Today, the Vermont Senate approved “a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.” While it’s unfortunate that there was “no debate” on this important legislation, allowing Senators to flesh out why gay marriage is a good thing, I commend the legislature for taking up the issue.
Unlike the Green Mountain State’s decision to recognize same-sex civil unions in 2000, this time the legislature acted on its own without the State Supreme Court requiring it to take up the issue (as it did for the civil-unions legislation).
This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.
As those following the gay marriage debates turn their attention again to the Green Mountain State, let us recall how we have progressed since last we focused on that New England state. In 2000, civil union were seen as a revolutionary step, one which required court intervention. Now, they’re seen as the conservative solution to the controversy over how to recognize same-sex couples.
You can’t trust Wikipedia entirely, but here are a couple interesting links on the current state of same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Same-sex_legal_relationships_in_USA
And that got by the spamfilter, even with two links. Oh-kay…
On the current state – As I read the articles, here is roughly the state of things:
– MA and CT have gay marriage
– CA, VT, NJ, NH have civil unions equal to marriage
– ME, HI, DC, OR, WA, and Maryland have civil unions that are a subset of marriage.
– “More than 40 states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have” civil unions.
– 30 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.
– “A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.”
Confusing! And, to the good Barney Frank’s recent faux-point about Justice Scalia: When will we have an inter-state conflict – a Full Faith & Credit case – that makes it to the Supreme Court?
I suspect the lack of debate was intentional and not to “…flesh out why gay marriage is a good thing…” but to prevent anyone from fleshing out why gay marriage is not a good thing.
I’m willing to surmise that votes in state legislatures on such issues have a much more liberal record than direct votes by the people. In states where their constitutions provide democratic decisions, the laws are likely both more conservative and better reflect the will of the people. Lobbying, franking rules, and sheer incumbency (and the relationships it implies) mean that elected representatives are insulated from their constituents, meaning their “constituent mix” changes once in office favoring entities such as big labor, government orgs, business and industry interests, schools, etc. and not necessarily the interests of their district’s voters. This is the main reason term limits are so vociferously opposed.
And best of all, those who oppose gay marriage can simply choose not to live in Vermont. This is as it should be.
And those of us who don’t live in Vermont will have to face the backlash as other states work to bar any sort of legal same-sex union by Constitutional amendment, or, if possible, adding another book to the Bible–anything, anything to stop it. Thanks, Vermont, for hardening the resolve of those who want to remove any possibility of same-sex union. And thanks to all those wonderful, thoughtful gay activists who have fought so hard for marriage while at the same time wanting nothing to do with it. It’s a Rainbow Day!
there wasn’t debate, but this was the third reading of the bill, there have been opportunities to present amendments (none were offered), there has been a week of public testimony on the bill, and a full vote is still forthcoming. i think the lack of public debate is procedural, not to avoid a discussion of the merits.
also, since when are civil unions a conservative idea?
Passed the Senate, yes. But now must pass the House. And if it does, it goes to the Governor. And guess what? The Governor is a Republican who does not believe in gay marriage. Can you say California?
“This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.”
This was tried in California but a Republican Governor vetoed it. And a Republican Governor stands ready in Vermont to veto that bill there. Can you name me one Republican Governor who would sign such a bill by the legislature into law? Can you understand what gay people who want to get married have against Republicans? Can you understand why most gay people vote democratic?
Why does Vermont even need gay marriage? It has incredible domestic partnership agreements and civil unions. By now, anyone who wasn’t dead would have signed up for those programs.
Besides, MM-partner and I travel 3-4 times each winter to Stratton and the gay men we’ve met out there have few teeth in place, hideous skin and make Larry, Darryl and Darryl look like Rhodes Scholars.
The gay women are all dressed in flannel, spreading like a tuba player at a bad Sousa gig for seniors and do small engine repairs… and that’s what they like to talk about, too.
Not really, Cecil, since gay Obama Party members like yourself have no problem endorsing FMA supporters and other people who oppose gay marriage.
Meanwhile, educate yourself a bit about California. By our state constitution, the Legislature is not allowed to pass laws that override a voter proposition, as Proposition 22 was. Gay-sex liberals like yourself chose not to obey the law and the governor vetoed it, as he should have. It is amusing to no end that gay-sex liberals like yourself claim that the Constitution protects your unwritten and unmentioned “right” to marry all of your sexual partners, but then flagrantly ignore said constitution when what it clearly says is inconvenient to you.
At the same time, can you understand what Republicans have against gays?
Look at their hatred of Mormons for an example.
Cecil,
To be blunt (who me?) The post reads “This is how states should address the issue, through the elected legislature, on the initiative of its members.”
Now this may come as a shock but that does not mean, “Letting one side win.” That means following the process of the government, and arriving at a result. Everyone won’t be happy with the result, but no one can argue how they got there.
NDT, a little less vitrolic, for our kinder gentler hosts, but your point is noted and correct. 🙂
#4 – Right on, V. That’s a perfect example of the Tenth Amendment, the basis for federalism – anything that is not expressly the province of the federal government is reserved for the states and for the people respectively.
Something the doofuses in Congress (especially those with a “D” after their names) seem to keep forgetting.
Regards,
Peter H.
#8 – “Can you understand what gay people who want to get married have against Republicans?”
No, not really – since marriage is the province of state governments (as are other licenses like voting, driving and incorporating), they should be addressing it at the state level and not the federal level. Which is why a federal DOMA is unconstitutional.
And the last time I checked, there were 30 states which had DOMA initiatives that overwhelmingly passed with more than 95% African-American support and 90% Hispanic support – two VERY big Dhimmicrat constituencies. Sounds like bigotry to me, no?
“Can you understand why most gay people vote democratic?”
Lack of education and maturity?
Regards,
Peter H.
“Can you understand why most gay people vote democratic?â€
The Democrat left media has done a good job of creating a boogeyman and making gullible gays believe in it. “If you don’t vote for Democrats, the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n right will get you! They’ll outlaw sex and force you to wear sensible shoes!” And silly as it is, a lot of “adults” believe that Republicans are out to get them.
So, after gay marriage becomes the law of the land, what will we do about the people who do not respect the gays who are married? Certainly they should have their driver’s licenses revoked until they complete a diversity training program. Churches will have to submit their reconciliation plans to the Department of Religious Conflict Resolution. And a whole series of perceived hate snubs will be added to the misdemeanor laws.
I think calling same-sex relationships “marriage” is an affront to the whole history of homosexuality. What Achilles and Patroclus felt for each other was not the same as Antony and Cleopatra. Homosexuals have worked to find alternative forms of relationships which complement rather than mimic heterosexuals. Even if the goal of a homosexual relationship involves lifelong monogamy, that still doesn’t make it a marriage. Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas weren’t “married” and would probably be insulted to have their relationship defined in such plebian terms.
I am sad for all the homosexuals in history who worked so hard to carve out a place within society which truly honored the uniqueness of being homosexual. What is happening in Vermont and California and elsewhere is a travesty to the memory of the wonderful and creative homosexuals who have gone before us. We are not the marrying type–we are separate but better.
helio inquires: “So, after gay marriage becomes the law of the land, what will we do about the people who do not respect the gays who are married?”
I’m thinking none of that which you list would be needed, helio. The gayLeft tells us that having gay marriage would give them the validation they deserve from society. No longer a victimhood industry in it’s own right, I suspect.
But then, I thought in electing Obama our country would now be able to lay to rest all the excuses of blacks about their disenfranchisement and unequal outcomes of opportunities in society… we’d get rid of affirmative action, quota, black colleges, race-based tests and so forth.
Instead, I’ve heard from career folks at DofJustice that there is a task force working on Slavery Reparations with Congressman Conyers’ office.
But maybe a gay marriage victory will be different.
Please do fill me in, what is the conservative position for gay marriage? Its a state issue because of the constitution relegating everything to the states not mentioned in the constitution? What about the full faith clause between states? What about Federal tax benefits? What if you have a job in a marriage state and move to a non marriage state?
When a straight married couple moves around the country, there is not an issue. No remarriage, etc.
Please explain.
Chuck,
I think on the federal level it’s a matter of the Constitution being silent, so it’s a matter for the legislature and the people to settle. Our congresscritters take the ‘pretend it will go away’ route for fear of losing their precious jobs by makng the wrong stand. That’s the difference, as I read, between Rep Fwank and Justice Scalia: Barney wants the courts to make the decision to give him cover, Justice Scalia says ‘it’s not in our job description to make law. That’s your job’.
The first time a court case gets to the Federal Courts on ‘Full Faith and Credit’ I do see a surge for a Defence of Marriage Ammendment, since the ammendment in Ohio was a defensive action to keep it out of the courts.
-This- conservative’s position is simple. Marriage is the government sanctioned union between a man and a woman. ‘fred’ is the government recognized union between two individuals of the same sex. Two different institutions, both recognized by the government.
Thanks Livewire,
If your “Fred” is the gov’t recognized union with the same rights and protections, then I am with you, but as this goes forward, they are not equal. So a federal recognition will eventually be necessary.
As for the Frank/Scalia “do your job” squabble, Supreme Court rulings are necessary, Otherwise, interaccial marriage still would be prohibited and homosexual activity would still be criminalized. Its a last resort for the minority opinion to get its moment of judicial review.
And I think Frank is hoping the Supreme Court will rule, because the sense of congress is just as you said, lacking the courage to do it. In short, Frank doesnt have the votes.
Otherwise, interaccial marriage still would be prohibited and homosexual activity would still be criminalized.
Funny, both had already been repealed — or never existed in the first place — in the vast and overwhelming majority of the states by the time the court cases ever even got there. Which is likely why amendments for either haven’t even been proposed, much less gotten there.
Wonder why antireligious and promiscuous gay bigots haven’t been nearly as successful?
“I do not suppose you could speed thing up?”
“I hate waiting.” – Inego Montoya.
For better or worse (I think better) societal change takes time. To use Roe v. Wade as the classical example of change happening too fast, you’ve had a country bitterly divided for coming up on 40 years now, because the court invented the ‘right’.
Civil Unions are/were a long time in coming, yes, but that’s because society takes a while to change. I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who wrote an article for NRO about how a law can be ‘legal’ but not ‘right’ obiviously this school of thought is one I subscribe to.
“1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow. ” Agent K
30 years ago, we’d not have a discussion of civil unions, 30 days ago we’d not have a bill waiting for the Governor of Vt to make his move. 30 minutes ago I’d not have felt the need to write this post. 30 years from now, society may well go ‘why do we have Marriage and Fred? What’s the difference, really?’
(Or more cynically, 30 years from now, h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y may be catagorized as a mental disorder again, tracked with genetic markers at birth and able to be treated with a psychoacive drug ‘straightagain’. I prefer to be more optimistic)
And, in case anyone wants to compare my beliefs on ‘expiration dates’ with Justice O’Connor’s U of M decision, discriminating based on race is already settled law, clearly defined in the constitution. The fact that she got it wrong shows even more why rule by Judicial Fiat is not good.
[This commenter has been banned due to repeated violation of community terms of conduct.]
Just FYI – Vermont’s governor has said he will veto the gay marriage bill even though the legislature has enough votes in both houses to override it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Hmm, it’s certainly something he can do, but did he give a reason?