Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. The legislature overturned to Gov's veto. Congrats Vermont
Gay Marriage veto overturned
Gay Marriage veto overturned
Vermont Overturns Gay Marriage Veto
- Thread starter regdog
- Start date
Excellent! Just 46 more states to go...and our homosexual agenda will be complete and we will be able to take over the world....Bwahahaha1
Way to go, Vermont!
Way to go, Vermont!
Yahoo! I watched the votes live. What a nailbiter! Vermont may be fourth to legalize, but they get to be first to legalize via a legislative vote and not a judicial process.
... to show my approval, I will buy lots of Vermont maple syrup,
along with mounds of flapjacks to go with it
along with mounds of flapjacks to go with it
Several states have constutional amendments which define marriage
as only between a man and a woman. For example Wisconsin,
Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas. I don't know if the courts in those states
can declare something unconstitutional if it is actually part of the state's constitution.
I think it is interesting that in California, about 70% of Black voters
voted in favor of Prop. 8, banning same sex marriage. So, in
that case, it appears that most of the Black voters did not see this as a civil rights issue.
It may be that the country will end up with some regions where
same sex marriage is legal, and others where it is not. Actually we
are there now.
In order to not be disingenuous, I'll state that I believe in a religion, the Baha'i Faith, which does not allow it's members to marry a person of the same sex. Of course, most people are not Baha'is, and would see no reason to obey Baha'i law.
as only between a man and a woman. For example Wisconsin,
Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas. I don't know if the courts in those states
can declare something unconstitutional if it is actually part of the state's constitution.
I think it is interesting that in California, about 70% of Black voters
voted in favor of Prop. 8, banning same sex marriage. So, in
that case, it appears that most of the Black voters did not see this as a civil rights issue.
It may be that the country will end up with some regions where
same sex marriage is legal, and others where it is not. Actually we
are there now.
In order to not be disingenuous, I'll state that I believe in a religion, the Baha'i Faith, which does not allow it's members to marry a person of the same sex. Of course, most people are not Baha'is, and would see no reason to obey Baha'i law.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
After five do you get a free toaster?
(Yeah, I know, old Ellen joke.)
You think Oklahoma would be last? I'd bet Kansas.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
Ditto. Or Idaho. But moreso because Idaho would just want to give the finger to someone--anyone--on basic principle.
I dunno. I was delighted by the Iowa ruling, but you have to remember it was a judicial decision. It's not as if everyone flocked to the polls in support of gay marriage, and I'm not sure our legislature would have acted similar to Vermont's given the same set of circumstances.
Maybe I'm just depressed by my fellow Iowans of the more mouthbreathing persuasion who have come out of the woodwork since Friday. Oh, the predictions that Iowa City will turn into a pillar of salt. The bromides about Adam and Steve. Hyuk. Hyuk.
Maybe I'm just depressed by my fellow Iowans of the more mouthbreathing persuasion who have come out of the woodwork since Friday. Oh, the predictions that Iowa City will turn into a pillar of salt. The bromides about Adam and Steve. Hyuk. Hyuk.
The state court can't, but the local Federal court could, based on the US Constitution -- Ful Faith and Credence.
It was framed in California as mainly a religious issue, and the voters were directed from (some, not all) pulpits.
There will have to be two separate 'married' types, one civil, and one religious. The two do not need to intersect.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,190
- Reaction score
- 328
Texas, and that's because we'd have to overturn a constitutional amendment.
And, nice to see things are a changing for the better.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 1,205
- Location
- smack dab in the middle of nowhere
- Website
- astonwest.com
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
As Vermont goes, so goes the country...
No wait. That's presidential elections.
Seriously, though, this is encouraging. I would venture to guess, however, that a state in the deep South will be the last to change--a state like Mississippi or Tennessee, for example.
No wait. That's presidential elections.
Seriously, though, this is encouraging. I would venture to guess, however, that a state in the deep South will be the last to change--a state like Mississippi or Tennessee, for example.
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 7,870
- Reaction score
- 2,718
- Location
- š
- Website
- lauriedalzell.weebly.com
OMG! When they passed the lottery here a couple of years ago, they argued the likelihood that people would spend all of their money on lottery tickets and stop buying food and paying utilities and their children would suffer miserably. Uhh. Casinos all over the place already????
If gay rights ever become a headliner here, they'll probably argue that heterosexual married couples would divorce at record rates to form new homosexual marriages and the children would once again suffer miserably.
If they ever do grant some kind of gay couple recognition, they'd change their minds and repeal it within a week.
Oklahoma - where ridiculous is a way of life.
(ETA: No offense meant to anyone who loves OK. I grew up in VT and living here is it's own form of hell)
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,705
- Reaction score
- 1,336
- Location
- Where the Wild Things Are
- Website
- www.christine-norris.com
I'll also vote for Texas. I know some people there who, on this issue, are thick as a brick. They can't understand WHY a VOTE on people's personal freedom - a marriage between two consenting adults - is unconstitutional. (of course if it were THEIR freedom being voted on, that would be a different story. Right now it's just righteous indignation.)
I wish the same, but I'm not holding my breath. While a lot of MN is pretty live-and-let-live, there's that nutcase Michelle Bachmann's district. I read an article in Politics magazine about how the passed that horrid anti-gay law in CA. They'd do the same here. I think it works in Vermont because it a small liberal state.
I've got a friend who is traveling to Canada to get married, 'cause she can't do so in many parts of the US. She didn't want to go to Iowa, mostly because she figured she'd have to honeymoon elsewhere, anyway.
As far as being in a country where a marriage is legal in one state but not another, it was not long ago that if a person married a member of another race and traveled to a state where it wasn't legal, they'd be arrested and put in jail for a long time. In the state of VA, it was a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
The difference between same-sex marriage laws and interracial marriage laws is that currently the same-sex laws has no criminal penality. However, in the 1960s interracial marriage laws, while holding up in court, were opposed by a number of churches.
Despite court rulings, it took until the year 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage for this to become legal in all 50 states.
A pity people have to put up with such nonsense.
Last edited:
Despite not being gay, I'm pro-pro-pro gay marriage. I can't imagine that all on A.W. are pro gay marriage, but it's interesting to see that those who aren't don't voice themselves in threads like these. I think that people are finally realizing how ridiculous it is to be anti-gay marriage, regardless of their religious beliefs.