Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal.
The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto.
To override the veto, the House needed a minimum of 100 votes. That’s what they got. John Aravosis quotes the Human Rights Campaign:
“This historic vote in the Vermont legislature reminds us of the incredible progress being made toward equality. Less than five years ago, lesbian and gay couples began marrying in Massachusetts. Now, with the Iowa court decision last Friday and today’s vote in Vermont, there will be four states recognizing the right to marry for loving, committed lesbian and gay couples,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We congratulate Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, Speaker of the House Shap Smith, the other legislators who voted for marriage, the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, and MassEquality for ensuring that all couples will now enjoy the freedom to marry in Vermont. This is a law that will strengthen families and give meaning to the promise of equal rights for all.”
State by state legislation info is here. And do not miss Nate Silver’s 538 post calculating the odds of states passing constitutional same sex marriage bans. He looks at 30 attempts to come up with a fascinating state-by-state prediction.
The finding? By 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban. In Vermont, says Silver, that time is now!
74 Responses to “Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage”
Now I need my polygamist friends to get their attorneys in to argue their case. We can have equal rights for all consenting adults in love! Finally…
Good for Vermont !
I respect those who disagree, but not those who are homophobic abourt it. I fear we will hear more of the latter today.
OK, now THIS I can get behind. A legislative body, exercising their duly appointed powers, passing a law. Not something imposed by Judicial fiat.
Good for them!
I couldn't imagine two thirds of the Tennessee State Legislature doing some like this. I couldn't imagine one third voting for gay marriage. In fact, I couldn't imagine more than about five or six legislators – from Memphis and Nashville – voting for gay marriage.
There many things I love about Tennessee and the South, in particular. But when it comes to religion, politics and the intersection of the two, I am as proud a Yankee as you will find.
elrod – but isn't that the point – it is a 'State Right's' issue, at least for now? I will reiterate what I said – as long as this can be dealt with legislatively, both at the state level and national level, then the results will be significantly more accepted.
It is when national debate is short-circuited by the courts that no final consensus can be reached. One side or the other feels that they were forced by an un-democratic process to an unacceptable result.
Has anyone seen the efforts of the long-suffering muslim and mormon polygamist groups lobbying yet? This foot in the door will allow so many others in love who have been denied to finally seek marriage where the community must uphold their rights to be in love as adults.
In Utah there must be must celebration and also amongst the muslim communities all across our nation. Finally the oppression has stopped!
Yay Vermont! AR — you realize that it's only a matter of time before this goes national, right? One member of a married same-sex couple gets transferred in their job, or the military, and end up in Tennessee (for elrod the Yankee
). Their marriage is suddenly not recognized because the stupid Supreme Court ruled against Good Faith — dude, it's coming. “Whether you like it or not!” as my favorite mayor would say. I still don't see how that ruling could possibly be constitutional. So Massachusettes has to accept as married 2 14 year olds from Arkansas, but Arkansas doesn't have to accept as married 2 gay adults from Massachusettes?
And Sil — just stop. There is nothing similar between a 45 year old Mormon (or Muslim, for that matter) man who marries and subsequently rapes 6 girls aged between 9 and 22 and two consenting adults getting married. To imply such is disgusting.
Austin, so all marriage rights are a “States rights' issue? If so, where is the uproar over Loving v Virginia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. History already proves your “point” is invalid.
Sil, I really don't have a big issue with polygamy if it's among consenting adults. The problem is it's not always the case.
In Utah and Idaho, they tend to disagree. Actually, I've seen heterosexual polygamist triads and such that are sublimely happy. Once I talked with this mormon man who married two sisters (illegally of course) and they were all so happy together. They were eating at a McDonald's on vacation while their collective children romped around in the play area. There was no tension, no animosity. You could tell the man loved each equally. They were all around the same age. No children were getting raped! For crying out loud.
If gays can live legally in marriage, why can't these people???
roro – while I am not a personal supporter of gay marriage, nor am I against it. I am against it being legislated from the bench as an un-enumerated right.
Whether via State legislations, Congress, or a Constitutional amendment, then the will of the people are served. Democratic methodologies are always IMO the best wat to resolve these types of issues. I have been pretty consistent in that view.
Silhouette, you sound like you mean to raise polygamy as an argument against gay marriage. But I don't get it. Let polygamists marry, what's the problem? They've even got Biblical precedent going for them.
Well, Sil, I think they should be able to. The problem is, most polygamous cultures don't at all do it that way. The women and girls marry the men because they have to. By mentioning Mormons and Muslims in particular, that is the sort of polygamy that you were referring to, and the sort of polygamy most people who are for gay marriage are also against. You mention Mormons and Muslims, then say “Oh! I meant these two triads I met this one time that seemed happy”. Calling BS on that. So yes, I do think that, despite the legal hoola-hoops we'd have to put our system through in order to achieve things like fair and equitable distribution of marital assets after divorce, that triads should be able to have some sort of marriage. That is not what you were talking about and you know it.
AR– ok, that's all well and good, but I am curious as to what you think about Loving v Virginia? Also, whether you think, then, that the judiciary should have any role at all in government? What should that role be?
One more question, AR — should then any marriage performed in one state according to the laws in that state not be recognized in other states? If they should be recognized, shouldn't they all? If not, should married couples get re-married every time they move?
And one more: if this is, indeed, a states' rights issue, and the federal government long ago agreed that they would recognize marriages according to what the state laws were (which it did), why, then, are gay couples legally married in states where it's legal denied the rights and priveleges the federal government gives to ALL other married people?
Rambie – that was overturned based on a specific, enumerated right in the Constitution via an Amendment. That is different.
And I never said ALL marriages are a State Rights issue.
Seems you feel the need to attack positions you agree with (gay marriage moving forward) if not presented the way you prefer. Perhaps you feel the proper way IS via judicial fiat, and reject legislative solutions. Or you believe the whole concept of the States having some level of Sovereignty is antiquated and archaic.
Or perhaps you really don't approve of gay marriage.
Not completely clear from your post.
See my reply to Rambie. Not every issue is clearly one side or the other of the Constitution.
That was a Constitutional conflict, and correctly ruled, IMO.
“that was overturned based on a specific, enumerated right in the Constitution via an Amendment. That is different…Or you believe the whole concept of the States having some level of Sovereignty is antiquated and archaic. “
But the Federal courts haven't ruled against gay marriage bans, all of the rulings have come from the state courts that interpreted their state constitutions and saying that it was a right. I dunno about Iowa, but I read from people that know a lot about CA and MA law that said that their rulings were in line with arguments and precedent about interpretations of the state's equal rights clause. Unless you want to argue the nuances of those states' precedents and interpretations specifically then you can't just decry it all as judicial fiat any more than all sorts of other things.
Roro -
“One more question, AR — should then any marriage performed in one state according to the laws in that state not be recognized in other states? If they should be recognized, shouldn't they all? If not, should married couples get re-married every time they move?”
Only if that state's marriage laws were in conflict. Indeed:
“(T)he Supreme Court has recognized a “public policy exception” to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute.
The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation, consanguinity, civil judgments and orders, criminal conviction and others).”
So, there is case law support for State 'A', that does not recognize a marriage type of 'X' being allowed to reject recognition of a marriage in State 'B', which uses different criteria.
To me this is the most interesting question (which should be a moot point because DOMA should be repealed before it gets to the courts) because even if there is no (Federal) constitutional right for gay marriage, I think there is explicit (Federal) constitutional rights for the government to recognize state marriages. I think DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional as it is against an enumerated clause in the Constitution.
And come on everyone, I have said I SUPPORT what Vermont did today. How about backing off a bit?
I didn't write the Constitution, nor create the “public policy exception”. If individual states want to recognize gay marriage in other states, and either pass laws to that effect, or already have language in their State Constitution to support a ruling to that effect, then that is great.
All I have been trying to say is that legislative action is a better avenue for resolving the changing mores of society than by judicial fiat.
But mikkel, SCOTUS already ruled years ago the “public policy exception” allowed other states to ignore Utah's polygamist marriages (in effect at that time), so current case law doesn't support your contention.
But not that the federal government can ignore it. That's the larger issue.
mikkel -
Ah, but they (Congress) can and WILL ignore it, leaving it to be hashed out in the states, hoping to get just the right case to SCOTUS at the appropriate time (and with the appropriate mix of Justices), so they never have to actually face the situation.
There goes my general cynicism towards politicians again!
Pleasantly suprised by,and as a TMV contributor, proud of the–in general– truly moderate and reasoned reactions on this blog to the Vermont decisison.
Just wanted to caveat something someone said about it being a great day for State legislatures exercising their legislative rights…OK, but an even greater day for those “Vermontians” (?) being able to finally exercise their civil and human rights.
“And come on everyone, I have said I SUPPORT what Vermont did today. How about backing off a bit?”
AR — I didn't mean to imply that I was angry at anything you said, just trying to understand where you're coming from. (This is not, however, how I feel about Sil, who has made it blatently clear that he or she just simply finds gay people to be less than people in every way, as evidenced by his/her comments in this and other posts on the topic.)
The source of my questions about the judicial method of handling this and other issues, which you seem to equate with legislating from the bench, is that sometimes when two laws are or seem to be in some way mutually exclusive, there needs to be a way to strike down or reinterpret one law or the other, or decide on a precidence between the two, which of course is where the judiciary comes in. I would say that's the entire point of the judicial branch, and is not “judicial fiat”.
roro – I fully agree that one of the roles of the courts are to reconcile conflicting laws. It can be among the most challenging and critical of the roles they do perform.
My comment is directed more where there is no clearly defined 'right' or conflict between laws, and the courts step in to try and move society where it hasn't been willing to go yet.
I know all the arguments around the civil rights movement and some of the rulings, but really, if it wasn't for President Johnson and other Congressional leaders in the 50's, 60's and 70's pushing through legislation, I believe things would be infinitely worse today.
And look at all the talk today still, and the 'litmus test' for a seat on the Supreme Court, revolving around Roe v Wade, as a great example.
I truly believe had the court not ruled they way they did, creating a right whole cloth where none is supported by the Constitution nor existed before, given the activism at the time, that there would have been both national legislation finally passed on abortion, privacy and self-determination rights (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment on one or more), and that the additional push such a ruling the other way would likely have caused would have driven the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified by the states as well.
I am completely convinced we would no longer be so fixated on the abortion issue, as it would have been resolved in a manner that, while the fringe would still be there, the vast majority would have accepted as the process working as designed, and moved on.
AR you still didn't answer the question. Let me repeat:
I'm saying you need to be consistent, you can't have it both ways, marriage is a “states” rights issue or it is not. So which is it?
“Judicial fiat” is being thrown around more and more lately by one-side-or-the-other when a ruling doesn't go their way. Just because you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it “judicial fiat”.
AR: “Ah, but they (Congress) can and WILL ignore it, leaving it to be hashed out in the states, hoping to get just the right case to SCOTUS at the appropriate time (and with the appropriate mix of Justices), so they never have to actually face the situation. “
Now that I'm totally in agreement with you.
Rambie -
Sorry of I wasn't clear enough – it is a states rights issue to set what they sanction as allowable marriage (not just same-sex, but age of consent, etc.). Indeed, that one of the key issues the “public policy exception” to the Article Four of the Constitution addresses, as I said.
I am confused where you think I was trying to 'have it both ways', frankly. I think you just like to argue!
And if you think my reply qualified as an a 'attack', you are being too thin-skinned. I called you no names, just questioned what the basis of your reasoning was, in snarky tones.
Pretty light-weight stuff, IMO.
I'm using the polygamy argument as a didactic device to show you how quick homosexuals are to want to suppress the rights of others who are in love, but want their own recognized. And it worked..
So you see, their argument isn't about fairness for all adults. It's about pushing through the gay agenda. And that agenda is not wholly about getting the stamp of marriage for their unions. I posted a link to an article of a study done about how sexual preference is learned and has a social-influence aspect to partner selection as well. I posted that in hopes that people could connect the dots.
I never said gays were less than people, only that deviant sex isn't normal sex. And I stand by that today. I don't have hatred for gays, I have sympathy. I think that normalizing deviant behavior will have consequences beyond that which most of the voting public can see. I cited the AI industry and its findings on environment and fixated sexuality being able to be taught, quite simply, in mammals. All this fell on deaf ears. We are ignoring a HUGE component of this issue and that is it's potential to open pandora's box in more than one area. Human behavior is not yet fully understood, especially the animal-type behaviors tied to the very powerful sexual drive. Until we fully understand what we are tampering with, we should err on the side of caution.
I would like to thank those pro-gay people who weighed in inadvertently on the oppression of polygamist's rights. Truly, the cat is out of the bag…”liberals”
AR: “And come on everyone, I have said I SUPPORT what Vermont did today. How about backing off a bit?”
No, i was responding to your words quoted above. I didn't feel you were getting personal to me but from what you said I thought maybe you were feeling that way. I know some around here can get hot around the collar but I try to remain calm.
Thanks for clearing up your reasoning. I like when I can have a civil debate with someone.
Sil: “And come on everyone, I have said I SUPPORT what Vermont did today. How about backing off a bit?”
I fail to see where it worked. Please point to the post where it did. (sigh) I love how you're trying to claim victory when there is no evidence of it here.
BTW, I live in Utah and have so for most of my life in fact. I personally know some polygamists, I grew up just down the street form some. They will even agree with me when I say there is a difference between polygamy among consenting adults and arranged marriages with minors.
Maybe they were even the happy-go-lucky polygamists you meet, the age would be about right it was within the last 4 years or so.
Sil: nonsense through and through. Homosexuals did indeed come out in support of polygamists, with a qualification around pedophilia.
And I did respond on a previous thread to your concerns about teaching the current model of sexual orientation: teaching the old model, that homosexuality is wicked, has been tried and found to be a disaster all the way around.
Silhouette:
You say “sexual preference is learned.” Do you remember when you “learned” to be straight?
On a very similar note, others say that homosexuals “decide” on their sexual orientation.
In the same vein, I'd like to ask those “others” if they remember when they decided to become straight.
In the same vein, I'd like to ask those “others” if they remember when they decided to become straight.
Yes, the night I saw Liberace and Joey Heatherton appear on the same Ed Sullivan Show.
D.E., those are familiar questions, but they don't quite get to Silhouette's point. I don't remember learning what most words I use mean either, but learn them I did. Had my environment been different, I could have learned the Chinese versions just as well. Indeed, I still could.
He is right that we don't really understand what's fixed in our brains and what's plastic. Research suggests sexual orientation is partly genetic and partly environmental, but the fat lady is certainly not done singing on the topic. So yes, there might in principle be an environment where all kids would turn out straight.
Where he goes off the rails is translating theory into policy. In practice people who try to teach themselves to be straight have a success rate of approximately zero. Teaching kids that gayness is a moral failing has been the law of the land for centuries, and the results have been suicides, homicides, broken families, and eventually an organized, mad-as-hell political coalition that is battling and ultimately defeating folks like Silhouette.
So although he dislikes the gay-is-okay environment we're building, he hasn't suggested we return to the hostility of the past decades, since that would be hard to square with his professed sympathy for gays. Of course he hasn't suggested anything else either. He pulleth down but he pileth not up.
DrJ:
Thanks for your comments.
Still, I do not remember ever having to “choose” my sexual orientation
That would tell me that others were never presented with such a “choice” either.
DR_J -
How long do you have to live a 'gay lifestyle' to be considered gay, not just experimenting? I have known more than a few people that lived the life for as much as 10+ years, then walked away from it.
As a whole, they started relatively young, and often were bi for a while, before picking a gay life in their mid to late teens, and then 'going straight' in by their mid to late 20's. (no, not counting LUG's! HA HA)
Dorian -
Please check out my question to DR_J. Curious to your take on that as well.
“Considered gay” by whom, Austin? You may be considered gay immediately for wearing a pink shirt.
But seriously, I couldn't tell you, people are different. There are plenty of examples of the converse too, people realizing in middle age that straight isn't going to work for them. They end up leaving spouses and kids…it's a mess.
I was responding to your contention that “In practice people who try to teach themselves to be straight have a success rate of approximately zero.”
So, that obviously was based on some concept of what it means to be gay. I was trying to determine the basis of you contention is all, as I have had some personal experience that does not fit your statement.
However, I do think a good argument could be made that anyone who 'switches sides', either direction, at any point in life, was likely not really on the 'side' they thought they were. The vast, vast majority of gay people I know knew themselves to be gay almost as soon as they were aware of sexuality itself, and remain so their whole lives. That does not mean they did not have internal conflict due to the teachings they were brought up with, but that is a different problem.
lol…first of all I'm not a man, I'm a woman…just in case it matters..
And I wasn't the one who said “back off”. That was another poster.
Now that those matters are cleared up, lets move to this comment:
*******
“Teaching the old model, that homosexuality is optional and wicked, has been tried and found to be a disaster all the way around.”
******
God I just love it when people put words into my mouth…not..
That is the exact opposite of what I said!
I said that homosexuality could be taught, formed or impressed and in that case with impressionable pubescents it isn't an optional situation. In fact it could be termed and “invasive” condition where an outside influence invaded a person's mental makeup. Nor did I say it was “wicked” or “evil”or any such comment. It is ABNORMAL in that it deviates from the body's natural function of sex for reproduction. And further, nowhere did I imply that it is a choice beyond the original classical-conditioning fixation. In fact, the gays and I agree 100% that once homosexual preference has been “set” in the complex behavioral mindset of association of orgasm to stimulus object via classical conditioning during the first or first few orgasms (this is the part we agree on >) that it no longer is a choice that can be undone..
I also promoted compassion for their condition, for their need to have someone to feel close to…but just not under the banner of “normal” via marriage. Civil unions were a great idea and I still don't see why they couldn't suffice? The only reason they don't is that gays are trying to be normalized and if society's trends play a part in sexual partner selection in fledgling youth (like the study shows and social trends in areas like San Francisco seem to suggest), then what we're doing with legalizing (normalizing) deviant sexuality is setting up our future generations for larger and larger numbers of homsexuals.
Which for some may be nirvana and indeed part of the hoped-for fallout of the current lobbying. For others, not so much. And since this phenomenon does appear to have an impact on the overall american value system, we do have a right to fight vigorously either for or opposed to gay marriage and we shoud have that fight. Part of the beauty of fighting is that it airs the hidden corners of the issues on either side to the full sunlight.
Part of that airing was herein where I baited the pro-gay crowd to weigh in on their stance for polygamy becoming welcomed under the new “love between consenting adults” sole qualifier for marriage. For ultimately, thanks to legal precident, that is what will only determine its boundaries for inclusion.
And, as predicted here and elsewhere there was quite an insistent resistance to more than two adult people…ADULT people being in a loving committed relationship and being able to “marry”. And one has to call them on their hypocrisy and wonder what they're really up to with all this campaigning for “equal rights” for gays?
What could be the other reasons for their drive if not total equality across the board for all consenting adults?
Ponder.
In numerous studies of urban areas, about 10% of self identified straight men have had sex with other men in the last couple years. That holds true for when Kinsey did his original studies and also recent ones. Are they all closeted? I doubt it.
If you look at self identification then around 3% of guys are gay, 1-2% are bi and the rest are straight…but behavioral surveys find 3% gay and around 10% have recent relations with both genders. Of course in women, the self identification and behaviors are almost identical.
I'm not sure the person is “switching” or whether their social status is switching. It's harder to have a relationship as a bisexual because the guys assume you will leave them for a woman when you want to settle down and the women assume you're closeted and both of them fear they won't be enough. I know quite a few “straight” guys that would ID as bi if they could and a couple of “gay” guys who have a handful of women they'd date.
I even had one friend that claims (and I believe him) that he had no attraction towards any men ever until he was 21, fell head over heels for this guy that he would have married if it had worked out, but it didn't and he hasn't felt attracted to another one since. What's that?
On a not so related, but yet very related issue.
Is this one of the “freedoms”, one of the “blessings of democracy” we have been fighting and dying for in Iraq?
“Iraq’s Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder
In the past two months, the bodies of as many as 25 boys and men suspected of being gay have turned up in the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City, the police and friends of the dead say. Most have been shot, some multiple times. Several have been found with the word “pervert” in Arabic on notes attached to their bodies, the police said.
Clerics in Sadr City have urged followers to help root out homosexuality in Iraqi society, and the police have begun their own crackdown on gay men.
“Homosexuality is against the law,” said Lt. Muthana Shaad, at a police station in the Karada district, a neighborhood that has become popular with gay men. “And it’s disgusting.”
For the past four months, he said, officers have been engaged in a “campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off them.”
In 2005, the country’s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a religious decree that said gay men and lesbians should be “punished, in fact, killed.” He added, “The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.” The language has since been removed from his Web site.”
For the full report go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middlee…
Silhouette, I'm still unclear what policy you're proposing that will “err on the side of caution.” You wouldn't teach that homosexuality is optional, just that it can be changed before you cement it with too much sexual fantasizing. You wouldn't teach that it's wicked, just that it's abnormal, deviant, and a threat to the “American value system.” I guess the distinction is escaping me.
Back to “deciding” to be gay, and in view of the certain dangers, including death and torture, awaiting homsexuals in some countries (such as Iraq, Afghamistan), why would some young man in those countries “decide” to become gay?
No, Dr. J. Nice try though. I see how you're trying to slip in that “a natural homosexual natal condition” (your inference) can be “changed at puberty” with the right “training'…sorry…lol..
What I said was, and you well know, is that normal sexual urges for the opposite sex can be molded and diverted onto the same gender, animals or even inanimate objects at the onset of puberty.
Listen carefully to this illustration to see if you can discern what I'm talking about and what the article in my link above addresses:
In the artificial insemination industry, ranchers get ahold of pre-pubescent males and use their initial sexual stimulus to female environmental cues such as pheremones or the actual presence of an estrus female in the local of training. They then teach the animal to ejaculate onto, in the case of cattle, another steer placed in front of him or a mounting dummy. After a few ejaculations, the male animal learns, via classical association, to associate the intense pleasure of orgasm with the trained target object. The new preference for the deviant object, once learned, is hard if not impossible to “un-train” and often the male animal will only prefer that object or set of stimuli from then on over his initial natural preference of an estrus female.
Now, in the article it discusses how human females mask their signs of estrus by and large. However the pheremones are floating around everywhere to the young (and horny) males. It's interesting that another poster brought up muslim homosexuals. I grew up in an area where there were a fair amount of muslim immigrants. A guy I knew went to college with some. He said one day they approached him for gay sex. They said, “so when are we going to have sex?” He was shocked. They explained that in the overwhelming covert culture of muslims (they experienced, maybe not all), homosexual contact was pretty much taken for granted. My mind wanders to the bath houses and intense fraternity-mentality of the muslims and how their women are so inaccessible that male frustration and natural sexual drives could quite easily be socially influenced.
Male sexual frustration is a known parameter on breeding farms. Prize studs should be watched carefully for mounting behavior in bachelor herds. Sometimes inaccessibility to females that they can otherwise smell and become stimulated by can lead to mounting other males and fixation on males from then on for sexual stimulus. In other words the male becomes so frustrated by females nearby, but not accessible that he just vents that drive in the only direction he can, or that which is carefully presented to him as is the case with AI training. And from then on the preference is “set”.
I'm saying that until we take a good honest look at where and how sexual preference forms…especially since there is evidence that environment plays a significant part, we should really be careful in what we allow youth to see as “normal”.