Vermont just legalised same-sex marriage via legislature

The_Minister

Just a few hours ago.
And Iowa did the same a few days ago. Via the courts.

I'm just wondering what people's opinions are as to the method by which these changes were passed?

I think Vermont did it the right way, the legislature is the place to deal with massive social change, I don't think that the courts should be making law, and rewriting public policy.

I think these changes should be legislated for, not imposed against the will of the democratically elected representatives, on grounds that are at best questionable.

MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

Douglas called override "not unexpected." He had called the issue of gay marriage a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

"What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.

"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."

Also in the crowd was Michael Feiner, a farmer from Roxbury and gay marriage supporter, who took a break from collecting sap for maple syrup-making to come to the Statehouse.

"I'm taking a break to come and basically make sure that I was here to witness history," he said.

The House had initially approved the bill last week with a 95-52 vote. Smith and his leadership team worked through the weekend to try to persuade some legislators to change their minds.

One who did was first-term Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans. He said he continued to be philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but decided that voting with his fellow Democrats would help him be an effective legislator in the future.

"You realize that, you know, it's a poker game in some ways," Young said. "Chips on the table. I'm a freshman. I have no chips. If I ... had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don't have that option."

He added, "It's the way the political game is played."

rainbow kirby

Either way, it's still great to hear that some places are actually making progress towards full equality.

Vinta81

Hopefully Ireland will follow suit in the near future.

partyatmygaff

I know ill be flamed but I personally think it should never be allowed in Ireland, just plain wrong.

Hogzy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know ill be flamed but I personally think it should never be allowed in Ireland, just plain wrong.

Why do you think its wrong (Your entitled to your opinion i just wanna know why you think that way)

The_Minister

This isn't a discussion on SSM, its about the methods used to create it.
or, in other words, judicial activism.

Hogzy

HOWEVER i think it should not go so far as to allow such a major social change like this. I dont know what society is like in Vermont, in relation to the morality surrounding SSM but in Ireland i dont think it is a place for the courts to decide at the mo... However if/when the civil partnership bill comes in Judges might take the plunge and give SSM recognition

partyatmygaff

The_Minister wrote: »

This isn't a discussion on SSM, its about the methods used to create it.
or, in other words, judicial activism.

True, I think it should of been a referendum or something where the people of the state could have a say, not a forced court judgement.

To answer Hogzy's question (Lets try and not go off-topic)
I just think it degrades the whole purpose of marriage and really I have no problem with the idea generally but I dont see why marriage would be needed.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Vinta81 wrote: »

Hopefully Ireland will follow suit in the near future.

Given the amount of knickers that got in a twist over legalising condoms and divorce, I'd say "distant future" would be pushing it tbh

Overheal

US Politics, tbh --->

netwhizkid

When someone finds love in today's society we should not judge them and should accept a persons relationship for what it is regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity etc. We are all created equal and Vermont has only done what most of its Citizens agree with so fair play to them.

George W. Bush never actually visited the state in his tenure so if you can imagine Texas as the bible buckle think Vermot and most of New England as the polar opposite, New England is like a mini cosum of Western Europe and is socially closer to Europe than Kansas or Texas.

Perhaps if Ireland were to legalise would it attract Marriage Tourists (I am thinking of that Simpsons episode:pac:).

mobius42

The_Minister wrote: »

This isn't a discussion on SSM, its about the methods used to create it.
or, in other words, judicial activism.

I wouldn't call enforcing the Constitution "judicial activism".

thelordofcheese

Who's awesome?

You are vermont, you're awesome.

Hogzy

mobius42 wrote: »

I wouldn't call enforcing the Constitution "judicial activism".

Technically its not enforcing the consitution, Gender is not specificaly related to in the constitution so its all down to constitutional interpretation!

Manic Moran

partyatmygaff wrote: »

True, I think it should of been a referendum or something where the people of the state could have a say, not a forced court judgement.

That doesn't work for some people. California recently passed Proposition 8, which clarifies the California Constitution to define 'marriage' as between a man and a woman. (Currently CA allows civil unions, which allows all the rights and priviliges of marriage except the use of the word). Being dissatisfied with this, the pro-gay-rights crowd have gone to court to have the proposition declared unlawful.

It is a bit of a sticky situation in that the reason we have Constitutions to protect rights and courts to enforce them is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand, you also need to have the judges as being subject to the desires of the people. The two have to clash somewhere.

You have the further problem of the difference between State and Federal Constititions. It is theorised that State Constitutions are very much subject to the decisions of the people, wheras the Federal Constitution (Being, as it is, a sort of indirect Constitution) has protections which are far more entrenched against the whims of public opinion that day.

NTM

Calibos

Woah!! I thought I was reasonable well versed in this from the news and Realtime with Bill Maher but how did I miss this whopper! I thought Prop 8 meant Gay Marriage AND civil unions were banned in CA

On the one hand and this is directed at the likes of 'Partyatmygaff'.

Marriage - Its just a word FFS. How does a gay couple being 'married' degrade the meaning of your hetero marriage. :rolleyes:

On the other hand and this is directed at the likes of Gay people.

Marriage - Its just a word FFS. How does a civil union with all the rights,responsibilities and priviledges of marriage, just without the name affect your loving union.

Manic Moran

Calibos wrote: »

Woah!! I thought I was reasonable well versed in this from the news and Realtime with Bill Maher but how did I miss this whopper! I thought Prop 8 meant Gay Marriage AND civil unions were banned in CA

In fairness, upon further investigation, I got my States mixed up. The California civil unions do have some minor differences to a conventional marriage, such as the requirement to be living together or an 18-year-old bottom-age limit. (As opposed to getting married when living apart, or below 18 with parental consent). However, most of the objections (on both sides) focus on the use of the word 'marriage.' The idea of rights and priviliges seems fairly uncontroversial in CA.

NTM

Hogzy

Calibos wrote: »

Marriage - Its just a word FFS. How does a civil union with all the rights,responsibilities and priviledges of marriage, just without the name affect your loving union.

Well why not just call it marriage if its just a word! How will same sex marriage affect the "loving union" of a heterosexual marriage?

If you think about people in the workplace. 2 people do the same jobs, lets say they are judges for arguments sake.

One judge is male, the other is female. They do the same work and get equal pay. However the male is called a judge and the female is called a legal secretary. Are you saying there is nothing wrong with this hypothetical situation?

Terry

Report post function, tbh
<

---

Hazys

Hogzy wrote: »

HOWEVER i think it should not go so far as to allow such a major social change like this. I dont know what society is like in Vermont, in relation to the morality surrounding SSM but in Ireland i dont think it is a place for the courts to decide at the mo... However if/when the civil partnership bill comes in Judges might take the plunge and give SSM recognition

I thought Vermont was a redneck state, with pickup trucks and slapjaw yokels everywhere like its neighbour New Hampshire (the only state in the North with a NASCAR track).

So im suprised this has gone through here before states like Maryland, New York, Illinois, etc.

I could be wrong about Vermont be redneck I have only been there once before tho.

Hogzy

Terry wrote: »

Report post function, tbh
<

---

are you telling me to report the post? and if so which post are you referring to?

thelordofcheese

Hazys wrote: »

I thought Vermont was a redneck state, with pickup trucks and slapjaw yokels everywhere like its neighbour New Hampshire (the only state in the North with a NASCAR track).

So im suprised this has gone through here before states like Maryland, New York, Illinois, etc.

I could be wrong about Vermont be redneck I have only been there once before tho.

Vermont is to the left of Massachusetts, which is the left of just about everyone else in the US and a lot of Europe. Their state heros are two ex-hippies that make ice-cream fer cryin' out loud.

Hogzy

Vermont is about as redneck as the French Riviera

ChocolateSauce

Although I prefer the legislature. the courts doing it is not something I object to. I see gay marriage as a matter of equal rights, and rights are more important than democracy (as we've recently seen in Afghanistan, where a democratically elected President tried to make rape and slavery legal by signing a law passed by their democratically elected parliament).

For example, the EU courts forced Ireland, against the democratic will of the elected government, to ensure men and women had equal pay for equal work, and they forced us to decriminalise homosexuality. Courts are there to ensure that laws are not illegal, and if a constitution says everyone is free and equal, but a law says they're not, that law must be struck down. Democracy can still win out if enough people want it; in California, they changed their constitution to explicitly state that they don't believe in equal rights, making anti-gay laws legal, if morally lacking.

Hazys

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Vermont is to the left of Massachusetts, which is the left of just about everyone else in the US and a lot of Europe. Their state heros are two ex-hippies that make ice-cream fer cryin' out loud.

I was actually thinking of Maine not Vermont :rolleyes: again i could be wrong about Maine too

me-skywalker

If they do ever bring ssm/civil union... me and my friend are going to get married so that we can avail of all the tax breaks afford with such legislation being brought into place. Im not gay and neither is my friend but how would they know that we could get our own house adopt a kid then sell him on ebay it would be great we coudld make great savings and rake it.

elekid

me-skywalker wrote: »

If they do ever bring ssm/civil union... me and my friend are going to get married so that we can avail of all the tax breaks afford with such legislation being brought into place. Im not gay and neither is my friend but how would they know that we could get our own house adopt a kid then sell him on ebay it would be great we coudld make great savings and rake it.

Why not do that with a female friend right now?

me-skywalker

elekid wrote: »

Why not do that with a female friend right now?

Ah thats old school... i wanna be part of this fad!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

me-skywalker wrote: »

If they do ever bring ssm/civil union... me and my friend are going to get married so that we can avail of all the tax breaks afford with such legislation being brought into place. Im not gay and neither is my friend but how would they know that we could get our own house adopt a kid then sell him on ebay it would be great we coudld make great savings and rake it.

Very rarely do I use rolleyes, but if ever I saw a post deserving of it, that's it. In your honour mr skywalker: :rolleyes:

Calibos

Hogzy wrote: »

Well why not just call it marriage if its just a word! How will same sex marriage affect the "loving union" of a heterosexual marriage?

If you think about people in the workplace. 2 people do the same jobs, lets say they are judges for arguments sake.

One judge is male, the other is female. They do the same work and get equal pay. However the male is called a judge and the female is called a legal secretary. Are you saying there is nothing wrong with this hypothetical situation?

You kind of missed my point.

I know that morally the arguement is in favour of homosexuals being allowed to use the word. I would be for that. I think, partyatmygaff has a pretty f@#$ed up view on this.

My point though is that the arguement can still be reversed. Why is it such a big deal to be able to use 'just a word'. I think they should be able to use it but why is it such a big deal to them to use it?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Calibos wrote: »

You kind of missed my point.

I know that morally the arguement is in favour of homosexuals being allowed to use the word. I would be for that. I think, partyatmygaff has a pretty f@#$ed up view on this.

My point though is that the arguement can still be reversed. Why is it such a big deal to be able to use 'just a word'. I think they should be able to use it but why is it such a big deal to them to use it?

Matter of principle. After centuries of violent and systemic discrimination, equal marriage rights are a serious milestone, a sign that homosexuality is tolerated and accepted as a normal part of society. So to get the rights, but to still have it implied that a gay marriage is different than a straight one, is like training for months for a marathon, running almost all of it, and then stopping three feet from the finish line and going home. (At the same time though, I get your point)

elekid

I guess people would be worried that a "Civil Partnership" would be treated less seriously and with less respect than a "marriage". As long as it came with the same rights and responsibilities currently given to loving hetrosexual couples who choose to make a commitment to each other I wouldn't care what it was called.

Kernel32

Hazys wrote: »

I was actually thinking of Maine not Vermont :rolleyes: again i could be wrong about Maine too

Maine is rural but not really redneck. Overall Maine is a liberal state. Vermont is about the most liberal and progressive state in the whole country. It can get a bad rap for that because many people consider the state populated by a bunch of the rich beautiful people.

thelordofcheese

Kernel32 wrote: »

It can get a bad rap for that because many people consider the state populated by a bunch of the rich beautiful people.

To be fair, there are worse reps you can have....

Capt'n Midnight

Won't someone think of the children :pac:

The_Minister

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Won't someone think of the children :pac:

Thats the problem - some of them are.
/profound.

There are 2 possible meaning to that sentence.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The_Minister wrote: »

Thats the problem - some of them are.
/profound.

There are 2 possible meaning to that sentence.

Giggidy

Borneo Fnctn

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know ill be flamed but I personally think it should never be allowed in Ireland, just plain wrong.

Afraid you'd be tempted?:rolleyes:
Seriously, why do you even care what other people do? Don't bother giving me that "sanctity of marriage" ****e either. Marriage is not just for religious people.

Overheal

Next to the Vatican, if Ireland actually did pass same sex marriage/unions, it would be huge. Werent you also the first to pass a smoking ban? Now its spreading everywhere, slowly but surely.

towel401

Vinta81 wrote: »

Hopefully Ireland will follow suit in the near future.

you planning a wedding?

Up de Barrs

Interesting to see how this develops in years to come. Some state have enacted constitutonal amendments that define marriage as being between a man and a woman. If a gay couple get married in Vermont and them move to California are they still married in the eyes of the law there? Even when we banned divorce in the dark ages we still recognised divorces obtained by Irish citizens overseas. Hopefully there will be sufficient support in time for gay marriage to be recognised on a federal level. European countries like Spain and the Netherlands have recognised gay marriage for years and seem to be doing fine.

Arathorn

Calibos wrote: »

You kind of missed my point.

I know that morally the arguement is in favour of homosexuals being allowed to use the word. I would be for that. I think, partyatmygaff has a pretty f@#$ed up view on this.

My point though is that the arguement can still be reversed. Why is it such a big deal to be able to use 'just a word'. I think they should be able to use it but why is it such a big deal to them to use it?

Try to imagine if it was illegal for black people (hetro) to use the word marriage, even if they have the same rights. There would be uproar, its the same principle for gay people.

Hogzy

Well guys until 1967 in the USA it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person, Someone tried to say this was unconstitutional and the court said

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" (Loving v Virginia 1967)

how racist is that^^^^

Thankfully that decision was reversed on appeal but that was a fairly recent decision, I think a federal law facilitating SSM in the USA is very far down the road!!!

philologos

I think ruling it over the court system is such an anti-democratic way of dealing with a contentious issue.

Another poster said that people might regard civil unions as being less than a marriage. They wouldn't be considered a marriage at all I thought?

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

I think ruling it over the court system is such an anti-democratic way of dealing with a contentious issue.

Plebicite is a horrible way to do most things, especially those that pertain to peoples rights.

Jakkass wrote: »

Another poster said that people might regard civil unions as being less than a marriage. They wouldn't be considered a marriage at all I thought?

That's fantastic, you've managed to condense the entire problem with the seperate but equal nonsense that is civil unions into two sentances.

I think i might go so far as to quote you the next time people shug and go "what's the beef?"

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's fantastic, you've managed to condense the entire problem with the seperate but equal nonsense that is civil unions into two sentances.

I think i might go so far as to quote you the next time people shug and go "what's the beef?"

You're welcome and feel free.

If a marriage is to be the union of a man and a woman that forms the family unit as we know it, then it is indeed different to the union of two of the same gender. I don't see any reason to deem both situations to be equivalent as they are clearly different.

elekid

Jakkass wrote: »

Another poster said that people might regard civil unions as being less than a marriage. They wouldn't be considered a marriage at all I thought?

It's the idea that calling it a Civil Union/Partnership makes it easier to cop out and grant same-sex couples only some of the rights that straight couples are granted. Why should the name be different depending on the genders of the people involved?

As said above if black couples or mixed race couples were forbidden from marrying or could only form unions with less rights than white couples are granted it would be blatant racist discrimination yet similar discrimination on the basis of gender still seems acceptable to many in our society?

To be honest I think most gay people would end up using the terms "married", "husband" and "wife" regardless of legal terms because "Myself and my civil partner were at the cinema at the weekend.." would be a bit clunky in everyday conversation

elekid

Jakkass wrote: »

If a marriage is to be the union of a man and a woman that forms the family unit as we know it, then it is indeed different to the union of two of the same gender. I don't see any reason to deem both situations to be equivalent as they are clearly different.

Why should the loving union between 2 men or 2 women not be considered a family unit? What's so different about it? Bearing in mind many straight couples who can't have children or who have no intention of having children still get married so it's not really enough to say that children are a factor. Why do they deserve state benefits that gay couples seemingly don't?

BattyInNZ

Jakkass wrote: »

I think ruling it over the court system is such an anti-democratic way of dealing with a contentious issue.

Another poster said that people might regard civil unions as being less than a marriage. They wouldn't be considered a marriage at all I thought?

You're good! :cool: I was a young separated woman the time the first divorce referendum failed and I went into a local shop the next morning and the man behind the counter said 'I'm so sorry for you' and I suddenly and utterly felt different to the rest of the bastards in the country who had said NO. Now I have a gay sister with a partner who is my other sister and my mother's extra daughter and the best son in law she's got into the bargain Why shouldn't they be able to get married? They love each other. The world hasn't moved on very much really has it?

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

You're welcome and feel free.

If a marriage is to be the union of a man and a woman that forms the family unit as we know it, then it is indeed different to the union of two of the same gender. I don't see any reason to deem both situations to be equivalent as they are clearly different.

No, they aren't.

The only thing that differs is the genders of the people involved, and discriminating on those grounds is the same as discriminating for any other arbitary reason, like skin colour or nationality.

Also - given how the meaning of marriage has changed over time, defending it as an immutable constant is laughable.

philologos

elekid wrote: »

It's the idea that calling it a Civil Union/Partnership makes it easier to cop out and grant same-sex couples only some of the rights that straight couples are granted. Why should the name be different depending on the genders of the people involved?

Why should the name be different? Due to it being a different type of relationship.

Can I ask though, do you oppose polygamy? If so why so?

I sometimes think it would be best if the State got out of the marriage business altogether.

elekid wrote: »

As said above if black couples or mixed race couples were forbidden from marrying or could only form unions with less rights than white couples are granted it would be blatant racist discrimination yet similar discrimination on the basis of gender still seems acceptable to many in our society?

It isn't similar in any respect. They were still men and women, to be joined together in marriage. That isn't changing the definition of marriage, in the case of same sex marriage it clearly is.

elekid wrote: »

To be honest I think most gay people would end up using the terms "married", "husband" and "wife" regardless of legal terms because "Myself and my civil partner were at the cinema at the weekend.." would be a bit clunky in everyday conversation

Probably. That really doesn't matter though. They are different types of relationship.

elekid wrote: »

Why should the loving union between 2 men or 2 women not be considered a family unit? What's so different about it? Bearing in mind many straight couples who can't have children or who have no intention of having children still get married so it's not really enough to say that children are a factor. Why do they deserve state benefits that gay couples seemingly don't?

I would argue that it wouldn't be held as highly as a family unit to a married couple, due to psychological research that suggests that male and female role models in a childs life are important.

Just my opinion on the subject though. I think it's highly unfair for a court to supersede the democratic will of the people in how their country should be run. I hope they run referendums in Vermont, Massechussets, and Connetticut it's only fair. I can imagine that the US Supreme Court will pull another Roe vs Wade on the issue in a few years time.

If a referendum was run here, and if gay marriage was passed, I would have to accept it albeit with disagreement. I think it's fairer that way than having a legal elite ruling on the behalf of people who disagree with them.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Also - given how the meaning of marriage has changed over time, defending it as an immutable constant is laughable.

Wasn't it legal in Roman times to have a relationship with your horse? Do we really want to go back there? Yes, marriage may have changed, but where to draw the line though. What about polygamists? Incestual couples?