Vermont legislature overrides governor’s veto, legalizes gay marriage
posted at 4:30 pm on April 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Send_Me on April 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
If it is not in the constitution, it not a State religion.
Iraq, for example, has shari’a law written into the constutition.
So Islam is the State religion of Iraq.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Thuja
I’m returning to Judaism after being an on again/off again Christian for 13 years. I was raised reformed Jewish.
Though religiouslyI’m leaning reformed-as an outspoken center-right libertarian I will probably go temple-less. Reformed Judaism believes in “anything goes”-anything except being conservative of course.
I don’t approve of same-sex marriage though I’m okay with civil unions.
I also don’t approve of the federal government getting involved in what should be a state by state issue.
I feel the same way about abortion-which I’m also against.
I think Vermont made the wrong decision-but went about it in the right way.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
stranglet: Indeed, pedophiles are criminals. But then, so were homosexuals at one point…. You willing to fight pedophilia? Why? What makes them wrong? They love each other, man! Why are you preventing their love?
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
while i agree with you, until the mid 1960s, so were homosexuals, and the same sentence applied.
tell me, what LEGAL reason do you have to bar ped. marriages? if gay marriage is a-okay? there’s not one.
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
There can be all sorts of legislative and judicial duress, but individuals can’t be forced to “recognize” gay marriage.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM
You are confusing “consent” with “informed consent between two adults.”
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Paint a slippery slope all you want, the government will always have to draw arbitrary lines for conduct. We use our best judgment as to which policy arguments are best and then create a law. There’s no evidence that 55mph is vastly safer than 60mph in a certain area. Or that 50mph wouldn’t be better. But we make a choice and adjust accordingly.
Our morals, similarly, adjust with time. Fifty, sixty years ago, someone would’ve thought that interracial marriage was equally morally repugnant and that it would lead to the destruction of our culture.
Vanceone, I think you’ve hit a great point with the “12 year old being tried as an adult scenario.” Jurisprudence doesn’t typically hold minors as sui juris, only when it comes to heinous crimes. Like the speed limit example, we’ve drawn an arbitrary line for competence/adulthood. I doubt that line will change in time, but I could very well be wrong. I do, however, doubt that such a change will result from or be a byproduct of this decision.
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM
These are things that can be settled with a prenup.
So long as children cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship, this is an invalid argument.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You really think that distinction will be a barrier for much longer when we have grammer-school age kids becoming porn starts without any adult intervention? The AOC rule is not only silly in itself but becomes ever shakier as our culture thinks less with its brain and more with its pants.
Dark-Star on April 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Still, in the absence of a state religion in a pluralist secular state, any law that can be determined to have a purely socio-religious basis can be struck down by judicial fiat.
For example, blacks are second class citizens.
Loving vs Virginia, Brown vs Board
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Good questions. Modern divorce law looks at what the spouse brought to the marriage of her/hiu own, and what they earned together (a tricky definition with multiple wives). Not all property settlements are 50/50. A few states have community property, which could raise interesting definitions of community. A boon for lawyers who draft pre-nups.
There are different kinds of titles to property. A husband and wife often own in a special “tenancy by the entireties” that prohibits either from selling it or from losing it in a judgment against one spouse. There are other tenancies tenancies in common where each person owns a share of the property and can sell or transfer it.
Obviously property law would have to be updated, and any purchase of a house would have to anticipate this with who the title owners are.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Off hand, I think hospitals would be required to give visitation rights.
Let me think….
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Sure, but if we’re talking about “equal rights” it shouldn’t matter what the current taboos are.
If the argument is that I should be able to marry out of love and not based on any morals, then the law shouldn’t just limit me to one person male or female who I’m not related to.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Again, what is your legal background?
What was the “religious” basis for the laws in Loving and Brown? What specific religious arguments did Virginia and Kansas raise to support the statutes?
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:29 PM
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Otherwise it will eventually have to recognize general polyamorous groupings as ‘marriage’ for some of the same reasons as used to justify gay marriage. For example, why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to bring into the loving group a woman who gave birth to a child for whom one of the gay married men is the natural father? And it goes on from there. Eventually the Muslims will get the polygamy refused the Mormons. (This is already happening big time in Europe by the implicit recognition of marriages in countries where polygamy is legal) and here too but, for now, under the table.
Forget the marriage amendment thing. In a relatively short time there will be 13 states with legalized gay marriage so no amendment will get affirmed by 3/4 of the states, if it even gets out of congress in the first place which is extremely doubtful.
Annar on April 7, 2009 at 5:29 PM
One question for the bonfire of teh strawmen.
Is homosexuality illegal in the 21st century?
Women couldn’t own property or vote.
Blacks were slaves.
The times they are a changin’.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Straw man argument.
Two adult males or two adult females who want to get married is a far cry from an adult “convincing” a child that they want to enter into the marriage.
What part of “informed consent between two adults” don’t you understand?
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I said….SOCIO-religious values.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Wethal, do you disagree with either ruling?
That would be interesting.
;)
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM
why is 18 ‘adult’? this is just an oppressive tool.
we need to redefine ‘adult’
otherwise, why do 17 year olds get to see adult movies
why do 16 year olds get to drive
why do 15 year olds get to work and pay taxes to the IRS?
your 20th century idea of “adulthood at 18″ is bigoted and troubling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on April 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Yes, but anti-miscegenation laws banned racial marriages or cohabitation.
That is, a mixed couple who got married (or lived together) would be fined or imprisoned and forcefully separated. And any minister or church that married the couple would be punished.
In the issue of SSM, gay couples are not banned from marrying one another. They may marry. Ministers may marry them.
The issue is whether the state is required to recognize for legal purposes that marriage as being equal to opposite sex marriages.
The Loving case only takes us so far if you try to apply it to SSM.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Honestly, I don’t really care about polygamy. I think as practiced now it’s a godsdamn mess. But perhaps if it were removed from the small communities in Utah where secrecy is a way of life and incest and statutory rape are rampant, it wouldn’t be so bad.
It complicates visitation rights, taxes and inheritance, but if a framework could be devised for it, I honestly could not care.
That said, I think divorcing polygamy from those vices i listed earlier is damn near impossible, but I’m open to discussion.
Polygamy or gay marriage will and would not affect my union. (Not actually married yet, but as luck would have it Saturday that will change.)
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 5:33 PM
This is really just an inverse-Connecticut.
Vermont’s State SC ruled that Vermont had to permit civil unions.
Now the legislature has signed in “marriage.”
In Connecticut, the Legislature and Governor granted civil unions.
Then the State SC ruled it had to be “marriage.”
I prefer it being done legislatively, irrespective of what its called.
lansing quaker on April 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Liberals never give up until they get their agenda passed or get legislation to which they are opposed overturned. Are liberals saying that Prop 8 was passed in accordance to California law so they will stop trying to get same sex marriage passed in California? I don’t think so.
There is no legitimate reason and certainly no “moral” reason why those in Vermont who are opposed to same sex marriage should roll over and accept this decision of their legislature. If this had gone the other way, liberals would not accept it and stop pushing for their position. Laws can be repealed.
And those who have the conviction that a Federal Marriage Amendment is needed to preserve traditional American moral values and culture should work to make that happen. Those who disagree are free to oppose it. That is part of what is great about the United States . . . at least for a while longer.
Ordinary American on April 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM
“Socio” is not the same thing as “soci-religious”. You have chosen to use the latter term, so what is the religious part in Brown and Loving? You said there was also a religious compoenent.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Yeah, at this point you should make like Rick Warren, fold your tents, and silently slip away.
Hey! Is Rick Warren a RINO now?
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM
What part of “that distinction won’t hold by itself” isn’t getting through?
Dark-Star on April 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM
When even HotAir readers vote in the majority for accepting this, it’s done.
What a cool victory for individual liberty and limited government. Now let’s move on to other places where the government interferes with people. Like salaries and energy usage and taxation.
beatcanvas on April 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM
You’re quoting me as saying “adulthood at 18″ when in fact I never said that.
But I do agree with you that there should be some reasonable and consistent definition of an adult.
Why, for example can a person join the army at 18 and be trained to kill in the name of their country, but still can’t legally drink a beer in most states?
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM
UltimateBob: You asked for sources on my “homosexuality is dangerous” thing. Here you go: Paul Cameron, The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, 29 OMEGA J. DEATH & DYING 249 (1994).
See also the article I did some research for: http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc
As for the “we must have SSM but NO FURTHER! IT is UNTHINKABLE!!!!11!!!!” that is going on here, why? Once you redefine marriage as mostly a convienance for people who “love each other” then there’s no real reason to stop with gays. Polygamists–only “outmoded religious biases” stop that–sound familiar? The technical details are solvable, after all! Incest? Gays have it better–no problem of genetic issues and kids! Let’s let all the siblings marry!
Beastiality? PETA thinks animals are fully human, so why not marry them? They can show consent via their actions, right? Sure, not many beastialists out there…. but why can’t they have their love too? Pedophiles? In the middle ages, people married at 12. Why not now?
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM
That’s an argument used against gay marriage as well, one you don’t seem to tolerate.
As I already said, I see no reason incest should be illegal so long as all parties consent, so I see no reason why we should legally care about that vice.
As to rape, it’s already illegal. That’s the issue, not polygamy. This is the same argument people make with NAMBLA and gay marriage.
Congrats. I hope you have a great day. Get a lot of sleep the night before, and do nothing that will cause a fight with your future spouse.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I fail to see how a Federal Marriage Amendment is NOT federalist.
Constitutional amendments are a perfectly acceptable means of carrying out the will of the people.
HYTEAndy on April 7, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Yeah like George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and most of the founders. They quoted scripture more than any other source in their writings. They were just funny!
The Bible speaks today, and just because you don’t choose to hear it, does not mean it is not truth! Our founders knew that. Libs try to demean it and marginalize it. But, and this is for you MC,
Christian Conservative on April 7, 2009 at 5:38 PM
To be fair, those that join the Army (unless this rule has changed) can drink, at least on the base.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM
–adjective
of, pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of religious and social factors.
The only reason blacks were viewed as inferior non-citizens and even “non-humans” is “god told us so”.
Science and secular reasoning dictated that blacks were both citizens and individuals of species homo sapiens sapiens.
strangelet on April 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Touche!
Self-government requires the governing of the self.
And the Framers certainly believed that religion was essential in providing that governing.
Besides, even if one is an atheist there is a wealth of information in the Bible on human behavior.
Nice sociology guide there.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Right, it was Christians who filled out those insipid evolution charts.
Esthier on April 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM
If the definition of marriage is permitted by judicial fiat (or in Vermont’s case: legislative fiat) to evolve and change with time or culture, then that logically entails that marriage will be very different in the future.
If marriage, ultimately, does not stand for something, then the door is wide open for it to “mean” anything.
Isn’t an apology required for those who renounced plural marriages in order to gain Utah Statehood admission to the Union??
ColtsFan on April 7, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I always assumed that miscegenation laws were to prevent procreation between races, thereby keeping the various races “pure.” The fallacy of race is that if there were truly different human races, men & women of those races would not be able to procreate or their off-spring would be sterile.
However, two men cannot procreate nor can two women. So there is no question of miscengenation, so the comparisons are false.
March Hare on April 7, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Don’t know about his being a RINO but as long as the Republican party is identified with the religious soothe sayers they will have a hard time coming back.
Annar on April 7, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I don’t know what the point of forcing gay marraige on the people is. If we won’t go for it how does getting it through judges or politicians make it socially acceptable? God is the one who defined marriage and nothing man does can usurp His will and His will is the only thing that matters. I’ll never accept gay marriage and I’m teaching my kids what God says about it. This is another empty meaningless victory foisted on the populatio by sad and deluded people.
CCRWM on April 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Sorry, that’s not my understanding of the history.
To be sure, the bible was often used as a basis for that view but there were all kinds of “scientific” evidence presented that blacks were inferior (all nonsense of course).
I’m sure you’re familiar with the eugenics movement?
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I just pulled up Brown and could find no religious arguments addressed in the opinion. So why was it a “socio-religious” ruling?
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Kids are force-fed lefty socio-”religious” values every school day. You have a problem with that?
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You know, ColtsFan, I agree. Since the Mormons were forced to give up Polygamy, I think SSM advocates should at least go through what the Mormons had to go through. It’s only fair, right?
So, SSM advocates: Please be going to your local jails, turn in your voter cards, and have your places of business seized by the government. Do this with a hurricane of public opinion against you.
Do this for 40 years. Have the US Army attack you. THEN come to me about SSM.
Oh, I forget…. Mormons suffered greatly for their beliefs on marriage long ago. Now, they are beginning to have the same thing… for their views on marriage, because they support one man, one woman. Probably the same effect in the future, too, with militant gays trying to exterminate the Mormons.
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Welcome back and Happy Passover! I argue the conservative side of political issues at my Reformed Synagogue (except for gay marriage, abortion, and sadly now the environment). I enjoy being a gadfly and since you call yourself annoyinglittletwerp, I’d bet you could find happiness in being a gadfly too. I do hope you go to temple. It’s hard to be Jewish without a community.
If you do go to temple, it’s helpful to know the Achilles Heel of Reformed Judaism’s leftism: Israel. Reformed Jews are protective of Israel and Zionist arguments are respected. I have hopes that Jews will vote against Obama in 2012 if they are educated about implications of Obama’s foreign policy.
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM
LOL, yeah, good point. Social Darwinism now laid at the doorstep of Christianity. That’s rich.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Funny, I don’t see God’s name on a marriage license.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Margaret Sanger, patron saint of Planned Parenthood, was a firm believer in eugenics. One of the reasons she wanted
contraception to be legal was so certain groups would be encouraged not to reproduce.
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 5:51 PM
A good point, but to copy our gaffe-machine-in-chief, there more nuance here. Incest is not nearly linked to homosexuality the way it is to polygamy.
I think the policy justification behind it is that if the individuals are closely related and the incest occurs repeatedly over the course of several generations, the likelihood of birth defects rises sharply. While there’s always a chance of these and a chance for other things like STDs; these genetic deficiencies are avoidable in a way that STDs aren’t.
Another good point; and one that’s well taken. While the policy hurdles still remain, I think there’s a right to this type of marriage. And a right is more important than petty entanglements.
Also, thanks for the advice/well wishes.
Trent1289 on April 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM
So now a 14 year old girl should be able to marry a 40 year old man?
Imagine a minister coming into a house and convincing that the giving of their daughter will lead them to heaven…now replace that with a boy.
A 14 year old boy can marry a 40 year old man?
A 16 year old boy can marry a 40 year old man?
And a 18 year old boy can marry a 40 year old man?
How quaint…
Kids haven’t been morally bound to marriage since the 1500’s, over 500 years ago it was stopped (except for a few religious nuts).
Now this will open the door…a man molests a boy, the boy is absolutely ashamed so he is offered in marriage to hide his shame and guilt.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Thanks for providing this. That’s a lot to digest, so I won’t comment until I’ve read it. But I find it very hard to believe that homosexuality is as deadly as heroin, as you have asserted.
If polygamy works for someone, then go for it. Who are we to outlaw it, just because we find it distasteful? Just being consistent. Again, it’s that informed consenting adults thing….
Once upon a time, it was unthinkable that blacks & whites would marry. Or that blacks or women could even hold paying jobs and vote. Are you saying that we should never reconsider our positions on human rights issues?
As far as incest, it could be argued that it results in suffering to another party (specifically, deformed offspring). So I can see why we would keep that illegal.
The pedophile issue is a straw man. No one here advocates that. Same with bestiality. Neither one involves informed, consenting adults.
UltimateBob on April 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Here here, Annar. People are arguing past each other because they are worried about two different things: the sanctity of marriage, and the ability for two people of the same sex to enter into a legal contract conferring certain rights. If we took marriage out of the hands of the government, the debate would only be about the ability of two consenting adults to sign a contract, and I think far fewer people would favor restrictions.
The sanctity of marriage should be upheld where it originated: the church and your personal faith. Removing it from the hands of the government protects that sanctity from being conferred based on the will of the majority. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.
LockeFox on April 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The passage of Prop 8 was the worst thing anti-gay people could have done. It has awoken a big gay sleeping giant. Since then, Iowa and Vermont has approved marriage and NH is on their heels. I think its sweet jusice. As more people see these states still thriving and not being hit by throngs of locusts, I think most people will stop caring one way or another. This “go-to” Republican rallying issue is slowly dying. Can’t wait to see what minority the party uses next to scare people to the voting booth. Jews? Blondes? The Handicapped? Oh, the possibilities…the excitement!
dcwvu on April 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM
UltimateBob: Why is it a strawman? You say, “No one is arguing that!” Well, NAMBLA is, for one. And please, I’m waiting for your arguments explaining why gays should marry but two brothers cannot–after all, they can’t have kids. Thanks for conceding SSM accepts polygamy, though–most SSM advocates don’t.
But that’s really the question, isn’t it? SSM is saying “old fashioned morals don’t work.” Well, if we accept that, then what morals DO work? Why stop at SSM? What’s the logic behind marriage being “two people regardless of gender in love and no more?” you’ve conceded polygamy, so it’s “two or more people in love, and no more.”
Moral approbation is now being cast aside for “civil rights.” And for what? the attempts of a bunch of people to not get their feelings hurt? Sleep in sin all you want, but when my children and my church are forced to “accommodate” gay marriage, as several members of the Gaystapo want, that sure as heck becomes my business.
That said, I’m off to my own wife. So good night all!
Vanceone on April 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Letting the people decide the definition of marriage for legal purposes is awakening the people?
That needs re-working, my friend.
Believing that marriage – for legal purposes – should only be between a man and a woman is not anti-gay.
So stop the silliness.
FWIW, I’m in favor in extending the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples.
SteveMG on April 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM
One of my points is that polygamy would require a much bigger legal re-engineering than gay marriage does. Couples could work much of this out in advance with a tailored contract but a state marriage currently needs to function without requiring these contracts. Presumably these laws would all need to be written ahead of time in anticipation of polygamous divorces.
A state could claim a compelling interest that it simply can’t legislatively anticipate every legal consequence and that its courts would be ineffective at resolving the large number of disputes on an ad hoc basis. If the homes were inherently less stable because of the way the law would have to structure the ownership it might be weighed by a supreme court against a person’s assertion of a right for his multiple relationships to be recognized.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Thuja
Happy Passover to you as well.
My husband’s a Calvinist(we live with my m-i-l the fundamentalist) so I was thinking about going to the local Chabad for holidays and networking with fellow conservative Jews on Facebook.
The local temple brags about how far left it is.
There’s no way I’d feel at home there.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 7, 2009 at 6:07 PM
The U.S. Army in the 1800’s and before attacked a lot of people…Indians (Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaw, etc.), Mormon’s, Fort George (where the Canadians were found to be innocent, Mexico, but still many were killed), and then internment of the Japanese in the 1940’s.
So many tens of thousands have been unjustly killed by the U.S. Army…at least looking back historically it was unjust.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
It is so simple it defies logic.
Marriage is defined between a man and a woman…you want man and man or woman and woman, just call it something else.
You don’t go into a doctors office with a broken leg and say “I have a broken rib”, the doctor is confused and you say “well we call those bones around the chest cavity legs”.
We have names for a reason, it creates confusion to arbitrarily change names.
Call it a “Civil Union”, it can have the same rights if the state so deems it.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Give me a break. It was more like the usual use of courts in both CA an IA.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM
There are several polygamous societies that exist. In all cases they are obliged to limit the practice because people will marry just because they want to have sex with the other person, but they ignore the actual responsibilities. They often do not take care of the wives equally. The newer and fresher wife is usually treated better. Often the offspring are not treated equally. Other times there are more offspring than the parents can provide for. Most polygamous societies eventually limit the practice so much that it becomes uncommon.
So why should our society be determined to repeat the mistakes of other societies and all of the problems that come from it. Wouldn’t it be better if we just avoid the problems and do not allow polygamy?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Yes, but marriage currently functions without requiring couples to think ahead or write custom contracts. Probably 95% of people get married without a prenup. Requiring a prenup for marriage would be a big change–though maybe not a bad exercise for couples ahead of committing to “til death do us part”.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 6:14 PM
True, but even today, you’d think the law was clear, but the fights people have without prenups….
Wethal on April 7, 2009 at 6:14 PM
The decline of western civilization continues.
mountainmanbob on April 7, 2009 at 6:16 PM
What a load of horsesh!t!
Like whom?
As if millions of our men and women in the U.S. Army haven’t been “unjustly killed,” also.
What about them?
In addition, one man’s justice is another man’s jihad.
You need to change your name to not2bright!
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM
…not with a bang but with a whimper.
Enfuriating and sad.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:21 PM
“It will take you twice as long and cost twice as much as you think” I’ve heard that said about house construction and divorce–two things my middle-aged male friends complain about. I’m not familiar with divorce law but the individual divorces I’ve been close to have all involved much more animosity, court time and lawyers fees than anyone thought possible at the start.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Wonder what they’ll want next.
GarandFan on April 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I understand. There is one reformed temple like that near me. I go to the other Reformed temple which isn’t quite as bad. I thought about becoming a Conservative Jew simply to get closer to my politics, but I decided to stick with Reformed. I’m also going to Chabbad tomorrow night for a seder, but I can’t believe that Hashem gave Moses the written and oral Torah at Mt. Sinai and so Orthodoxy is out of the question for me. Bizarrely enough, I’m also going an Orthodox friend’s house for another seder on Thursday. I do like celebrating Judaism with the Orthodox.
I’m going to start a blog soon, and you should be able to contact me there, if you ever would like to talk about your Judaism with me.
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Your children, pets, checkbook, stamp collection, etc.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM
The details behind the events at Sand Creek in 1864 were regrettable.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM
One incident out of our 236 year history?
And yet your Leftoid buddy not2bright said there had been “thousands.”
What, still not a tear for the millions of men (and quite a few women) in our Army that have laid down their lives to defend Freedom?
As to this vote in Vermont, nothing can make same sex “marriage” legal.
Nothing.
It will always be deviant, unaccepted and out of the mainstream.
A severe case of trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I debated this in detail in the other thread about this. It seems that I am destined to do it again here.
One of the lessons that we have learned about civilized behavior is that we cannot do, or have, everything we wish. Civilized society is based on laws. Every one of them is a restriction on human behavior in an effort to create a society that behaves as we wish.
Every law is a form of discrimination. Murder laws discriminate against those that want to kill other people. Robbery laws discriminate against those that wish to take your belongings. Assault laws discriminate against those that wish to hurt you.
Discrimination is just the act of making a choice. You are discriminating when you choose to wear a red shirt instead of a blue one. But we have chosen to demonize the word in an effort to stake political positions.
To say that banning gay marriage is a form of discrimination is exactly true. Just like banning murder is. The real question is what behavior is acceptable to your society and what is not.
When you are banning gay marriage, you are not banning gay relationships. You are banning the creation of a specific type of legal contract. Trying to portray a relationship and marriage as an equivalent is not intellectually honest. So we should avoid that strawman.
The real question is under what conditions we should condone marriage. Marriage contracts generally differ from civil unions in only one aspect. Marriage is performed by the churches and civil unions are not. This is the most important factor in my objection to gay marriage.
Civil unions are sufficient to provide all of the legal requirements of a gay relationship. They provide for inheritance and power of attorney. They allow the ability to make medical decisions if the partner cannot. So the civil union is a sufficient legal construct to provide for the needs of gay couples.
So why does the gay community insist on marriage, and reject civil unions? The answer is simple. The radical activist gays wish to have the right to sue a church that refuses to marry them. They wish to force religions to alter their doctrine to soften the opposition to gay relationships and legitimize them. There simply is no other practical reason to insist on marriage and reject civil unions.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 6:39 PM
And you would know.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:39 PM
That was pretty low. You really didn’t need to go there.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Hey SnarkVader,
Do you enjoy insulting women?
mountainmanbob on April 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM
And how would I know, pray tell, since you know me not at all?
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Low how? How does she know it’s always going to be out of the mainstream?
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Gays don’t need civil unions to do these things.
They can do them already, just like the rest of us.
BTW, even if you’re family, people like doctors, nurses and lawyers can and will feel free to ignore wills, powers of attorney, and consulting next of kin for medical decisions.
If you love someone, you sometimes have to fight for those powers, no matter how much paper you have backing you up that say that it’s yours.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Must you use that tired old attack of “not2bright” for two years little people like you try to demean a poster by calling the names. As if your name doesn’t conjure up an image of Castro.
Look at my list…so many thousands of indians were killed by the U.S. Army, often later found to be based on rumors…it happens, and look at my closing sentence, it is important that you not only read but comprehend.
See, what I was stating is that hindsight is 20/20, and applying our knowledge, is not accurate to apply same to the events in past history.
So looking back may seem unjust, but at the time it was just.
The internment of Japanese during the war was unjust…but at the time it was just, driven by not only a fear but a violent reaction to a cowardly attack.
In the 1800’s communication was not very effecient (Gore hadn’t invented the internet), so they did make mistakes. Like invading Canada and Sand Creek…it just happens and no one group can claim “it was unfair”.
One poster on here whines about how the U.S Army attacked the Mormons, and my response is, it just happens, and has over the course of a couple of hundred years (ask the American Indians about some of there defeats)…but we can’t apply our current feelings and morals regarding wars, to something that occurred 150 years ago, unless we do a little research and understand why.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 6:51 PM
First, I am a woman. Second, what the hell are you talking about?
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:51 PM
We’re talking about 1-3% of the population who indulge in deviant behavior that is unsavory and that spreads diseases like HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis: that’s how I know.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Talk about not2bright. If you’re so worried about protecting marriage, you should be out there fighting to change the tax codes, to extend equal tax rights to gay couples.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Never mind. You’re a waste of time.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 6:53 PM
And you’re not, your Snarkiness?
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:54 PM
What an idiot!
We married couples pay a tax penalty for being married!
Only you dumb homosexuals would dream that heterosexual couples pay “less” as a married couple.
Why do you think we call children “our little tax deductions?”
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Honey, before you start calling names, you should have some facts handy.
If you think I am a “leftoid”, you will be laughed off this blog…I am one of the more radical righties, but then you would rather call names them be accurate.
I stated my case for the history lesson, if you think I am wrong in my assessment then tell me where…or be lazy, foolish, and ignorant and just call someone names.
I stated the charge into Canada, some Mormon’s, many American Indians, account for thousands, being killed or displaced…was it right, probably at the time (as I stated in my original post that you did not understand), but it would be “wrong” today.
Get it now Honey?
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM
More idiocy!
Not JenFIDEL, like Castro, but Jenfidel=Jen+Infidel.
Most people get it without help.
And then came you…
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Because if you read the post you responded too, it sounds to me like you just caller Jenfidel a pig. If you do not want such misunderstandings, you need to be a bit more precise in your language.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM
A snarky chick would have replied, “Yes, I enjoy insulting everybody.” Up your snark quotient, babe!
Also, does the name mountainmanbob demean mountains? I’m offended by topographyophobia.
thuja on April 7, 2009 at 7:01 PM
There was more than one incident, but it doesn’t detract from the overall courage, valor and sacrifice of the many who have served.
The courts and legislature can make something legal, but not morally right. You might be opposed to all gay marriages. I may be opposed to some gay and some straight marriages, but the question of legality is ultimately up to the government.
dedalus on April 7, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Nope, “honey.”
I have neither the time nor the inclination to destroy your Ward Churchillian version of American military history bit by bit this evening, but I’ll take one easy shot:
No–as in none–Japanese-Americans died as a result of being interred in the camps during WWII.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:02 PM
SnarkVader,
A resonable person could take your comment about Jenfidel (she should know about putting lipstick on a pig) as an insult.
That’s what the hell I’m talking about.
Do you suggest that a woman is incapable of insulting another woman?
mountainmanbob on April 7, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Crawl back in your hole you stupid liberal…what goes on between Jenfidal and myself has nothing to do with you.
You are nothing, you post nothing of any worth, you are a liberal troll who comes along to hi-jack a thread and pick a fight because you are lonely and Krispy Kreme is out of “day-olds”.
Jenfidal had a problem with something she thought I stated, but I am sure understands it is not what she thinks.
You on the other hand are just a stupid, foolish, liberal troll who comes around and throws out nasty statements to get attention.
Begone you little girl, you are nothing, and never will be.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Why is she a waste of time? She is not really wrong about a good part of what she says. By the standards of most countries in the world, homosexual behavior is deviant. Only a very few countries allow gay marriage.
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Who knew one post could contain so much stupidity?
1. I’m not a homosexual.
2. Gay couples are taxed at a completely different rate than straight couples, regardless of whether or not their state recognizes civil unions or domestic partnerships. A three second Google search would explain that but I have a feeling that might be too much for you.
SnarkVader on April 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Ah, yes Jen…keep spreading the love and hope that is the message of Jesus Christ. I’m sure He’s looking down at you and smiling right about now.
dcwvu on April 7, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Oh, I dunno–the question of legality is a very elastic thing indeed.
The homosexuals big mistake is thinking that if they can have “legal” same sex “marriage,” that it will make what they’re doing as acceptable and normal as traditional marriage, but it won’t.
And I’m not convinced that there are that many people that want it in the first place.
Secondly, I don’t see many young homosexuals wanting to “get married;” they’re all middle-aged or older.
This may be the last hurrah of the Woodstock generation’s jihad on American culture and society.
Jenfidel on April 7, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Where are you getting that from?
Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »