for the legislative process to handle (beyond the limits already built into it. Marriage and its definition isn't one of them) and that only the people can decide.

You obviously think this is so fundamental that for it to be morally legitimate, the people must be heard. What standard, beyond your personal preferences, is used to measure which issue qualifies for this extra level of moral authority? What other issues might people think that's true for? You might not like how that turns out.

Again, it's clear to me that the legislature has all the authority (legal and moral) it needs to do this on behalf of the people of Vermont.

127 I'm sure that the stompy boots don't hurt.
Posted by: alexthechick at April 07, 2009 02:23 PM (SHHaV)

That's disappointing. Oh wait you mean don't hurt the sex appeal, I get it now.

There's a family legend that when I was 8 or so I gave a boy a math test before I agreed that he could be my bf. 

Wait a minute, I was told there would be no math in this fakey internet courtship.

128 ^{"Frankly, I'm shocked by what I've read in this thread today. We've got conservative suggesting that we should abandon federalism."}

Yeah, I'm shocked, too.  We've got conservatives suggesting that we upend one of the most fundamental building blocks of human civilization, an institution that has remained man-woman for thousands upon thousands of years, even through society's like ancient Rome, whilst in the same breath admitting that "not many" same-sex couples would actually participate.

129 Federal employees and their spouses are eligible for federal benefits. You have a problem with that?

Nope, not as long as they define a spouse one half of a married couple.
The definition of marriage remaining unchanged of course.
Is that what you are talking about?
Then you're suggestion to move is just fine. Or maybe just stick around and change things back. Uphill battle, but I don't have a whole hell of a lot to do anyway.

130

If the people throw these bums out and the new bums pass a law repealing this law and the governor signs it you okay with that? I mean it was done right, right? If the VT court then says "Well, you made it a fundamental right so you can't go repealing it" then that would  be wrong, right?

I would be "okay" with that, to the extent it is lawful and their right as Americans. It would be "done right." On the other hand, I would not vote to repeal the law or amend the Vermont constitution to overrule it.

Yeah, I'm shocked, too. 

I'm serious, Kensington. When conservatives said that gay marriage would bring down our society I thought they were just trying to warn people. I didn't realize they were making a threat.

131 You obviously think this is so fundamental that for it to be morally legitimate, the people must be heard. What standard, beyond your personal preferences, is used to measure which issue qualifies for this extra level of moral authority?

Sanity and common sense.

What other issues might people think that's true for? You might not like how that turns out.

I probably wouldn't, but I'd accept it.

132

Nope, not as long as they define a spouse one half of a married couple.
The definition of marriage remaining unchanged of course.
Is that what you are talking about?

Traditionally, states have defined marriage and set limitations on who can receive marriage licenses (e.g. some states allow first cousin marriages (CA), some don't (OK)). States issue marriage licenses, not the federal government. The federal government's role until DOMA was merely to recognize the state marriage licenses.

 DOMA was and is an abrogation of federalism because it says, "The national government is not going to recognize the lawfully issued marriage licences of certain states." It establishes it's own marriage requirement, taking what was traditionally a state role and making it a national one. That's what I'm talking about.

133 Sanity and common sense.
Posted by: Rocks at April 07, 2009 03:43 PM (Q1lie)

My experience has been it's tough to get 3 or 4 reasonably like minded people to agree on the meaning of terms like that. I don't think that works as a societal benchmark (hence the need for constitutions in the first place).

Think of all the gun regulations that are sold as 'common sense'. Personally, I get scared when people like Obama use relative terms like those and 'fairness' as a political goal. Sounds good in theory but the practice can be scary as hell.

134 ^{"I'm serious, Kensington. When conservatives said that gay marriage would bring down our society I thought they were just trying to warn people. I didn't realize they were making a threat."}

Gabe, the consequences are not as grave as you think, mainly because we're not talking about a very large group of people [who are making the "threat" you so snarkily perceive].

135 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 07, 2009 03:46 PM (Jp+mD)

Let me ask you a question about DOMA's application and it's role in a federalist scheme.

Doesn't it really protect the federalist status quo? I'm all for the federalist approach to marriage but if one or two (or 4 states) adopt same sex-marriage and then through the Full Faith and Credit Clause or tradition in the case of federal marriage benefits, force the federal government and other states to accept it, hasn't federalism been short circuited?

Many states haven't signed on for same-sex marriage and many have explicitly rejected it, why should they be forced to accept it because MA, VT and other have accepted it? That doesn't strike me as a federalist position.

I don't really have an opinion on this yet, I'm just starting to think through it myself.

136 DOMA was and is an abrogation of federalism because it says, "The national government is not going to recognize the lawfully issued marriage licenses of certain states." It establishes it's own marriage requirement, taking what was traditionally a state role and making it a national one. That's what I'm talking about.

Okay, then we have a problem here don't we. You can't recognize "gay marriage" federally with benefits for Mass and not Miss and they aren't legally married if they reside in Miss. If DOMA goes then what?
Marriage isn't in the Constitution. (chiefly because it was so well defined it would be redundant)
So, it would seem it needs to be there right? Or does SCOTUS just get to make up something on their own like Roe? Or will we amend the Constitution to include what was left out but is so clearly needed now?
 

Hell, you get a chance to vote against it, which is more than anybody in Vermont ever got.

137 Let me just add my initial reaction is that these marriages have to recognized by other states (the federal government is different, it not being subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I think).

That said, I do think the sex of the partners is fundamentally different than the cousins argument and I'd like to find a way to protect states that don't want to recognize them from having to. A more absurd case would be a gay couple gets married in VT, moves to TX and has more benefits than a gay couple born and raised their who doesn't want to travel just to get married.

I'm just not sure a coherent legal case can be build to carve out that exemption.

138 Posted by: DrewM. at April 07, 2009 03:50 PM (hlYel)

Drew,
I'm not looking for this to be enshrined into law as a process. Some things are Truths and are Self Evident. This was so true for the definition of marriage at the time of our founding only a lunatic would have thought they needed to include it.
Politicians used to appeal to the people because it was in their best interests, politically. Now that flat out just don't give a shit.

139

Doesn't it really protect the federalist status quo? I'm all for the federalist approach to marriage but if one or two (or 4 states) adopt same sex-marriage and then through the Full Faith and Credit Clause or tradition in the case of federal marriage benefits, force the federal government and other states to accept it, hasn't federalism been short circuited?

DOMA has two parts. The first defines "marriage" under federal law as between one man and one woman, so that the national government does not have to recognize the determinations of state governments about who gets marriage licenses. That's the abrogation of federalism, because that determination traditionally rested with the states and the federal government itself does not issue marriage licenses. (Although, now that I think about it, does the U.S. government issue marriage licenses on military bases overseas?)

The second part of DOMA attempted to prevent what you write about, Drew. It provides:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

I don't know if that section has ever been challenged as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but it seems to me it was specifically directed at what you're talking about. To the extent it rearranges the relationship between the states--without them even getting a vote on it--the second part seems to me to be a radical departure from our constitutional scheme.

The states have always had some defense against overbroad application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause because they only have to recognize those acts, records, and proceedings which are not contrary to their own public policy. That suggests to me that the answer is that states need merely declare by legislation or amendment that gay marriage is contrary to the public policy of the state to keep from having to give recognition to their fellow states' marriage licenses.

140

Okay, then we have a problem here don't we. You can't recognize "gay marriage" federally with benefits for Mass and not Miss and they aren't legally married if they reside in Miss. If DOMA goes then what?

You're not making a necessary distinction between federal and state benefits. Hypothetically, if the first section of DOMA were to fall, as discussed above, the federal government having to recognize Mass. marriage licence for a gay couple for the purpose of federal benefits does not mean that Miss. would have to recognize it for the purpose of state benefits.

This is touching on the FF&C situation that Drew is talking about. And yes, Drew, that is an intersting thought that a gay couple that marries in VT and moves to TX would have more federal benefits than a similarly situated gay couple that lives in TX (but hasn't traveled to get a marriage). I can see the Equal Protection lawsuits already.

141 That's the abrogation of federalism, because that determination traditionally rested with the states and the federal government itself does not issue marriage licenses.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 07, 2009 04:16 PM (Jp+mD)

You see that doesn't bother me on federalist grounds in the least. Just because the federal government chose not to something on it's own doesn't mean it's forever foreclosed on doing it forever.

I think the federal government requiring (by statute at least) that states define marriage to mean a or b would be a violation of federalist principles but defining it for it's own use (such as employee benefits, social security, etc) seems well within it's scope of authority.

The states have always had some defense against overbroad application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause because they only have to recognize those acts, records, and proceedings which are not contrary to their own public policy.

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. I apologize for not being fully up to speed on my Full Faith and Credit Clause jurisprudence (I'd put a smiley face here but I hate them).

Precedents like that strike me as a valid defense for states that don't recognize same-sex marriages.

142 The right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation has been given protection in many areas of law, including education, housing, employment, and banking. It is well-established,

Courts do not create true rights. They can invent all kinds of false, nonexistent rights they want but that doesn't somehow give them validity.

143 How on earth did this sacred institution of marriage, upon which civilizations have been created for thousands and thousands of years manage to establish itself before American democracy entered the picture....?

Sorry, but if you want me to take the word (and its inherent world-altering magical powers) as seriously as some here portend, then we all might want to give straight folks a refresher course on the subject matter as well.

Divorce rates and Vegas and all...

144 Posted by: Chad at April 07, 2009 04:31 PM (ANCHK)

What he said.

145

Courts do not create true rights. They can invent all kinds of false, nonexistent rights they want but that doesn't somehow give them validity.

Christopher Taylor, the protections I listed against sexual orientation discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, education, and banking, were created by the legislature, not the courts.

146 I don't get this Gay marriage thing.
1. Most Gays I know don't want to get married.
2. Many straights I know don't want to get married (males) but are pressured into by their future spouses (females)..
3. All above board Religions do not recognize Gay Marriage. The word marriage connotates a religious union.
4. If gays do get the "right" to marry, there will still be homo-marriage and hetero-marriage. You are simply hypenating the word. Like African-American.
5. The Country has a social stake in promoting hetero-marriage over civil unions. That is procreation. The Society needs kids.

147

5. The Country has a social stake in promoting hetero-marriage over civil unions. That is procreation. The Society needs kids.

I don't believe a gay couple that can't marry will suddenly split and become kid having hetero's.

148 Vermont where men wear lace panties and sound like Barney Frank.

149 Wow, through the legislature -- good for them! 

150 Well, if it's to be done, this is exactly how it should be done.

And that an extremely liberal state, like Vermont, would be the first, is also how it should be.

Just as an extremely conservative state's legislature should be allowed to illegalize abortions.

That way, if the citizens don't like it, they can vote out the people who enacted the legislation, and vote in people to repeal it.

This whole representative democracy system is so cool; some country should actually try it.

151 Heatherradish #75

So it would be okay if the gays just  married a woman (and lied to everyone by the way, are you okay with constant lying?) and died, right?  Remember that the cost of survivor benefits would actually be greater since women have a greater life expectancy then men (and greater health care costs in later life).

In other words -- unless you are honestly advocating a second class of citizen, certain people you don't want to get married (remember you don't want gays to marry a woman either since that would cost society more) your financial argument does not stand up to even cursory examination. 

There would be no difference in cost -- unless they marry no one at all.
David

(BTW, this site's comment system sucks -- I had no unbroken text and I couldn't even copy the previous post WTF)

152 Just as an extremely conservative state's legislature should be allowed to illegalize abortions.

Which of course they can't, because Roe redefined another word, Life, for us and not even clear scientific eveidence which is supposed to help us poor persons to be so rational will ever abrogate the right of a woman to define it for herself.
Life...Marriage....what's next maybe Person?
It's seems awfully restricting to limit Person to actually people you know?
What about pets and robots? People really do LOVE them you know?
Who are you to judge? It's not hurting anybody.

Yeah this process is working great. Way to go Vermont!

153 How on earth did this sacred institution of marriage, upon which civilizations have been created for thousands and thousands of years manage to establish itself before American democracy entered the picture....?

Sorry, but if you want me to take the word (and its inherent world-altering magical powers) as seriously as some here portend, then we all might want to give straight folks a refresher course on the subject matter as well.

Divorce rates and Vegas and all...

Posted by: Chad at April 07, 2009 04:31 PM (ANCHK)

Well religious institutions and beliefs established it. They also were allowed to adminsiter it and end it according to their rules and free of the state. Is that what is being advocated here? Will people who decide to create a contract instead be allowed to have it solely admistered by their church if that's what the parties agree to? 

Your right, marriage has become cheap, so has Life it seems. Unless the state wants to kill ya. How's that working out?

154 Some would argue that marriage was a contract established back in the days of knights and serfdoms as a means to grab land. My daughter marries your son and we merge kingdoms, or something of the sort. Personally, I don't see that as anything different than a Playboy Bunny getting hitched to a millionaire so she can make sure her chihuahua has Versace booties for when it drops below 72 degrees in LA.

And I'm not "advocating" anything Rocks. I'm a gay guy who would be more than happy with civil unions, provided the civil unions were federally recognized and provided the exact same rights as "marriage". I'm not hung up on the verbage, and I don't support it being forced via the courts.

But on the flip side, I can't wrap my brain around folks who liken it to polygamy or bestiality. Or those who put straight marriage up on this saint-like, salvation-creating pedestal.

In all honesty, if any demographic is in danger of destroying the word "marriage", it's most likely the majority of people who can currently and legally do it. But, the only time they get their panties in a bunch about the subject is when two people, who happen to be of the same sex, want the same rights. Britney Spears can get hitched and divorced in the span of 72 hours and no one raises a stink about the sanctity of marriage. But when a state actually passes a law through the legislature well then all of a sudden it's fire and brimstone, you can't have marriage, it's the most sacredest of sacredest things ever in teh world and heavens above!!!

.... Really? It's the End Times if gays "marry"? I "marry" my partner and I'm triggering Armegeddon? Financial ruin? Families die? Civilizations crumble?

It's a goddamned word. The same people who spout off how gays shouldn't be hung up on the word "MARRIAGE" and be happy with civil unions are the same folks who adamantly cling to the word "MARRIAGE" as though altering it in any way, shape or form will tear a hole through space-time and crown Tom Cruise as the Ruler Of All That Is, Was, And Ever Shall Be.

It's just dumb.

155 Hello everyone. The toughest question has always been, "How do you get your ideas?" How do you answer that? It's like asking runners how they run, or singers how they sing. They just do it! Help me! Help to find sites on the: Prograf tablets. I found only this - prograf from. Learn about buying prograf prescription pills online where to buy your prograf prescription on line best on line pharmacies trusted and reliable websites. While I love the prints from my epson. With love , Ellery from Vatican.

156 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

157 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

158 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

159 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

160 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

161 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

162 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

163 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

164 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

165 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

166 Supra FootwearThe supra shoe is comfortable and can wear all day.
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort

167 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

168 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

169 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

170 Replica Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica Rolex | Replica watches | Replica Omega | Breguet Watches Replica | Rado Fake Watches | Raymond Watches | Christian Dior Watch Replica | Replica Jacques Lemans Watches | Replica Glashutte | Franck Muller Replica Watches | Jaeger LeCoultre Watches | Richard Mille Watch | Daniel Roth Watches Replica

171 Fake Watches | Replica watches | replica soccer jersey | replica soccer jersey | Replica watches | Franck Muller Watches | Replica Christian Dior Watches | Rado Fake | Girard Perregaux Replica Watches | Replica Rolex Ladies Watch | Vacheron Watches | Fake Concord | Swiss Chanel Ceramic Replica Watch | Replica Bvlgari Watch | Raymond Weil Watches

172 Replica Cartier | Replica Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Rolex | Replica Rolex | Replica Porsche Design | Fake A Lange & Sohne Watches | Luxury watches | Fake Bulova | Seiko Replica | Raymond Fake | Replica Girard Perregaux Watches | Hermes Watches | Gucci Replica | Daniel Roth Watches

173 soccer jersey supplier | Replica Omega | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Replica Watches | Breitling Fake Watches | Burberry Fake Watches | Patek Philippe Fake Watch | replica watches | Oris Fake Watch | Maurice Lacroix Watches | Piaget Fake Watch | Technomari Wristwatch | Omega Watches | best replica watches

174 UGG BOOTS