Suck it, haters.
Today, Vermont legalized gay marriage. Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry was overturned by a 23-5 vote in the state Senate and 100-49 in the House. That’s a pretty damn resounding overturning, folks.
Vermont becomes the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.
And in Washington, D.C. today, the Council voted to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.
Can’t be stopped! Won’t be stopped!
yayayayay!
and. I do have to say that it’s getting rather pathetic when Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa out-liberal California X_x
oops, that was me…
aw, but we had a stupid people’s vote. Our courts allowed it….. then it was banned by the stupid prop
Yay… the whole 5 gay people in Vermont will form an anal train and do the bunny hop…
you’re an idiot.
This is why Triangle Man hates Particle Man…
Actually, as a fellow New Englander I know there is a pretty large population of gay people in VT compared to the states entire population. Last time I checked it’s percentage of GLBT people was higher than CA. The majority of Vermonters are pretty accepting and open. Maybe some people should take a cue from them and learn to love and accept and embrace equality.
YOU GOTTA FIGHT
(neeerrr neeerrr)
FOR YOUR RIGHT
(neeerrr neeerrr)
TA BE MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISERABLE!
LOOOL.
Tru that.
As a queer Canadian couple who will not get married, we send our congrats to Vermonters who wish to do so. I still think marriage is stupid and don’t intend on tying that currently available knot, but hey, if you’re into that ball and chain thing I won’t rain on your parade.
Now when y’all start fighting for trans rights or queer lives in the middle east I’ll think about getting excited.
This is change I can believe in.
Not really surprising, given the vote count of the bill’s passage.
The arguments against gay marriage are quite similar to those originally used to keep heterosexuals of different races from marrying each other or going to school together or eating together, etc. Something to think about for those who believe that two adults who love each other shouldn’t have the same rights and protections as any other couple.
For those against gay marriage, it’s really a religious issue, which makes me think back to that whole “separation of church and state” thingy.
there was no separation of church and state throughout bush’s whole administration. i think it’s a nice thought but it’s not really enforced. people are always basing legal decisions on religious beliefs.
With statements like “there was no separation of church and state throughout bush’s whole administration” and “it’s not really enforced”, you lose credibility. If you want to see a government with no separation of church and state, try Iran.
“people are always basing legal decisions on religious beliefs”. What do you mean by “people”? Do you mean judges? Judges are always overturning laws and actions that they believe cross the line between church and state.
Over the long run, the gap between church and state in the US has widened. Gay marriage is just another inevitable example.
BTW, do you even have a point related to the original subject?
Wow Dan, why you gettin all up in misscognito’s face (avatar)? I think she makes a good point. Do you remember when Bush in the very last lame duck days he had left decided that medical staff like nurses and doctors could be able to refuse medical treatment to a patient if it went against their (religious) beliefs? So for ex. not prescribing the day-after pills b/c they’re anti-abortion or refusing to treat an HIV gay person simply because their gay. That is clearly Bush using religious bias to make decisions.
Why? Because a statement like “there was no separation of church and state throughout bush’s whole administration” is incorrect. Like I mentioned, just go to Iran to see a country where no such separation exists.
From the way you are both using the phrase, I get the feeling that you don’t actually understand the legal meaning behind it in much the same way that most people don’t understand the meaning of “freedom of speech”.
Well I understand where you’re coming from Dan, obviously the US is not like Iran and the last time I checked, you and I weren’t being dragged out of bed at sunrise to face East and pray to Allah or whatever it is that they have to do in that country. But when I read misscognito’s comment I didn’t think she actually meant completely no separation, but just exaggerating to show that Bush DID definetely let what he believed religiously affect him and that mixed politics with his religion, hence unseparation of church and state. You don’t have to agree with her comment word for word b/c I think she was exaggerating, but surely you can agree with me that not every decision Bush made was logical, based on facts, and completely unbaised from his religious beliefs?
I’ll go over this once more and then I will let it be.
Neither one of you seems to understand what that phrase means. There are two main functions that it serves:
1. To prevent the government from adopting an official religion or giving preference to one religion.
2. To protect the people from the government interfering with how they practice their religion.
The Bush actions that you site are actually examples of him enforcing the 2nd of the two and protecting people from having to take actions that go against their religious beliefs. The courts have gone back and forth on this one (making polygamy illegal but letting Seventh Day Adventists take Saturdays off).
The founding fathers never meant it the way you are interpreting it. This is evidenced by the Declaration of Independence, the phrase “So help me God” used in oaths and many other ways.
Actually, you COULD argue that Bush violated your first point on separation of church and state. He very clearly pushed for public funding to go towards religious organizations that practiced (religious) discrimination in hiring. Those organizations hire only those employees that share the same beliefs as them, which are, coincidentally enough!, those of Bush as well. He got administration officials to write new guidelines to help teach these organizations how to better recieve public funding while continuing to discriminate. He even pushed in the past to remove prohibitions against hiring discrimination. Bush wanted all taxpayers’ money, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, to go towards religious organizations that HE supported and HE believed in. That is “giving preference to one religion” over another.
I would actually just like to say thank you, Dan. I love the way you argue, and agree with your statements.
I agree w/ Dan.
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuck yeah!
About FUCKING TIME!
YAY! SO happy! I was worried when he stated outright that he was going to veto it, but go Senate!
As a fellow New Englander (NH) who is now displaced in CA, I am so happy we are showing CA and the rest of the states how it is done. 3 states down 3 to go! NH is trying to pass a bill right now to legalize gay marriage also, and I hope it goes through. It has already passed the House, it just needs to pass the Senate. Gov. Lynch is opposed to gay marriage but has not stated that he will automatically veto it. Maybe this will help change his mind? Live Free or Die! Equality for all, separate is NOT equal!
(sorry for going overboard on all the !!!’s I am just wicked excited and proud)
Me too! I’m kind of glad I don’t live there though because I would be extremely tempted to get married to some random gay just for the hell of it. I’d need time to let the excitement wear off before I could think rationally and avoid commitment like a normal person.
But yeah, go us! Take that, Westboro Baptist Church!
Ok so when do the polygamists start demanding their “equal right to marry”? Once you open the door to gays then it’s the endless freak show of oddballs wanting to get married. Just sayin’ …
First of all, why not?
Secondly, get your head out of your bigoted and hateful ass and take a look around. This is not the Puritan times anymore. Its called the modern world.
Right, because the straights have done such a great job of protecting the sacred institution of marriage with a 60% divorce rate and a quick perusal of any celebrity gossip page shows how seriously celebrities take their marriage vows and the sanctity of “til death do us part”.
You two need to re-read your own posts if you want to see hate. WTF is your problem anyway? I see the tolerance you preach only works one way eh? FACIST ASSHOLE.
.
Yeah okay I don’t want to get in a flame war here, but I need to defend myself.
I respect people’s right to believe and think whatever they want, but the obvious disregard and thoughtless hatred you have towards people who are different is not okay. I am *not* accepting and tolerant of bigotry and hatred. I admit it. I am anti-prejudice.
Oh please. That’s apples and oranges. Two sane adults willing to marry each other. Who can say no without bringing religion in to it? Or this other sad hateful excuse.
Do you mean, “FASCIST” asshole, Jennifer? Or are you pointing out Beached Whale’s cute lil diamond face?
Somebody needs to do some googling on fascism, because you are using it wrong. If you are going to throw around trigger words in political arguments, for god’s sake, understand what they mean.
At least look it up and then try to explain what you could have meant.
Here’s from everyone’s favorite, wikipedia.
“Fascist movements and governments oppose homosexuality. The Italian Fascist government declared homosexuality illegal in Italy in 1931.[100] The British Union of Fascists opposed homosexuality and pejoratively questioned their opponents’ sexual orientation, especially of male anti-fascists.[101] The Romanian Iron Guard opposed homosexuality as undermining society.[102] The Nazis thought homosexuality was degenerate, effeminate, perverted and undermined the masculinity which they promoted; and because it did not produce children.[103] Nevertheless the Nazis considered homosexuality curable through therapy. They explained it though modern scientism and the study of sexology which said that homosexuality could be felt by “normal” people and not just an abnormal minority.[104] Critics have claimed that the Nazis’ claim of scientific reasons for their promotion of racism, and hostility to homosexuals is pseudoscience,[105][106] in that scientific findings were selectively picked that promoted their pre-existing views, while scientific findings opposing those views were rejected and not taken into account.”
Yeah!
The divorce rate isn’t 60% wtf
You’re right. I actually think it’s even higher…
So right. ‘Cause 2 adults wanting to enter into a loving, binding union has the next logical step in polygamy! Like when I told people that letting Americans have concealed weapons would open the door for people owning tanks. Just sayin’…
Actually, yes it does seem to be the next logical step towards equality. Mormons didn’t really willfully stop practicing polygamy. They did it primarily to fit into mainstream America.
There is always an endless freak show of oddballs waiting to get married. Now gay weirdoes there can marry, just like the straight weirdoes.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
– W.F. Buckley Jr. (RIP)
I’ll listen to other views, as long as they aren’t stupid.
I <3 Jeremy
HAHAHA SO TRUE. I love it.
I listen to other views, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree. Just like someone doesn’t have to agree with mine. I hear people out, debate the flaws in both arguments, than make a decision on where I stand. I am always open to new views, facts or ideas being brought to my attention. Some enhance my stance, other make me think again. And yes, I am shocked sometimes to hear points of view that I find to be very hateful and discriminating.
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends… that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
– Adlai E. Stevenson
I love you for replying to a quote with another quote.
BINGO. Facism has taken over America. If you don’t agree with me you’re an ignorant, bigoted, racist, misogynistic republican KKK nazi asshole and you should burn in hell. End sarcasm.
I think the use of the words “endless freak show of oddballs wanting to get married.” pretty much killed your chances of being taken seriously. And miss me with the “Facism” argument. That’s not just a term you can yell in an attempt to make your point whenever people don’t agree with you. It has an actual meaning, and it’s not one to be taken lightly.
For the record, I really don’t have an issue with Polygamy so long as all involved are consenting adults.
Well I take issue with the fact that this place is overrun with political correctness types who cannot stand to hear anyone else’s opinion without screaming “racist” or “bigot” at anyone who disagrees with their social/political view of the world. I don’t have a problem with gay marriage on a personal level, I merely suggested that it might not be in the best interest of the nation because freaky type people will take advantage of the situation to say marry their dog or a chimp or an underage person ect. and of course the PC crowd had to jump right on me with their facist crap, and Yes, Soleil, it is facism. Tolerance is for everyone so long as they agree with you otherwise they are shouted down as a racist and bigot. That is FACISM.
hey, you know in some states people CAN marry an underage person already, right?
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. NOT a dog and an adult. Not a child and an adult (though apparently you can in some states according to this other comment here). Not five women and one man. Not fruit salad and a woman. This argument gets made all the time and it’s sooo off base it.
Ok. So if gay people are allowed to marry, then immediately people are allowed to marry dogs? Um was this part of the bill that went under the radar?
Stop being a crazy weirdo
oh, and FASCISM. FASCISM. THERE ARE TWO S’s IN THERE. Spell it right if it’s your best friend and all. You don’t even know what you are screaming about.
most states allow for it, Kevin (often you need parental consent)
Ok, here’s what I think: Marriage is a religious thing, no matter what religion you’re talking about and should not be in the scope of law. Bear with me, read on.
I think every union between two (or three or ten) consenting people should be given the same legal rights and not be called marriage unless you’re talking to the religious institution (if there is any) of those consenting people.
Laws surrounding marriage are put in place to protect the people involved, their property and dependents. If it has so much stigma, we don’t need to use the word marriage at all, we can just call it a union. That way everyone will have the same rights and no religious institution will be offended or trampled upon. No preference given to straight people, monogamous people or Christians, just equal equality and the Churches/Synagogues/Temples/etc. can keep their word and do with it what they please.
As a queer and atheist person in a committed relationship, I don’t believe in marriage but expect the same rights for myself and my partner as everyone around us, and I do what I can to preserve those rights. I am in a country where I have the legal right to wed my partner but we have chosen not to because we don’t subscribe to the belief that marriage is essential to our life together. I know there are queer people who are religious and would like to be married as a part of their religion. I think they should have a right to do so, if that religion permits them. However, I think the word marriage should be abolished from the secular vocabulary of the state and that all citizens of legal age and sound mind should be viewed as equals and be treated as such.
I love that quote. I am so sick of hearing that you are a hater if you do not support gay marriage. I do not support gay marriage for religious reason. I do, however have two gay cousins. Do I hate them? No, I love them very much. But if you believe in God and the bible, it is a fact that God says it is a sin, and marriage is between man and a woman. I do understand arguments in favor. But there is really no huge argument that can be made in return unless you believe in God. It is also a worry to me that gay people can’t just quietly live there life, they require that it be taught in schools, they sue people who have a different view. This happens, and it will only get much worse.
Ah, yes, perfect. Marriage in the bible.
Which do you prefer?
The polygamy version? – Polygynous marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household.
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines? A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought…[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free.” 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household
How about this one? (it’s my personal favorite) A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.
Ah good old healthy biblical fun. Who is up for raping some virgins?
oh Kevin. You are so very not stupid :)
I ADORE when people actually use the bible to fight against people who are just like “but the bible say!! the bible says!!!!”
the Bible says a hell of a lot of stuff that we do not follow. And that rapist one was a killer!
So, gay persons can’t believe in God? Uh, I think that’s their right in all 50 states, as is the way they may choose to worship Him. And you want them to just quietly live their lives? Stop dictating and follow your own advice…
Yep- I’m the beet reader who is actually from VT! (I was even at the statehouse when it passed!) We worked DAMN hard to get the right for same sex couples to marry- it was a long and hard fight that really has been going on over 12 years, before civil unions were passed.
It’s another death knell for homophobia and hatters! More Love! More Equality! More respect!
Vermont is the most liberal state in the union- Killermodsecretary! We have held the title forEVER- before you CA folks were even a state! (we were the first state to abolish slavery!)
Next up- secession! GET THE U.S. OUT OF VT!
Lol
As another Vermont Beet reader, I just want to add that there are plenty of conservatives/Republicans here, but there’s also a philosophy of live and let live, which makes this a cool place to live. Zoning? What’s that? Public nudity? No big deal. And while we’re talking firsts, let’s not forget first state officially for Obama in the election. OK, enough rah-rah. I need to go iron my plaid flannel shirts.
Man, now I really want to live in Vermont but I don’t know if I’d be awesome enough to fit in.
between Straight Vermonter’s exuberant use of exclamation points and cj’s laid-back vibe, I’m starting to like Vermont as well…
It’s true! VT rules. You also are the home to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, the best maple syrup ever (I always make sure to pick some up on my trips back home to NE), plus you know what ice hockey is and even like it! The only things my home state of NH has on you are slightly prettier leaves in the fall, an awesome state motto, the Old Man of the Mountain (may he RIP), no sales tax and just over 10 miles of lovely rocky, sandy, cold ocean shoreline!
Hey.
The best maple Syrup comes from Quebec, Canada. And we had gay marriage first too.
Just sayin.
Do you have a hot gay brother/cousin I could pour syrup over and marry? I can kind of speak French, I’d move.
I’m a Vermonter too! And never have I been prouder to be one (except maybe when VT was called first for Obama…)
DEATH TO HATTERS
but just mad hatters, right?
Dear Vermont, I love you.
Marriage is an ancient sacred institution intimately tied to procreation and the propagation of the humanity. It’s legal existence and protection in American history is derived from this basic truth.
A same-sex union is in no way equal to natural marriage, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound.
you see. that is the type of justification that irritates me. and I couldn’t have said the following better myself.
“yes, letting same-sex couples wed would in some sense redefine marriage. until a decade ago, no western society had ever embraced or, for the most part, even imagined same-sex marriage. but until recently, no western society had ever understood, to the extent most americans do today, that a small and more or less constant share of the population is homosexual by nature. homosexuals aren’t just misbehaving heterosexuals. fooling straight people into marrying them is not an option. barring them from the blessings of marriage is inhumane and unfair, even if that is a truth our grandparents did not understand.
so today’s real choice is not whether to redefine marriage but how to do so: as a club only heterosexuals can join or as the noblest promise two people can make. to define marriage as discrimination would defend its boundaries by undermining its foundation.”
by jonathan rauch
first published on March 7, 2004, in the new york times magazine.
I do not subscribe to the belief that homosexual individuals are “misbehaving heterosexuals.” Yet, it is precisely the reality that homosexual unions are incapable of procreation and propagation that excludes them from said “club”.
Mr. Rauch is clearly mistaken. To continue the tradition of marriage as an institution bound to future generations of humanity is not a redefinition of marriage, but an affirmation of a deeper promise, that life shall continue beyond those who now draw breath.
the point is that we need to redefine marriage beyond the discriminatory boundaries that past generations have instilled within our society.
your point is moot, human life does not rely on the institution of marriage. what of single mothers and fathers? in fact, we could very well be a giant nation of free love and orgies and be just fine in that area.
So the obvious question in response to this is, what about hetero couples who are infertile, or who choose not to have children? By the logic of your statement, they should be allowed to be married either, since they’re not “bound to future generations.”
What you define marriage sounds like it came straight out of the Catholic encyclopedia. The fact is, marriage has meant many different things to many different cultures and peoples throughout history. Using the definition of the institution from one specific culture and time period to rule a nation of all peoples and cultures, a nation that celebrates and is built on these differences, is simply incompatible with our founding vision.
It doesn’t matter what you believe, your beliefs are your own and you are welcome to them, you do not have the right to force the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else. Ever.
The Catholic church did not invent human fertilization, nor do *I* force people to follow the laws of biological reproduction.
cj brings up a valid point, but the fact remains everyone living yesterday, today, and tomorrow has a male parent and a female parent.
Clearly a same-sex union is in no way equal to natural marriage. A marriage between a single man and a single woman most closely aligns with biological reality and human destiny.
Humans are naturally opportunistically polygynous. That is, men have a biological imperative to mate with as many females as possible while preventing their primary female from being impregnated by other males.
Women play the different biological game of attractive a semi-permanent mate to help them raise offspring and provide protection. Their trade-off for having a stable environment is access to only one sperm source, so they have to choose wisely.
OMG I KNOW BIOLOGY TOO!!!
Marriage isn’t natural, its a cultural institution to constrict sexual activity(population control) and a business arrangement to provide financial security to those who enter into it and forge ties between different families, which would have been of the utmost importance in forming a sense of community among early humans.
But culture goes two ways, there’s the traditions that are preserved because they work and the traditions that are discarded because they are no longer necessary or perhaps even contrary to society’s survival.
(typo removed)
Marriage is an ancient sacred institution intimately tied to procreation and the propagation of humanity. It’s legal existence and protection in American history is derived from this basic truth.
A same-sex union is in no way equal to natural marriage, no matter how politically incorrect that may sound.
ruh roh, you forgot one…
As a Vermont neighbor (NH) I know it was a hard fought battle. Congrats to VT!
I have a question because im from canada and i dont understand the whole state law vs federal law vs human rights problems that the legalization of gay marriage is causing:
if you are legally married as a gay couple in vermont and you move to another state where gay marriage is not legal are you not considered married?
Well, I think it depends on the state. Some states will recognize it. Like the article said, DC just voted to recognize same sex marriages from other states.
I think for all legal reasons, you would still be considered married most places. Like, I believe you could still file your federal taxes under “married,” etc. But I am not sure about that.
if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one. but let people who want one have one.
so yay vermont!
Thank goodness some people are coming to their senses!
More great news! Let’s hope it’s not long before California overturns Prop 8.
GREAT! Now if i only lived in those states it would be perfect, but I’m stuck in my very conservative country.
YAY!! Vermont makes four.
But seriously though… WTF CALIFORNIA.. even IOWA did it!!