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”
Sil: “we should really be careful in what we allow youth to see as 'normal'.”
There you go again, burying the real issue under a vague call for caution. What does “being careful” actually mean in practice? Teaching kids that gay=bad?
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states…
From a NYT Editorial on “The Iowa Decency”: Applies to the Vermont Decency, too
“A unanimous decision by the seven-member court on Friday approved marriage for couples of the same sex and brought the nation a step closer toward realizing its promise of equality and justice.
“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further an important governmental objective,” wrote Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee. “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
The immediate impact of Iowa’s ruling was to make the failure to respect gay people’s freedom to marry, by courts and legislatures in states like New York, seem all the more shameful.
“When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long,” said a statement by Iowa’s State Senate majority leader, Michael Gronstal, and House speaker, Pat Murphy, both Democrats.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05sun…
No DE, there is more than one lingeing question. Question number two has to do with how long also. As in “how long” will it take for polygamy to become legal hinged on the same precident of “consenting adults in love”. Two will be found to be an arbitrary number. Remember, consenting adults are “free” to set the limits of who they may be joined in love with..
****
“But our real disagreement is right there, lurking under your vague call for caution. What does “being careful” actually mean in practice? Teaching kids that gay=bad?”
****
What is bad is diving into the rocky pool with eyes closed. We don't know all the parameters of human behavior's impact as it is factored in with the larger pressures of society. If my model is correct and the article has legitimate findings, it can be extrapolated therefore that we can expect and even bank on an increase in the numbers of homosexuals in a given population where it is “normalized”. Instead of teaching or showing that it is “bad” by not allowing gays to marry, it should be emphasized that gays must choose civil unions as an alternative to marriage because their form of sexuality is an alternative to normal pairing for procreation…the purpose of sexualy activity. If we want an increase in the homosexual population, like many lonely homosexuals do to increase choice of partners, then we should get behind legitimizing homosexuality and make it mainstream as fast as we can. Allowing homosexuals to marry is making homosexuality mainstream. Or didn't that occur to anyone?
For some people this is bothersome. For some people it is nirvana. Making homosexuality mainstream leaves very little room for compromise between these two extremes.. And hence the reason there are so many responses in this thread. There is not a mild reaction to the news, that's for sure…
'
There's another parameter to this gay lobbying for marriage thing that has to do with terrible timing. Even if you're totally in support of gay marriage, the disturbing squirming of the right wing-nuts going around preaching armegeddon and shooting cops in a frenzy of disturbing paranoia may make you want to pause for a moment. Think about it. With all the unrest, teetering on civil unrest and if Faux News has its way, a Revolution (bad for the US right now BTW), State after state legalizing homosexual marriage may just be the straw that broke the crazy-camel's back.
Those of us in the middle really wish the left wing-nuts and the right wing-nuts would rein themselves in just at least until we get beyond this financial mess and real threat of dissolving as a nation. Couldn't gays wait until Obama's second year to really push this issue to the right that from all appearances is on the verge of a psychotic meltdown already?
I'm not saying that we should cave to the neocons just because their behaving badly. I'm saying we should allow them some room to have a nervous breakdown instead of asking them to swallow one more fracture to their already weakened minds.
Just a thought.
You're missing the rockier bits of the pool, Sil. Having a few more gays around (based on your conjecture) is not nearly as bad as the suicides, violence, and broken families that come (based on actual experience) from trying to keep gays second-class citizens.
Erring on the side of caution means genuinely welcoming gays as first-class citizens, not sending the mixed messages that infuse your posts.
OK, that's fine. Let's welcome them as first class citizens. I've always been for that. But I'm against calling what they do “normal” via the stamp of marriage. That's why I was all for civil unions when they came out with that compromise. I thought it was excellent. Civil unions are first class. When you start calling something normal that isn't and you live in a collective of “animals” [homo sapiens] that behaves like a herd that follows the “normal” carrots dangling in front of their noses, then you're messing with pandora's box.
I think instead of messing with pandora's box, we welcome civil unions, like we did and keep the word “normal” [marriage] between one man and one woman. Otherwise the herd can get a little confused.
Exactly what I mean by mixed messages. They're not normal, so we'll have a separate-but-equal institution for them. And thus we welcome them as first-class citizens.
Do you find it at all surprising that people aren't cheering at such a “welcome”?
AR
Sorry I'm late to this party.
“it is a states rights issue to set what they sanction as allowable marriage “
So, does this you mean the its “States rights” to pass Anti-miscegenation laws. Why not Slavery? Just pointing out that the Civil war kind of changed the original beliefs that the South held for States Rights. Kennedy enforced desegregation by nationalizing the Alabama guard. Their “States rights” were trodden under by the logic of your argument. Was the federal gov. wrong?
Isn't the ultimate solution just getting government out of the marriage business? Issue civil union documents, and let churches marry who they wish.
HemmD -
Ok, so saying an issue is a States Rights issue is NOT saying they can violate the Constitution at the same time, and I never said that, or anything you should be twisting to say that. You continue to nit-pick at what I do not specifically state in every post. But as I said, I cannot make every post a thesis, ensuring that I cover every (obvious) point.
Enforcing existing Federal laws and Constitution rulings is not, normally, a violation of States Rights. However, whole books can and have been written on where the Federal Government has expanded into States Rights, and is beyond the scope of this reply.
In the case of marriage, the Court has been clear. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, “[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved,” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).
However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this “public policy exception” by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere. Wikipedia as reference
Now, despite Loving v. Virginia, which was a narroe ruling on inter-racial marriage only, and Romer v. Evans, which prevents States from enacting laws to protect homosexuals from discrimination solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, on the same-sex marriage question the Federal Courts have been consistent in their rulings.
Nebraska's constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between a man and a woman was upheld by the 8th Circuit, and most significantly for now (i)n the 1972 Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, the Court dismissed it for “want of a substantial federal question”. Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for “want of a substantial federal question” constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts. Baker has been cited as binding precedent in numerous lower court decisions since, and unless over-ruled, remains the law of the land in regard to this issue. Wikipedia as reference
So, as of this moment in time, there is no Federal Law or Constitutional ruling that would force the States to relinquish Sovereignty on the question of gay marriage, or to have to recognize other States recognition thereof. Add to that DOMA, and I fail to see how you can continue to attack an argument that is not just my opinion, but the law of the land, as ruled on by Circuit Courts and SCOTUS, and in a law passed by Congress.
Yes, there are cases working their way through the courts trying to apply various SCOTUS rulings and Constitutional Amendments to accomplish and overturning of the current state of affairs, but as of yet none have made it to SCOTUS for final arbitration.
I do not believe that case law or the Constitution does support a Federal ruling in favor of gay marriage, based on past litigation and Intent of Congress. So, the only real answer is a Constitutional Amendment if the supporter of a National Right to gay marriage wish to prevail, at least anytime soon.
Does that cover it, and make my position clear, unambiguous, and without contradiction?
AR
I think you misconstrue my “nit-picking” for a debate technique when I actually see the historic interpretation of the law as a series of exceptions that change the course of constitutional history. It is these exceptions by which we define our rights, they're called precedents. The law runs on these until a precedent is over turned.
Both slavery and anti-miscenegation state laws were over-ridden by the Federal government. In fact, the slavery issue was over-ridden by Lincoln even though the judicial arm of the government had already ruled in favor of states' rights via Dred Scott. Both instances demonstrate not only the right, but the responsibility of the Federal government to correct injustice in local jurisdictions.
Same sex marriage is just our time's question concerning rights and responsibilities. I know you find it hard to believe, but my intention is never to score debate points through exceptions. They say that the Devil is in the details. I would say the greatness of our system of government is in the details.
As far as “as of this moment in time, there is no Federal Law or Constitutional ruling that would force the States to relinquish Sovereignty on the question of gay marriage,”
Consider looking up U.S. Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia ruling, where a States Right of blocking interracial marriage was struck down. It is precedent enough to be included in any discussion of gay marriage.
HemmD -
I did acknowledge the possibility of a 'changing standards' ruling in my paragraph Yes, there are cases working their way through the courts trying to apply various SCOTUS rulings and Constitutional Amendments to accomplish and overturning of the current state of affairs, but as of yet none have made it to SCOTUS for final arbitration.
, but then stated my opinion that those arguements will not carry the day.
Also, I did reference Loving v. Virginia, and I am familiar with it (I actually read Supreme Court rulings for fun) and specifically commented on the narrowness of that ruling, which makes it an unfit and unlikely candidate to use as a tool against the weight of stare decisis.
That is my opinion, what can I say. I have seen nothing in the case briefs (again, yes, I do read such things) of the key cases in the Federal hopper, or in recent rulings, with the potential exception of Lawrence v. Texas (where Kennedy has already hinted he would NOT expand to cover gay marriage, and we both know it is his vote that counts), that would lead me to beleive otherwise.
The part that those who wish to use it as such always cite is the marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man”; however they conveniently ignore the subsequent language of The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. which was in the end the limit placed on the ruling.
Can a new right be found by SCOTUS via similar logic? Certainly. Betting on what they will rule in a close case is like going to Vegas. However, for the reasons cited above, until and unless either Kennedy or one of the 4 Conservative Justices is replaced (by a more Liberal Justice), I do not believe that Loving and Lawrence will carry the day.
No problem.
As I said at the outset, sorry I am late to the party.
I hold no hope that this court will expand the progressive position of equating gay marriage through Loving v. Virginia. This court employs stare decisis only when they want to; probably like every other SCOTUS….
By the way, you don't get points for this debate..:)
By the way; you read cases for fun, I read philosophy for fun.
Maybe that explains our occasional mis-connects in understanding each other.
HemmD -
I didn't say I ONLY read SCOTUS cases and decisions for fun. I also read a lot of science articles, biographies, historical novels, page turners, and of course, lots and lots of blogs (a mix that is more right than left, but that is no surprise).
I do not tend to read philosophy though. At least not since I was a college freshman.
An you get points – stating an opinion I disagree with, but doing so intelligently and without name calling, works for me.
HemmD -
I forgot. I do think I understand you, and that you understand me. I just think you are wrong on this issue, and you feel the same about me.
There is a difference, though. You believe, I think, that I am expressing some deep-seated animosity against gay marriage. I am not. I am not a proponent, as I have said, but I also do not have a problem with it becoming the law of the land through legislative action or Constitutional Amendment.
All I have spoken to lately in my discussions with you is my analysis of how I think the likely scenarios are going to play out over the next few years in the courts.
You, IMO, are letting you desire for a specific result cloud your ability to acknowledge the likelihood I am correct in my analysis of what will happen, as compared to what you would LIKE to have happen.
For example, I would like the Supreme Court to revisit and over-rule many of the existing 4th Amendment rulings around things like the legality of random urinalysis, the lawfulness of asset forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, in additional to about 75% of the Commerce Clause rulings.
That is NEVER going to happen, though, as much as I think it should.
I did not infer that was your only perusal. I would add good historical novels to your list. Burr by Vidal and Shogun by Clavel would be worth your while.
Add inappropriate name calling here. I don't need your stinkin' points.
AR
I do not look to motive for you being wrong on this issue at all.
Seriously,
I address these issues from an anthropological/societal/philosophic viewpoint. Weird, I know. A full explanation would be one of my thesis papers you hate to read…..
The short version of how my analysis plays out in this issue is like this:
Given- Moral merely means “right by the standards of the society making the judgment.” Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Hawaiians would have laughed at us.
Given – Society's standards of behavior change over time.
Given – Our justice system is built upon precedence, which is just “the way things have been done before.”
Observation – Our legal system is marked with fundamental changes to our society's view of what is right. Dred Scott, Emancipation Proclamation, etc. were accompanied by social movements that drove the real change.
Thus, I believe that the weight of current belief by a growing number of Americans see gay marriage as a matter of Love, and thus not morally repugnant. The reason they see it that way is due to the similarities between GL couples and black/white couples. My kids, 21 and 23, and their generation think this whole thing is ridiculous because it denies a “natural” fact.
There's my reasoning, and why I think my comments don't link up well with your legal analysis. Your arguments are probably accurate for how the courts rule now; in this I wouldn't doubt you.
My analysis is one based on the change in people and thus society. I believe in that, the tide has changed in people the way they changed in the 60s civil right era.
You're also right that it will take new laws to make the change, not judicial re-interpretation.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Read them both, Shogun multiple times, and just got my son to read it. Plus, we own the mini-series, which is pretty good too, but not as detailed or nuanced.
BTW – Michener and Eco are two more of my favorites.
On a related note, just saw Spam'a'Lot the other week, with Richard Chamberlain as King Richard. It was all I could do not to yell out 'Anjiu-San!'
HemmD -
re: your mini-thesis. Then based on that, we are very much in alignment. To repeat, I am not opposed to gay marriage, I just am not a supporter (I don't think you have to be binary on this issue. In essence, as I hope it came out, I would neither try to do anything active or passive to create or deny the right).
And there is no doubt that there is a greater acceptance of the concept that in the past. However, as the vote in California showed, the support in the general population is not, IMO, to the point that advocates believe it is. There are pockets of support, and those pockets over time likely will increase.
In the long run, though, I think it is still a toss-up as to whether full, national recognition of gay marriage occurs. It is not generally accepted in other countries either, even many otherwise 'Liberal' countries (at this moment 7, with 14 more that have some form of civil unions).
If you asked me to bet, I would bet yes, but it is 10 – 15 years out.
As far as Shogun, I just tell people, “Read the Prologue, if you can put it down then, go ahead.” Referring back to my “thesis,” this book kind of shows how fragile morals and social justice really are.
I figure Vidal put a Burr under your saddle when he got to Jefferson.(baad pun intended) Another way to see our founding fathers.
Agreed about your additions. Michener especially.
When I read Leon Uris' Trinity, it really woke me up to how history as taught compared to how history was lived.
civil unions are the way to go, but it may be sooner than your estimation only because things are changing faster all the time.
By the way, has their ever been a discussion about Global Warming at TMV? That is one I'd like to have. I'm a “denier” as the rational consensus driven political scientists call me.
No one brought up carbon cap and trade. Too bad.
GW? You are a 'denier'? See, we are more alike than we think.
BTW – I don't deny there was a global warming trend. I say it was within the 'noise factor' of normal variations, is already over and we are into the early stages of a cooling trend, and that there is no meteorological model that is remotely accurate enough over time and the entire globe that can possible state man's impact.
But not to worry – GW will crop up soon TMV , I bet, especially with Obama calling for 'climate manipulation'. I think he must have been watching too many Bond movies lately.
Yes, yes, and right again.
This is why Gore should have won, he won't have had time to go into the wilderness and have Hansen show him the hockey-stick proof of GW.