Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Franzl]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

You beat me by two minutes.

Did you watch the vote/debate? It was really great.

And I just wanna say, funny thing, 4 Republicans voted for this, as opposed to 3 who didn't. The majority of senate Republicans support marriage equality in Vermont.

Yeah, I was watching it over at Burlington Free Press.

The one Democrat who voted against this was Bobby Starr of Essex. What is it with people named Starr and being against gay marriage?

I only worry about what Douglas will do. Do the Dems have enough votes in the House to override a potential veto? Will the fact that the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill influence his decision?

Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, but he didn't say that he would veto it.
With margins like that, a veto would be futile, so it's highly unlikely that he will use it.

After all, it's not like he has presidential ambitions.

Do you think the House will also pass it by a veto proof margin? I don't know.

Somehow I think Douglas will sign it, though.

[Holmes]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

You beat me by two minutes.

Did you watch the vote/debate? It was really great.

And I just wanna say, funny thing, 4 Republicans voted for this, as opposed to 3 who didn't. The majority of senate Republicans support marriage equality in Vermont.

Yeah, I was watching it over at Burlington Free Press.

The one Democrat who voted against this was Bobby Starr of Essex. What is it with people named Starr and being against gay marriage?

I only worry about what Douglas will do. Do the Dems have enough votes in the House to override a potential veto? Will the fact that the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill influence his decision?

Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, but he didn't say that he would veto it.
With margins like that, a veto would be futile, so it's highly unlikely that he will use it.

After all, it's not like he has presidential ambitions.

Do you think the House will also pass it by a veto proof margin? I don't know.

Somehow I think Douglas will sign it, though.

The House could. There are 96 Democrats, but to say they'll all vote for it is kinda naive. Although the same can be said for Republicans, there'll be quite a few of them who vote for this. Even the House Republican leader strongly supports this. The only thing I can say for certain though, is that all the Progressive members will vote for it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I hope Civil Unions and DP start to take hold, but I do not want the institution of marriage to ever be redefined by the government (or added to, in this case).  Next thing we'll do is start allowing polygamous marriage.  Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Even if the State sees gay couples as legally married.  God, who is the ultimate Authority, will never view them as legitimately married couples.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but I really don't care.  I'm just saying what the Bible says, whether it is offensive or not.  NOTE:  These are not Jeff's words, these are God's Words.

[RI]

I hope Civil Unions and DP start to take hold, but I do not want the institution of marriage to ever be redefined by the government (or added to, in this case).  Next thing we'll do is start allowing polygamous marriage.

Good God, not this argument again. See slippery slope fallacy.

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Obviously, if you had read the Vermont bill, you would see that it does not require churches to recognize or perform same sex marriages if they do not want to.

Text: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Intro/H-178.pdf

[Franzl]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Look...no offense, seriously, I don't want to attack you personally.....

But what kind of garbage is that? How does your opinion of what God believes or demands have any effect on what the government should allow or not allow?

And concerning the bolded part, how does government recognition of gay marriage have a negative effect on churches? No church is forced to recognize any marriage they don't wish to. Likewise, any church can let anybody marry as well. That's the whole point of the seperation of church and state.

Forgive me, but what the Bible says about gay marriage doesn't interest me at all, at least concerning what government policy should be.

You can read your Bible and believe every word it says for all I care. That's great. It's good you have something to believe in and you should continue believing whatever you like, but why do people think they have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the population?

(Sorry for this Had to be said.)

[Holmes]

Oh, the person who introduced the bill in Vermont had a good rebutal to that. He said that the definition of marriage has been re-defined numerous times. At first, in the Bible, it was a union between a man and all the woman he could have. Then it went to marriages being all about property, land and wife included. He said when the US was founded, married women had no rights when it came to marriage, that they were the man's property. He brough up Loving and what the Court Justice said about how marriage is about love. The definition of marriage has been re-defined many times, not only in this country, but in history as well. It's not a valid argument to hide behind the word "definition" just because your sacred book tells you it's bad.
 
It's a matter of respect and equality. Also my definition of God is different from yours. If he really created everyone and intended for all his creations to be equal and loved, why this discrimination?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Look...no offense, seriously, I don't want to attack you personally.....

But what kind of garbage is that? How does your opinion of what God believes or demands have any effect on what the government should allow or not allow?

And concerning the bolded part, how does government recognition of gay marriage have a negative effect on churches? No church is forced to recognize any marriage they don't wish to. Likewise, any church can let anybody marry as well. That's the whole point of the seperation of church and state.

Forgive me, but what the Bible says about gay marriage doesn't interest me at all, at least concerning what government policy should be.

You can read your Bible and believe every word it says for all I care. That's great. It's good you have something to believe in and you should continue believing whatever you like, but why do people think they have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the population?

(Sorry for this Had to be said.)

Maybe I was a little over the top, and I apologize if I offended anybody.  What people believe is their own prerogative (sp?).  Seriously, I wouldn't dream of forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, I just want to lovingly and gently feed it to them if they so desire.  This previous post really didn't express that too well and I apologize.  I also need to learn to just let go and let God be in control.  Sometimes, I feel this urge to have to "defend" God rather than just being his witness and letting Him take control.  God is big enough to defend himself and defend me, in the process.  I am weak, but He is strong.

[Franzl]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Look...no offense, seriously, I don't want to attack you personally.....

But what kind of garbage is that? How does your opinion of what God believes or demands have any effect on what the government should allow or not allow?

And concerning the bolded part, how does government recognition of gay marriage have a negative effect on churches? No church is forced to recognize any marriage they don't wish to. Likewise, any church can let anybody marry as well. That's the whole point of the seperation of church and state.

Forgive me, but what the Bible says about gay marriage doesn't interest me at all, at least concerning what government policy should be.

You can read your Bible and believe every word it says for all I care. That's great. It's good you have something to believe in and you should continue believing whatever you like, but why do people think they have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the population?

(Sorry for this Had to be said.)

Maybe I was a little over the top, and I apologize if I offended anybody.  What people believe is their own prerogative (sp?).  Seriously, I wouldn't dream of forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, I just want to lovingly and gently feed it to them if they so desire.  This previous post really didn't express that too well and I apologize.  I also need to learn to just let go and let God be in control.  Sometimes, I feel this urge to have to "defend" God rather than just being his witness and letting Him take control.  God is big enough to defend himself and defend me, in the process.  I am weak, but He is strong.

That's ok, but you didn't get my point. (I think.)

How does state recognition of gay marriage have anything to do with churches? They're not being forced to recognize any marriages they don't want to. Don't you think that's fair, that churches themselves can let whoever they want marry?

The point is, why should state policy be affected by what any church has to say? Churches, as said, are free to believe and do what they want. Why is your religious belief more valid than what an atheist believes?

The state's job is to be neutral, and that includes rejecting religious attempts to force their views on other people. I understand you think you're doing it for the good of everyone...but the state can't make that judgement (and I know you believe with all your heart that your religion is correct, but it can't be proven, and the state can't blindly accept religious teachings.)

The point being: Let the state be the state, and let the churches be the churches.

Legalized gay marriage poses no threat to heterosexuals like myself or any churches.

[Sbane]

I hope Civil Unions and DP start to take hold, but I do not want the institution of marriage to ever be redefined by the government (or added to, in this case).  Next thing we'll do is start allowing polygamous marriage.  Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Even if the State sees gay couples as legally married.  God, who is the ultimate Authority, will never view them as legitimately married couples.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but I really don't care.  I'm just saying what the Bible says, whether it is offensive or not.  NOTE:  These are not Jeff's words, these are God's Words.

The government giving out marriage licenses does not mean churches have to recognize these marriages. There are sane churches out there already that will marry them. The real big issue is that while a civil union might be recognized in California, it might not be somewhere else or by all entities within that state. Companies can deny benefits by saying they only offer it to spouses and a civil partner does not county. In addition say they are vacationing in some place without these laws and one of the partner falls ill, their partner wouldn't even have a right to see them. I was reading a story in some other thread where a partner was not allowed to see her dying significant other because they were not in a "gay friendly city". A 16 year relationship was invalidated by one asshole. Are you ok with that?

[Holmes]

^ Yes, I think that was in Florida. They even had adopted kids and they were on a family vacation.

Anyway, happier news. New Hampshire's House will vote on their bill tomorrow! I don't wanna predict because there's so much House members there and I really don't know anyone, but I'm told to be optimistic, even by the guy who introduced the bill in the House. Happy days.

[RI]

^ Yes, I think that was in Florida. They even had adopted kids and they were on a family vacation.

Anyway, happier news. New Hampshire's House will vote on their bill tomorrow! I don't wanna predict because there's so much House members there and I really don't know anyone, but I'm told to be optimistic, even by the guy who introduced the bill in the House. Happy days.

The margins in NH will be much smaller than in Vermont. If it does pass, would Lynch veto it? The only quote I've seen from him is not promising. They would certainly not be able to override a veto there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funny that BRTD picks today to predict that Vermont will not have gay marriage in 10 years.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Red: homosexual unions are recognized as marriages
Gray: marriage is limited to heterosexuals, but other options (civil unions etc.) are recognized
Blue: no homosexual unions are recognized

The only Minnesota doesn't get some type of recognition in the next 10 years is if the GOP manages to retain the governorship that whole time or there's a disaster for the DFL in the legislature.

[ottermax]

I'm surprised by the speed of the VT gay marriage bill and its overwhelming support. If about 42-45% of Americans support gay marriage, there must be several states where it will be passed without causing havoc. Vermont is likely one of them. But I guess we will have to wait until the number of supporters is closer to the 50% range before we will see more gay marriage bills passed.

Next up:
-New Hampshire
-Maine
-New York
-Hawaii
-Washington
-Illinois

Eventually:
-Rhode Island
-Iowa
-New Mexico
-Oregon
-California
-Maryland
-Colorado
-Minnesota
-Wisconsin

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New Hampshire might legalize it soon, too. Then the Connecticut River will be completely gay, from its headwaters in Quebec to where it enters the Long Island sound in Connecticut.

[Holmes]

The margins in NH will be much smaller than in Vermont. If it does pass, would Lynch veto it? The only quote I've seen from him is not promising. They would certainly not be able to override a veto there.

I think they're able to pass it, but yeah. I don't know about Lynch. I mean, I know governors are usually cautious with this kind of thing. The only one I know that has come out in full support in a state that doesn't allow it yet is Corzine. But I think he'll do the right thing.

Also, Rhode Island and Maryland will have it before Illinois. It takes a few years of civil unions before people realize "omg the world hasn't ended". And hopefully Iowa and California too.

And apparently there's rivalry between Vermont and New Hampshire to see who'll allow it first, at least on the places I go for info. It's cute.

[Sam Spade]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

[Brittain33]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

[Sam Spade]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

Thanks, darling!

[Brittain33]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

Thanks, darling!

[Sam Spade]

Well, at least the authorities will know where to go when they have to start utilizing the pink triangles again.

Oh honey. Perk that chin up, it won't be that bad!

Thanks, darling!

Sorry, man, but I don't really like green peppers. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why has Sam basically become a troll lately?

[Sam Spade]

Why has Sam basically become a troll lately?

Maybe I'm just mirroring my forum hero...  ^^^^^^^^

Of course, he's not a Moderate Hero, but he's just as good! 

[Brittain33]

Why has Sam basically become a troll lately?

He's not trolling. Everyone just needs a little extra attention some times.

[Ogre Mage]

In addition say they are vacationing in some place without these laws and one of the partner falls ill, their partner wouldn't even have a right to see them. I was reading a story in some other thread where a partner was not allowed to see her dying significant other because they were not in a "gay friendly city". A 16 year relationship was invalidated by one asshole. Are you ok with that?

The story about this can be read here:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flrxgaysuit0626sbjun26,0,3396801.story

On a somewhat related note, I read that Chuck Schumer has shifted from supporting civil unions to full-blown gay marriage and a repeal of DOMA.  With Sen. Gillibrand and Gov. Paterson and former Gov. Spitzer also supporting it, this now appears to be the mainstream position in New York Democratic politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/nyregion/24schumer.html