VOTE OF 100 To 49!
**Update: Video of vote and comments by lawmakers in House**
With exactly the required number of votes, and after an override by the Vermont Senate just minutes prior, the Vermont House, by a 100 to 49 margin, overrode Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of the gay marriage veto, and approved gay marriage for Vermont. Gay marriage is legal in Vermont!
More details shortly – stay tuned!
Click here to watch video:
(photo: -Marlith-)
{ 19 comments }
Wow! What a week. Firs Iowa's Supreme Court was the first to unanimously overturn there state's ban on gay marriage. Now Vermont becomes the first to pass gay marriage through the legislative process.
These are some historic times we're experiencing on the civil rights front.
It really is great! I hope we all remember this feeling for a long time to come!
Could this be momentum?
I absolutely think it is. But for both sides. This "rash" of gay marriage success will embolden the Right as well. We need to redouble our efforts and not get lazy like we did before Prop 8 passed.
Now that the structure of the family no longer needs to the primary basis for marriage, none of you will object to one having multiple wives, husbands, or one marrying their sister, brother, father, mother, children, or their sheep…right? As long as it is a committed loving relationship…right???
There are laws against marrying your sister because some breeders are not smart enough to realize that there needs to be some diversity to the gene pool. I'm so over the whole man & dog argument. Does anyone seriously think that someone wants to marry their dog. Come on. I'm also over the Christianists and their use of the bible to justify their bigotry. • Here's a nugget from the Bible: DEUTERONOMY22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. How's that for traditional family values. I'm collecting my stones right now.
So, you're referring to a few of the more "traditional" aspects of marriage? The polygamy that's in the bible, I assume?
Marriage is a legal contract, which, as with any contract, requires 2 parties to enter willingly. As sheep cannot enter into a contract willingly or otherwise, I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing man-sheep marriage. And, incest is not something anyone is interested in pursuing or legalizing, to the best of my knowledge.
I hope I've answered your questions.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
I did not mention anything about the bible. If family structure has nothing to do with marriage then why do the courts not allow close kin to marry??? Is it still incest if two parties are consenting?? And what would be your objection to polygamy???
Gee, I thought only conservatives resorted to censorship, I see your true colors now.
whenever the bible gets mentioned we hear the "separation of church and state" cries, no I'm not referring to the bible, I'm referring to the traditional recognition of the meaning and existence of marriage within society by government. Why do courts not allow the marrying of close kin??? It is all about the family structure! Wait until family court experiences the can of worms that has been opened by this new development!!!
As far as a "can of worms", I'm not sure what you mean. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a few years now, not to mention in other countries. Everyone seems to be doing just fine.
And as far as "the traditional recognition of the meaning and existence of marriage within society by government" well, like everything else, that changes over time. Just think, a few decades ago it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. How far we've come!
The question remains, why then should polygamy or the marrying of close kin be prohibited in light of this new development. To say that no one is interested in legalizing incest "to the best of my knowledge" avoids the question. Why not, how does it differ? What someone may want now, as opposed to later, is precisely the point…."how far we've come!" and far can we go?
The question remains why should polygamy or the marrying of close kin be prohibited? To say "incest is not something anyone is interested in pursuing or legalizing, to the best of my knowledge.", avoids the question. Why not, what's the difference between that , and what has just happened ?? To say "how far we've come!", is precisely the point, and how far can we go?
The question remains why should polygamy or the marrying of close kin be prohibited? To say "incest is not something anyone is interested in pursuing or legalizing, to the best of my knowledge.", avoids the question. Why not, what's the difference between that , and what has just happened ?? To say "how far we've come!", is precisely the point, and how far can we go? And by the way YOU ARE TRYING TO CENSOR ME…fifth try, had to create entirely new moniker previously known as initials F. B. to post this reply!!!!
Furman, I am not trying to censor you. The Intense Debate system allows only a certain number of comments from any one person. So, as the others are all the same I am responding to this one. To be honest, this is not a debate I'm interested in having. I have no position on any other relationship forms. I am content to fight for marriage equality for same sex couples. That is my focus. If others are interested in fighting for or against other issues, that's fine, but my focus is on this issue only.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Oh and for the record, no the bible does not forbid polygamy, not until the new testament, and then only for leadership positions within the church. I see no prohibition of polygamy, other than that, and I don't think it is wrong, as long as one is willing to love and provide, so why won't the courts allow polygamy, sounds like discrimination, polyphobia.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you've registered with the commenting system, you shouldn't have any problem making comments. If you haven't, it may only allow a certain number of comments in a given time period.
I only censor/block comments that are offensive/inappropriate/create a hostile or uncomfortable environment for the rest of my readers.
And I've never done so yet.
The question remains why should polygamy or the marrying of close kin be prohibited? To say "incest is not something anyone is interested in pursuing or legalizing, to the best of my knowledge.", avoids the question. Why not, what's the difference between that , and what has just happened ?? To say "how far we've come!", is precisely the point, and how far can we go?
The question remains why should polygamy or the marrying of close kin be prohibited? To say "incest is not something anyone is interested in pursuing or legalizing, to the best of my knowledge.", avoids the question. Why not, what's the difference between that , and what has just happened ?? To say "how far we've come!", is precisely the point, and how far can we go? And by the way YOU ARE TRYING TO CENSOR ME…fifth try, well since no one else will be allowed to see this without it being preapproved by the site adminstrator, I'm quite sure you will be reading davidbadash. I'm pretty sure that your friends could handle the content of this post. It poses some valid questions which you have been skillfully avoiding, but perhaps you will think about them, it would be nice if you allowed the rest of your site community see them as well, but I suppose they must be protected.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }