Vermont legislature overrides governor’s veto, legalizes gay marriage
posted at 4:30 pm on April 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
The first state to do so the old-fashioned way, i.e. legislatively, instead of by court ruling. It was close in the house but they got it done:
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others…
Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.
Normally this is where I’d gauge whether a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision is feasible or not, but since Vermont’s gone off-script I’m without an angle here. No reaction yet from prominent social cons either, although Huckabee, Romney, and Palin are all on record as supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment so it’s safe to assume they want this overturned even without the dastardly handiwork of “activist judges.” In lieu of further comment, let’s take the temperature of the Hot Air faithful with a poll. You’ve got three choices — the social con option, the federalist option, and the libertarian option. I’m curious to see how it’ll shake out. Why, even Rick Warren’s backing away from this fight.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »
Port over the headline comments, please.
Religious_Zealot on April 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I’m conflicted over whether I still think it’s a big deal or not. I am infinitely happier that this was done by legislative means rather than the court though.
John_Locke on April 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Polygamy… polyandry… you name it, it’s coming.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I wonder how the voters of Vermont feel about this……?
Seven Percent Solution on April 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Unless there is an extant valid secular reason for opposing SSM, SSM will eventually become legal in all 50.
Because we do not have a State Religion, like Iraq and Pakistan do.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Very torn on choice A and B, but leaning A.
davek70 on April 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” -George Washington (Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Isn’t this the way it is supposed to work? The real question is why can’t the libtards accept the results of legislation, referendum, initiative? You expect the same of us.
jdkchem on April 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
As long as they go through the legislature, that’s fine, as long as other states don’t need to recognize it. And I’m a strong opponent.
Patrick H on April 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
If voters vote their values, which they are entitled to do under the First Amendment, they may still vote against homosexual marriage. They are not required to leave their beliefs at the entry to the voting booth.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
“Holiness unto the Lord,” Exodus 28:36. “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God,” St. Luke 18:16. “Search the Scriptures,” St. John 5:39. -Inscribed on the starircase walls inside the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Skiing in Killington, Vermont a couple of years ago, I saw this on a bumper sticker on a local’s car (obviously a gay marriage opponent):
“Mom and Dad, not Tom and Brad”
I laughed so hard I nearly wrecked into a ditch.
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Hurrah!! MA and CT should now pass their marriage laws through the legislature, so that the idiots will shut up about judicial fiat. I would presume it would now pass handily in both states.
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Better this way than by the now-traditional judicial way. I tend to think that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business but rather should support the underlying rights contained in marriages for whoever wants to assign such rights, but hey, Vermont can do for Vermonters what Vermonters want. Either way, the sooner we take this off the political agenda, the better.
Repurblican on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Very torn. I kind of oppose gay marriage, but this is the way laws should be made: By legislature — not court.
amerpundit on April 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM
“Laus Deo,” Latin for “Praise God.” -Inscribed on the eastern face of the apex of the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., so placed as to be the first thing illuminated at sunrise in our nation’s capitol.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM
My religion, Reformed Judaism, is all in favor of gay marriage. Do you have some point in your quote?
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I like it. I personally think gay marriage makes sense and they did it the right way. So no problems here. If it were done by fiat I’d have a problem with it.
Dash on April 7, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Those aren’t all the choices and you know it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 7, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I don’t think that’s what George had in mind.
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM
If the people of Vermont want it, and have elected legislators who will vote for it, then I say the system is working, regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes it.
apollyonbob on April 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Refreshing that was done democratically.
In light of that, I’ll refrain from criticizing it. The people of Vermont deserve the laws they enact. If they don’t like them, they can enact new ones after the next election.
It’s a beautiful system, actually. Too bad the courts stop us from using it.
Nessuno on April 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Next great social debate:
Muslims demand right to polygamy, saying, “If two men can marry, why not a man & two women?” And they will have a point.
jgapinoy on April 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Poll question:
Do we really want the federal government to legislate who we marry? I mean, really!
This is more consistent with the left than it is with true conservatism. Live and let live, folks! We shouldn’t let hate and fear dictate our laws. Leave that for the Democrats.
–a very straight UltimateBob
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Fear of a
BlackSecular Planet(props to the immortal and superawesome Public Enemy)
I’ve been wonderin’ why
People livin’ in fear
Of science and technology
And wonder and discovery
Evolutions proven
Our morals are just human
And the biologic basis
doesn’t have to stay in stasis
But they got me on the run
Treat me like I have a gun
All I got is knowledge
All I got is data
And the promise of the future
So dont ‘chu be a hatah
Embrace the future
Dissmiss the past
Or the techno-singularity
will knock u on your ass
Consider me Scient to the bone
All I want is peace and love
On this planet
(Ain’t that how God planned it?)
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
They passed it legitimately through their legislature. I disagree with it, but they have the right to do so legally through state sovereignty. The messiness will be when other states pass laws explicitly banning any gay marriage certificate from Vermont.
Weebork on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Well, now the clock starts to tick on when this reaches the Supreme Court as gay married couples move from Vermont to, say, Virginia where their marriage isn’t recognized.
In other words, are states that don’t recognize SSM required by the US Constitution to recognize the marriages of same sex couples who move to that state?
Boy, that’s a tough one. On first blush, I’d lean to “Aye, they must.”
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Keep fantasizing.
I’m glad that it was finally, for once, done by representation. However, in this day and age, with the Congress as it is, I haven’t seen actual representation in years, so it’s hard for me to accept this as a decision of the Vermont voters per se.
MadisonConservative on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
A couple of decades later, bestiality & incest will start to become mainstream, too.
jgapinoy on April 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Congratulations… advocates of gay marriage have finally legalized gay marriage by semi-democratic means. I’m impressed.
Glenn Jericho on April 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM
“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” -John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM
If I really believed you progressives would be content with opposing a State Religion, I’d buy this. But you’re not. Your goals lie in exterminating some religions by using aggrieved minorities as a bludgeon, and constitution be damned.
This is just a lever toward that goal. It’s obvious because there are viable compromises available … but people remain strangely uninterested. The progressives not vying for this goal won’t do anything to stop it, and I rather doubt the gay community will either. Just as long as you get to “tell the haters to shut up.”
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Serious question: What other forms of marriage is your religion in favor of? Is there a line drawn somewhere, and if so, why?
capitalist piglet on April 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Vermont needs more Mormons, apparently.
Make that happen.
bluelightbrigade on April 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM
No, the FMA states that for legal purposes the government will only recognize opposite sex couples.
The issue now is whether states that don’t legally recognize SSM be required by the Constitution to recognize the marriage of same sex couples who move to their state.
E.g., a gay married couple in Vermont move to Texas. Must Texas recognize for legal purposes (taxes, visitation rights, property rights, et cetera) that marriage?
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM
The hurdle will be higher since the state has a compelling interest in limiting a marriage to between two people–paternity and division or property are two difficulties.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Problem is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which can require one state to recognize the laws of another and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Some states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which possibly would get around FFC, since it only refers to “public acts, records, and judicial rulings.” Whether public acts are statutes or also state constitutions, who knows.
DOMA: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. [Big FFC issue here]
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. [FFC does not refer to the federal government]
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM
How about a fourth option on the poll –
I accept it in the name of federalism, but still also hope for a Federal marriage amendment to the Constitution.
I don’t think that a desire for an amendment to the constitution is contrary to the beliefs of federalists. The procedure for amending the constitution is sufficient to protect states rights.
DWSC on April 7, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Sure, but the supreme court and the bill of rights will strike down localized mob-rule, just like Brown vs Board struck down state funding for segregation academies and Loving vs Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws.
In a secular state, like the United States of America, without a State Religion, opposition to SSM cannot be based on religious opinion.
By all means, come up with a secular rational for opposing SSM and challenge the upcoming judicial fiat.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Are people into beastiality? Aside from a porn genre I haven’t met anyone who was into it much less wanted to commit faithfully for life to an animal.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM
“No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.” -Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I choose the federalist option. It’s their state. If the people dislike it they can vote in new representation to overturn the decision.
Theworldisnotenough on April 7, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Hey AP, how about another poll?
“Must states that do not recognize SSM be required to recognize the SSM of couples who move to the state from another state that does recognize SSM?”
Er, something like that; I’ll let you clean it up.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 4:51 PM
At least this time it was done by representatives of the people (the way it’s supposed to work). Now if they would only legalize illegal aliens…then maybe we could concentrate gays and illegal aliens all in one state.
A man can dream…
orlandocajun on April 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Why, O why doesn’t Allah import the comments? Jetboy was on the defensive there.
That said, a question for you SSM advocates: You of course advocate forcing this down the throat of every state that passed their constitutional amendments preventing this, right? So in reality, you won’t be satisfied until Utah is forced to marry gays whenever, wherever, and jail anyone who dares to speak up against it.
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Washington, like many of the Founding Fathers, had Deist leanings, and would have been respectful of the ideas of the Jewish community. His Deist leanings also suggest that he would not have look to the Bible (Christian or Hebrew) to answer the question of gay marriage today.
[Off topic, let remind people that Akzed said nothing anti-Semitic. I'm so sick of people playing the paranoid game of seeing racism everywhere that I'm paranoid some one will see anti-Semitism in Akzed's answer.]
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Can you add in D) This should not be an area of governmental intervention to begin with?
The easy way to solve this is to have no governmental recognition of any sort of marriage, union, whatever. Get married according to the rules of your faith, or just shack up if you don’t have one, and file a domestic contract with the county register. The end.
cbconnolly on April 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Paternity can be determined by DNA. Inheritance by treating all wives as equals for inheritance purposes, just as children of decedent are. If a widower dies, his kids usually take equal shares. If a polygamist dies, his wives could share equally in the “dower” (wife’s staturoty share).
We already have de facto polygamy in Muslim communities, such as West Africans in New York City. The second and third wives marry in a religious ceremony, but not civil. So it’s not bigamy.
If they’re all living together, who cares? Adultery is not a crime any more (or prosecuted).
Children from the second and third wives would be treated the same as the legitimate children for most, if not all purposes, since DNA would prove paternity.
The man can leave a will dividing up his property the way he wants. The legal wife would get dower share (a legal share the wife is entitled to from the estate), but he could always provide for equal amounts for other wives.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Glad it happened by the legislature and not the court, but Vermont is full of kooks and is hardly a prime example of what can happen. as for a valid secular reason, all of our laws which have evolved over a couple of thousand years are built on the premise of one man, one woman. we are rushing headlong into something with no good idea of the complications or societal problems it will raise. If the only criteria for marriage is a professed love for one another why can’t i marry my daughter? What is incest? legally. For that matter given the rush to give “rights” to animals, why can’t i marry my dog? I can make the same arguments for that as i am hearing for gay “marriage”. as already noted what happens to the polygamy laws? Those arguing for this are doing so in the misguided notion that there is some right to marriage, there isnt. Judges are inventing that language because it is not in any constitution.
pgrossjr on April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The dastardly handiwork of “activist judges” is, for some, a fig leaf for opposition to gay marriage, just as “states rights” was originally a fig leaf for support of slavery.
We all enjoy our little self-deceptions. Even Kim Jong II wants to be thought of as “dear.”
paul006 on April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
They must. This is actually how miscegenation laws were struck down. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution required the states to recognize those unions. It will also force other states to recognize these new ones.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the arguments used against gay marriage bear a remarkable similarity to those used to argue against interracial marriage.
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
That idea rather breaks down in large groups like we’ve got now, don’tcha think?
Pretty big gulf between the cooperation evolved between family groups and whole bloody world working together.
Let me know when you get to the “disappointed idealist militant liberal” stage. That’s a fun one.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Thuja, Washington was no Deist. He prayed for and acknowledged the direct intervention of God in the Revolutionary war, which no Deist would do.
“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” -George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343.
“Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the everlasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works; pardon my wanderings, and direct my thoughts unto thyself, the God of my salvation.” -George Washington, non-Deist Father of our Country, Prayer for Monday Mornings.
This is not the mind of a Deist.
[Thanks for the rational note too.]
Gotta go risk my like on I95 boys and girls.
Akzed on April 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The three ameliorative provisions in Islam are polygamy, slavery, and alcohol. Your jokes would be better if you bothered to have them make sense.
Nonfactor on April 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
At least the people who did this were voted into office. I’d much rather the people of Vermont were allowed to vote on this, but this is a compromise I can live with.
I’m an all or nothing person. So long as we agree the government can and cannot tell us who we can marry (more than one spouse, your relatives, etc.), then I think it’s ridiculous to say the government shouldn’t be allowed to say men cannot marry other men.
But that wasn’t an option on the list, so I went with the second one.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Nah, we just want you to quit “prancing and braying” in the public square, and put it back in your
pantschurches.In a pluralist secular Republic, religion simply has no place either in the halls of congress or in publicschool science classrooms.
Do you ever see Sir Richard breaking into churches to proselytize?
Nope.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
As for ‘secular’ reasons to oppose SSM:
1) Public health. Homosexuality, in particular male homosexuality, is about as healthy as, oh, heroin. Death rates and life expectancy show that. I recognize that most SSM advocates also advocate for free unlimited state subsidized drug use, but that isn’t exactly a winning team. “let’s legalize ways to kill off more Americans!”
2) the impact on families. With a legal SSM, you cannot, by law, express a preference for a traditional family–i.e. a mother, father and kids.
3) Issues of freedom of speech and religion. Everywhere else SSM is legal, there are penalties being imposed if religious figures try to speak on morality, as is their right. Invariably, it is riskier to be against SSM where it is legal, for fear of hate speech and other “thought crime” legislation. See, e.g. the boy scouts and their relentless hounding out of the public square because they still believe in being “morally straight.” It’s a perfectly good secular reason to decry the coming destruction of religions and all the good they do for the public square.
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM
This is what people have to understand: if we(conservatives) are going to harp on the constitution and how we don’t want the federal govt to strangle us, then we have to accept results like this even when they don’t agree with how we feel. Let’s hear it for Federalism, only wish the other states would follow suit.
youngO on April 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM
On first blush, I think it’s less clear than you do.
If one state recognized polyamory or polygamous marriages, would that require others to recognize them?
There’s also the issue that many states recognize civil unions that, for all intents and purposes, are marriage-lite, if you will.
I can perhaps see the Court ruling that since civil unions are available for these couples that requiring states to recognize for legal purposes their marriage is not required.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. If the state legislatures themselves want to legalize abortion or gay marriage or marrying dogs, it is within their power. They are accountable to their voters.
Speedwagon82 on April 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Last year, I might have voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment that Ed posted. After seeing what is going on in our Federal Govt. now, however. I won’t vote for the Federal govt. to acquire any more power. States rights are all we have left. The Federal Government is corrupt and is taking away our freedoms. We need to urge our states to push back from the trough and stand for the people. While I abhor Vermont’s vote, because of what it might lead to for the rest of us, I respect their right to vote the way they did much more than I respect the decisions foisted on the people of MA, IA, and CN by unelected judges.
Christian Conservative on April 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I happen to support gay marriage so I say Good For Vermont!
DarkKnight3565 on April 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Plus, animals cannot legally consent to sex.
Understandably so, but what was he doing here? Isn’t Lent not over until next week, or am I wrong on that? I’m not Catholic, but I have given something up for Lent before.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Opposition to the death penalty is frequently based on religious grounds. Pacifist religions such as Quakerism have opposed war on religious grounds. People vote for religious reasons. People can also state that a practice is morally wrong, without specifically stating that the morality is based on religion.
While legal positivists ave tried to separate law and morality (not necessarily religious morality, but just social traditions), natural law theorists recognize the foundations of society’s laws is its idea of right and wrong. The Declaration of Independence refers to God and Providence and is clearly based in natural law.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Here’s the resolution where Reformed Judaism endorsed gay marriage in 1997. Reformed Judaism is fairly vanilla in its ideas about marriage other than gay marriage. It has never supported polygamy unlike a certain religious cult known to oppose gay marriage.
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Sorry,
I respect their right to vote the way they did much more than I respect the decisions foisted on the people of MA, IA, and CT by unelected judges.
Christian Conservative on April 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Ah, strangelet would strip religions and their adherents from ever having political power. Gee, how…. comforting. And then he wonders why religious people oppose SSM?
“yes, yes–you can have your kooky faith as long as it doesn’t mean anything or affect anyone. No influence is allowed! By force of law, we shall be a militantly atheist society!”
Not even Allahpundit would support the idea that if you have a religious belief, you are disqualified from doing anything in Congress. You SSM believers wonder why you are viewed as hostile to religion?
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
We already have polygamy in the US.
The polygs just use “spirit marriages” to get around anti-polygamy laws.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
It can work via contract, it is just a mess when the contracts are not clear. Sure you can divide a guy’s estate up evenly–I’m sure wive’s #1 through #5 will all see each other as equals and be reasonable. How is a divorce handled when a man wants to divorce wives #2 & #3 but he wants to keep #1, #4 & #5 who were all OK with him sleeping with the future #6?
Above when I said paternity, I meant custody. Yes paternity is easy, but custody can be a mess when a single home splits up and there have been multiple cross adoptions.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Do I like what was voted in? No.
Was it done the right way? Yes.
Win some, lose some. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Dark-Star on April 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Forgive me, resident hotair gay activists, I forget:
Is voting on gay marriage “hateful” or “wonderful”
Between your hypocritical reactions to the 2004 state ballots vs. Connecticut/Massachusetts vs. California’s Prop 8 vs. the Vermont ruling, I don’t know which logical, sound, rational, emotion-free thought I’m supposed to have?
Can someone help me out? Is this vote “hate” or “great”? Is it “Unconstitutional” or “the will of the people”????
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM
1. Then we should encourage them to get married and keep their death rates “in the family” so to speak.
2. We still have the First Amendment. Heck, it’s still legal to be a racist.
3. Again, free speech still exists, and if we lose it, then that’s the issue, not gay marriage.
Which isn’t to say there aren’t secular reasons for opposing gay marriage.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Oh, and Thuja? There are about as many Mormons in the world as there are Jews, so I’d be careful about calling my faith a “cult,” lest you acknowledge yourself as part of one too.
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM
The “hounding” of the boy scouts is not a “thought crime.” No legislation has been enacted against them. Just like the economic free market, there is a free market of ideas. Freedom of speech means that you can share you beliefs “homosexuality is bad,” but it doesn’t mean that you can’t be criticized. You have a first amendment right to say that “X is right”, I have the same right to say “no, X is morally wrong.”
Religion will either adapt or hold its ground. Religions will still be able to assemble and preach what they think, people will just judge them for their stances. If the world reaches a point where those who decry gay marriage are seen as outdated and … “provincial” as those who oppose interracial marriage, then that’s just the price religions will have to pay for being that shinning beacon on a hill. So long as state power isn’t brought against them, I’ll have no sympathy.
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
are you describing the Methodists????
they fit that criteria, too. be more to the point.
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Yes, but these aren’t recognized by the state as legal marriages.
IOW, the people “married” don’t have the rights/benefits that a couple do.
That’s the issue here: not whether same sex people can marry. They can. If Ed and Mike want to get married and can find a pastor (whomever) to marry them, they can. No one will be arrested during that ceremony.
The issue is whether the state is required to recognize that marriage for legal purposes.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
whoops nevermind, i misread your quote. doesn’t apply to the methodists i think! :)
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Sure, but the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court will jack you up just the same, if your socio-religious views are anti-citizen rights.
Just like slavery issues.
Your religious fist leaves off where their citizen nose begins.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM
New Hampshire is up next!
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM
So then you wouldn’t mind giving private citizens carte blanche to express their dislike of ‘haters’?
Dark-Star on April 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM
His relationship is with each woman, so if he wants to divorce a particular one, it is that relationship that is ended. A Muslim can divorce any wife he wants.
As far as cross-adoptions go, there first would have to be the issue of whether they would be allowed. If so, the standard would be the “best interests of the child.” We already have this with divorce and remarriage and half-siblings.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Trent1289: I AM talking about state power. The boy scouts no longer are allowed to use facilities, etc. because they “discriminate.” They were removed from their headquarters in Philadelphia by the City because they “discriminated.” I believe Los Angeles did the same thing.
How long until we hear cries of “we can’t issue a building permit to that church, they discriminate! Building permits is supporting outdated, bigoted groups” blah blah blah. There are attempts to punish the LDS church via the tax code already for their stand for traditional families.
The thing is, the SSM people are claiming “civil rights” in an area that until 30 years ago was nothing but a moral issue. Now, they say morality doesn’t exist here. It’s the greatest scam on earth.
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Public schools have no place in a republic, and anti-religious fascism has no place in the American Republic. I pity you for your devotion to destructive vices and the tools of Marxism.
TMK on April 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
The issue really took a turn this week. The sooner GOP leaders realize where the trend is heading and drop the issue it will enable them to focus more clearly on the government overreach of the Obama administration.
Given how opinion has trended during the past 40 years it is probable that 10 years from now there will be majority acceptance of gay marriage–with most voters saying “what’s the big deal?”.
This is an issue that may have helped with turnout in the past but will likely become a liability in the near future. Rick Warren has about the right public position.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I meant, swing your religious fist all you want, its a free country…….. but your religious fist has to leave off where another citizen’s nose begins.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
That’s what freedom of speech is, dude. So long as they aren’t breaking laws, you can say why you think others are wrong/bigoted/stupid.
Now, if they use force or threatening language, that’s a different story.
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
So, tell me, SSM people: What happens when the NEXT moral issue becomes a “civil rights” thing? What about the rights of the poor pedophiles? They are discriminated against! That 12 year old and that 50 year old really love each other, after all… and don’t forget, that 12 year old can be tried as an adult for murder in some states, so clearly they can consent!
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM
which would be…..run from SSM like a scalded cat!
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
A woman has very different rights here than in Muslim countries.
If wife #4 of 5 wants out, does she automatically get 20% of the property (or maybe some pro-rata share based on years of service)? If the husband can’t scratch together the cash does he have to liquidate assets–maybe free up the cash in the house through a sale or a refinancing? What if the other wives own a share of the house and don’t OK the sale?
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Does that also apply to NEA indoctrinators?
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM
People who respond with scripture are funny.
MadisonConservative on April 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM
As far as your ad hominem fallacy goes, it is not a “religious fist” that I’m raising. It is legal arguments. I am a lawyer of several decades experience, and also teach Philosophy of Law. (Your credentials would be? How long a lawyer?)
The Bill of Rights includes the freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses. These permit people to practice and espouse their religious beliefs, including voting for or against laws based on those beliefs.
If you look at say, 700 years of common law, there is a great deal of morality in it, and that law is still followed today, including by the Supreme Court. The traditional definition of murder (“with maliced aforethought”) or the M’Naughten definition of insanity (did not know the difference between “right and wrong”).
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
You’ve already alluded to our state religion.
1. Culture is religion externalized. People act and speak according their beliefs.
2. What belief system is taught daily in our state-run schools?
3. What belief system is espoused in the aesthetics of our culture (i.e. music, cinema, print, etc.)?
4. Here are some hints as to how this happened:
“The family in crisis produces the attitudes which predispose men for blind submission.” ~ Max Horkheimer, former President of the Frankfurt School
“Literacy is the greatest obstacle to socialism.” ~ John Dewey (“Father of Progessive Education”; taught by G. Stanley Hall, who drew greatly from Ernst Haekal’s erroneous ideas dealing with embryo development)
“We are obliged… to make amusement a weapon of collective education. The cinema competes with the church. This rivalry may become fatal for the church. The cinema liberates you from the need of crossing the church door. Here is an instrument we must secure at all costs.” ~ Severneya Pravda
“To prepare society for psychological control, the very soul of the individual must be destroyed in its youth by disturbing it with evil via forced schooling and media.” ~ György Lukács
“I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural difficulties [Christianity].” ~ György Lukács
“A quiet revolution can be dispersed throughout a culture over a period of time to destroy it from within. Mass psychology and media can break the traditions, beliefs and morals and the will of a nation so there is no possibility of resistance.” ~ Antonio Gramsci
“The civilized world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within. By winning cultural hegemony, men could be made to love their servitude.” ~Antonio Gramsci
“Until man is convinced that the world has been abandoned by God, there will be no revolution.” ~ György Lukács
Send_Me on April 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
^^^^THIS is a good point^^^^
you can drive at 16
see “adult” movies at 17
work at 15 or 16 (depending on work permits for type of works)
pay taxes at that 15 or 16 job
get a permit at 14
bear children in your teens
tried as an adult for most violent crimes by those 17, 16, 15, etc.
in fact, YOU CAN MARRY NOW BELOW 18 if you have your parent’s consent (it’s a weird state issue i think, with different ages for each state)
just watch, in 2020, the ‘wedge’ issue will be all those guys on dateline NBC wanting “legal recognition” with the girl from third period.
makes me want to vomit.
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Pedophiles are criminals.
There are no citizen rights to molest children.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM
False. Please link to some data that proves this point, or concede that you’re talking out your ass.
I fail to see how the gay couple up the street is going to weaken your family. If it does, perhaps the problem really lies within the walls of your home.
You’re delusional if you think that SSM leads to penalties for people who speak out against it. When have you seen SSM protestors (or for that matter, any peaceful demonstrators) being brought up on charges, unless they are disturbing the peace or otherwise causing a disturbance or property damage?
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I was referring to the quote above that AP linked. GOP leaders should have a coherent framework for issues addressing families that are trying to do their best to raise kids. If prioritizing straight relationships is somewhere on the list but not near the top, then OK. But, to the extent that the GOP’s approach to the family is perceived as “we stopped the gays so now you should be all set” they are missing an opportunity.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM
WRONG. you’re the one that has to convince us. you’re the one pressing for SSM, so what’s the reason “why”?
i say, you can’t ALLOW SSM while DISALLOWING pedophilia marriages, polygamy, incest marriages, etc, etc. if you redefine marriage by breaking down the “man woman” barrier, there is no legal way a judge can say “ok NO to pedo marriages”
disagree?
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »