Google Ads


Site Stats

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override

by: ChadInFL

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 11:34 AM EDT


Haha.  Despite Governor Douglas's grandstanding the bill still passed.  Vermont becomes the first state where the legislature successfully passes full marriage equality without intervention of the courts.

Now the time has come to run that clown of a Governor out of office come 2010.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/w...

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage - and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

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. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
ChadInFL :: Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override | 149 comments
Refreshing to see this done by a legislature!
Congrats to the people of Vermont!

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.
Good for Vermont
this is what you call momentum. Or, revenge of the blue states.
Douglas is screwed.
His entire, decades-long career of being a tremendous weenie just went pfft in one glorious moment. With an emboldened Democratic legislative majority having suddenly remembered what it's like to actually win occasionally, and what will almost certainly be a strong Democrat on the ballot (though we don't know which one yet), I doubt he makes it past 2010.  

I knew he'd overstep eventually - it's in the nature of every Republican to do so - but I'm impressed by how spectacularly Douglas has managed to screw himself this year, and especially on this issue. It's like he can't cope with Bush no longer being president and has to overcompensate by letting his own incredible dickishness show through at every opportunity. Goodbye, DoesLess, and good riddance, or if I may quote Nelson Muntz, HA-ha!

I'm very proud of my state legislature today, for probably the first time ever.  

Awesome that you live there
Its a very beautiful state. Im even strongly considering moving to New England within the next few years and while I probably wouldnt move to VT (since my company doesnt have a location there, and, hate to say it, but NH doesnt have state income taxes like VT) I would move close to the border. And its a shining example that there can be culturally liberal people outside of the cities and suburbs.
[ Parent ]
I find it very funny.
Conservatives call Vermont an "urban Starbucks latte liberal" state, yet Vermont is the most rural state in the country and has like only 4 Starbucks in the whole state.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Starbucks
If anything they probably hate Starbucks, since, as you said, theres only 4. They are an anti-corporate state. I dont even think they allow billboards, do they? And my company, which is a retail company, is your steriotypical big corporation and thats probably one of the reasons its not there even though theres thousands of locations nationwide. The people probably just dont care to have it there and so we know it wouldnt make money there.
[ Parent ]
No Billboards
In fact there was a big controversy there over a town that painted a "Welcome to East Bumfuck" sign on the side of a barn in violation of the billboard law.  In the end, they got an exception from the state legislature, but a lot of people were worried that advertisers might be getting their foot in the door.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
Here's the story about the barn sign
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
Ironically,
Greater Burlington is so sanctimonious towards Williston (its box store neighbor) for "making itself all ugly and corporate", but guess where they all go to shop on weekends?

Also, if you work for Target (educated guess, may be wrong), I don't know what the reasoning is, but most people here would actually like one. I think part of the reason is that this is the last area of the country where Sears/Kmart actually has a monopoly on low-end department stores, and Target is literally unfamiliar to the people who have never been elsewhere, despite the fact that there's one in Plattsburgh. We have a Macy's in downtown Burlington (which is about to close for lack of use), and Wal Mart is in other parts of Vermont in spite of our best efforts to get rid of it (except for Franklin County, which is pushing hard for one over the objections of the state other than Douglas and their own best interests), but the resistance to box stores here has actually prolonged Kmart's life. I think Target's reasoning is that the population is so small and anti-box store that it wouldn't be worth it, which is probably right. If Kmart goes under, though, who knows? Not everyone can afford to buy clothes made out of hemp.

And yes, the anti-billboard law is nice. I have to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude at our Republican governor having brought in Powerball because, unlike in other states, they can't put up a big billboard on the freeway announcing how much their rigged prize money is up to.  

[ Parent ]
LOL.
@ that last comment: Pwned.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I'd love a Target in state
The ideal solution would be a Target in downtown Burlington (? in the Macy's space when it moves out?)

I generally avoid the box stores like the plague, but for Target I'd make an exception :)

[ Parent ]
Why Target specifically?


party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
basically range of selection
living in a rural area, we often lack the kinds of choices for purchases on a lot of basic things that people in more urban areas take for granted - we don't have enough specialty stores to make up for that

my experience in shopping at Target in other areas is that generally the selection is broader and higher quality than places like Wal-Mart, Kmart, or the department stores like Macy's. I think they'd fill a very open niche in the local market.  

[ Parent ]
And Target
Definitely treats its workers better than, say, Wal-Mart.
[ Parent ]
Yup, its Target
Whos my employer. Theres actually a location in Keene, NH which is right by Brattleboro, VT. If I move to New England itd be Keene Id move to. I could technically live in VT and just drive to work in Keene but i dont want to drive like 30 min from Brattleboro in a snowstorm lol. As ive lived in SE Texas my whole life and am not accustomed to that. i know ill get stuck in one on the way to work or wherever, its inevitable, i just am hoping its not during a 30 min. drive. That is an interesting reason you gave for Target not being there. I dont doubt it at all. And I know us thinking we wouldnt be competitive there is a reason. But, and this isnt to shill my company, but we aint like Wal-Mart. In fact it seems like its conservative christians who are most pissed at Target (because of the refusal to allow the Salvation Army there). ive never really heard much fuss from community activists or politicians or whoever. but maybe i just havent been paying attention. And some may find this ironic, the heir to Target is ex-Sen. Mark Dayton. A staunch liberal.

I hope VT also doesnt have Dairy Queens in every town like you have in the south. Now thats just...tacky. I mean the blizzards are good and all. But still. Them and the Waffle House, probably.

[ Parent ]
Having lived in 3 Sunbelt states my whole life
CA, AZ, and TX, I too don't want to drive in the snow!

As for DQ, I checked their website, and there are none in VT though NH has 10.

And California has about 150 of them. [blushes]

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

[ Parent ]
Ah, lucky guess.
We don't have that many Dairy Queens, and Waffle House (sadly) is a Southern chain. The farthest northeast they've gotten is to around Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (My family drives to the south to visit family on a regular basis, so I get fairly regular updates on how far north Waffle House is creeping).  But no, Burlingtonians are so provincial that when we got an IHOP a couple of months ago it was considered big news, even though, for those of us who have lived outside of northern New England, IHOP really isn't that great.

And also, I really do believe that Dayton is heir to Target. Know who founded Kohl's? (It's current Democratic senator and multizillionaire Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, who also owns the Milwaukee Bucks, most of the University of Wisconsin athletic campus (which he donated), and probably 87,000 square miles of sky.) Midwestern department store mavens seem inclined to find their way into the Senate, it seems.

Brattleboro is a nice little town, though a bit too crazy hippie (in the anti-scientific "take lots of multivitamins but refuse to vaccinate your children" sense) for me, and there's very little economy there if you don't already have a job, which obviously isn't an issue for you. It's also near ENVY (our decaying, unstable, leaky, grossly mismanaged nuclear power plant that could melt down at any time.), so that's worth taking into consideration. The good news is that B'boro is on I-91, so a quick drive down to the Northampton, MA area (or to Boston on the Mass Pike) if you want some more culture. You could also go to Hartford or Albany, but, um, why would you want to do that? (For that matter, why would you go to Boston? Maybe it's just because I used to live there, but it's not a fun city to visit in any way, despite having some interesting things to do.)

Winter driving isn't that hard once you get used to it. The main rule is don't go faster than you're comfortable going (regardless of what all the idiots in pickup trucks around you are doing), don't assume driving a 4x4 will help you with black ice (it won't), have good tires and a cell phone provider that works, and if you get into a skid, always steer in the direction of the skid and leave the brakes alone. Worst case scenario, especially in a 2WD vehicle, pull off and wait for the sand truck, then follow it. I admit, though, that I've "cheated" a bit by mostly driving only 4x4 or AWD vehicles in New England, which helps a lot with traction. Anyway, I agree that a commute from Keene area to Brattleboro or v/v is a bit long. I'd say look at Targets further down the freeway in Mass, maybe around Greenfield, but then you'd be paying income tax to two states. (And you don't want to live in Mass on a Target salary, believe me, chiefly because of their asinine Romneycare, as well as the incredibly inflated cost of car insurance. At least that's pretty cheap in Vermont.)  

[ Parent ]
One other thing
If you're going to move here, take the extra time to get an apartment with heat included. You'll save hundreds of dollars a year. Heat in this part of the world is incredibly expensive.  
[ Parent ]
Yeah, ill definitely look at that
Similar to here but with air conditioning. Of course we dont have much competition in the energy sector here.
[ Parent ]
That is one reason why
I definitely prefer living in SoCal over the northeast and southeast. Mega-savings on AC and heating. The only problem is high housing costs, though they're on the way down.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Thanks!
Thanks for all the tips! Appreciated. Driving in the ice definitely isnt something im looking forward to. Ive only done it maybe one or two times (as it only snows here once every few years). And for some reason i have this ltitle fear of driving alongside red flanneled truck drivers in New England. Yeah Id prefer not living in MA, mostly because of the costs. Though its a wonderful place to visit, all around the state. Boston has alot of fun things but last time i was there there was so much contruction. It was about 11 years ago now. Interesting that Brattleboro has alot of 'hippies'. I wonder if its like Nederland, Colorado, where my stepaunt has a home. A little hippie town in the middle of the Rockies. Great views, cool people, great places to eat and shop...but insane house prices. A little dump of a house will cost you $200k. I forget if it was you who talked about it but yeah ive heard about NH's abysmal state services. Kind of a scary thought if you need real help. Romneycare also doesnt impress me. Sure it gets almost everyone covered but it doesnt do anything about the quality. Also i dont agree with forcing someone to get insurance unless theyre under 18. There are lots of small business owners whod have to think twice about paying their mortgage on time or another bill on time because theyre forced to get insurance for themselves. And they make too much to qualify for any govt assistance, i would think. Theres been alot of months where my dad, a real estate agent, cant afford to have health insurance. i couldnt imagine if he had to live under Romneycare. I doubt the state of Massachusetts would spend any money on him.
[ Parent ]
By what definition of "rural"?
Percentage of population living in rural areas?

Because I'm pretty sure it's far behind Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho in terms of rural land.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Population that lives in rural areas.
Burlington is the smallest "state's largest city" and Montpelier is the smallest state capital in the country.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Speaking as someone who didn't grow up in Burlington
I've lived here for a year after having lived in several real cities, and I'm not impressed. People here are, frankly, too liberal - the kind of affluent, out of touch thought-police liberal who has never had to go without and therefore condemns everyone who even slightly disagrees with them (or presents factual evidence contradicting their beliefs) as somehow "unenlightened", including those of us who simply can't afford to buy organic. Taken together with this town's severe delusions of urban grandeur and contempt for anyone who grew up in the real Vermont (I've been silently turned down for jobs here because I grew up in a "cow county", ergo, I must be a slack-jawed yokel despite my college education at a top school in Massachusetts and the fact that I, um, went to high school in greater Burlington.), I really resent having Burlington equated with Vermont in the eyes of everyone who's never been here. It's a small town waiting to grow up with a huge chip on its shoulder against everyone who wasn't born there. The rest of Vermont, though not as politically liberal, is still pretty Democratic by today's standards, less expensive, and generally a much nicer place to be.

Also, most of the cars that have tailgated me into the local shopping plaza to go to the Starbucks have been shiny SUVs with California plates. Go figure. (I moved back here from the West and I still can't escape them, though the passive-aggressive way that Burlingtonians drive makes me almost miss being tailgated by Californians.) Most Vermonters prefer Green Mountain coffee, which is slightly more affordable and much, much better. The Starbucks are generally left to the rich, out of state college students who don't know any better or aren't mindful enough to care.  

[ Parent ]
Thought police liberals
I cant stand those folks, too. Just like how i cant stand thought police conservatives. I havent really dealt with thought police liberals, personally (i live in the conservative Houston suburbs afterall) but i know they exist. The kind of folks who will literally look down on you if you use paper or plastic bags, at a store, instead of bringing your own. Or dont recycle literally every single thing. Or dont have an environmentally friendly vehicle. Or even something simple like smoking in your own home. Thankfully, those kinds of folks are few i think. and theres many more thought police conservatives.
[ Parent ]
I'm strongly liberal
and I too can't stand the "thought police" on the left like I can't stand the "thought police" on the right.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
There's more of them than you think
I absolutely agree with you -- and I'll add going to the casino, eating a steak, watching a professional sporting event, getting drunk on anything that costs less than $30 a bottle, etc., etc.
[ Parent ]
I thought liberals liked basketball
And hockey, too.  
[ Parent ]
You'll be in for a rude shock if you live near Burlington
My girlfriend was in the supermarket once - a regular supermarket - buying regular eggs, and some girl walks up to her and asks in a very rude voice why she isn't buying organic. Um, because we can't afford organic?

The problem with this place is that it's a town of 30,000 with an additional 30,000 college students, most of them rich idiot ski bums from out of state who move here to snowboard, smoke weed, and get C's in all their classes. College students from that background have no conception of how the world works, and living in a town in which they dominate is very irritating, to say the least. To have them given free reign to be assholes by the majority of the adults in this town is even worse. (Somehow, being part of the "community" is more important to employers than actually being a good candidate, and attending any of the shitty colleges in this town qualifies more than having attended high school here, then moved to someplace better.)

Also, I'm all for smoking in private if you live in a house. If you live in an apartment or condo, it should be illegal because it affects your neighbors. The number of times I've had to complain about cigarette and/or pot smoke getting into my apartment since moving here (I'm asthmatic) is ridiculous, and somehow it never quite stops.

But just to give you an idea, Burlington has a citywide mandatory recycling ordinance. Never mind that enforcing it is basically impossible, and isn't even tried. I'm all for recycling (and have been making an effort to do so for years), but trying to force people to do it - then being so spineless that you can't even go through with enforcing it - is just idiotic, and the kind of politically correct Mickey Mousing that passes for government here.  

[ Parent ]
That sounds
Exactly like a standard South Park episode.  
[ Parent ]
Doesnt...
San Francisco have an anti-plastic bag law in its stores? Or use to have one. It may sound all good for about 5 seconds...but then you think about how itd raise the costs for average working people. As stores would raise their prices if they could only use non-plastic bags (which are so much more expensive). And theyd probably cut employees' hours. And such a law probably doesnt make too much of an environmental impact.

Yeah id be against smoking in apartments too, if the fumes got into their neighors rooms. i agree with you there.

[ Parent ]
They should do like Aldi or Sam's Club
Simply provide no bag.

Well, Aldi provides plastic and paper bags, and sells them at like $0.06 a bag, as well as reusable bags at like $0.50 a bag or so.  I don't remember the numbers.  But what that causes most people to do is to simply bring their own bags.  Alternatively, I know my mom keeps a cardboard box in the trunk of the car, and simply puts the food in there.

Sam's Club is basically the same except they don't sell bags but they provide those cardboard trays that the things they sell come in.

I think a lot more stores should consider doing this to save cost and material, for the sake of their bottom line and the environment simultaneously.  (Especially those who seem to have a policy of doubling up plastic and paper together.)

I strongly prefer social and economic pressure causing companies to do the right thing, rather than having government force people's hands.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Hmm...
Don't move to Northern New England unless you know you can afford it. There are a lot of hidden costs here that I was unaware of growing up. This is especially true in New Hampshire, which, despite having fewer taxes, fees the crap out of their citizens for every transaction. I was looking into moving there to get away from Burlington and determined that it was actually cheaper to stay in Vermont. For example, VT charges $60 to register a vehicle in Vermont, but only $20 annually to renew that registration. In New Hampshire, you're annually assessed a state fee (up to $50, based on weight), plus a "city permit fee" assessed by the individual town, which is equivalent to an excise tax. It comes to about $100 a year, every year, for a regular car. Rent here is also way overpriced given the quality of most of the available units (expect to pay about $900/month for a dump that's barely up to code. Believe me, you don't know how good you have it renting in Texas.), and food is pretty expensive, too. NH also seems to deliberately hide this information away to keep people from knowing the true cost of living there (i.e. it took me hours to find the fee schedule for registering a car there, which is done by town, and the DMV doesn't disclose how much the license fee is anywhere on its website.) Also, city services are barebones at best; most cities in NH don't even have municipal trash pickup of any kind because there's no money in the budget for it thanks to the lack of a working tax base. I don't blame you for wanting out of Texas, but be sure you're not getting in over your head financially. Living up here is very expensive for the lack of culture and amenities that you get.

I wouldn't describe Vermonters as "culturally liberal" so much as "culturally openminded". There's a very "live and let live" attitude here (outside of Burlington, which is more "live and pretend to let live but passive-aggressively judge everyone who tries to live around you"). Before 1992, Vermont was actually one of the most Republican states in the country - it was the only state besides Maine to never vote for FDR. Growing up in a small town in the nineties, most of my neighbors identified as Republican. They bought into the polarizing "stink about nothing" issues that Newt tried to use as a smokescreen to bring down Clinton, but most of them shifted left for good after Bush proved those issues to be the distractions that they were. For all of the talk, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry still won my hometown. There's a disconnect between what a lot of ordinary Vermonters were raised to believe Republicans are (i.e. solid working-class progressives like Stafford and Jeffords) and what Republicans actually are today that contributes to a lot of confusion.  

[ Parent ]
You are right about being careful
I'll definitely have to look at the costs more. Especially with regards to rent. Property taxes are high there so Im sure thats a reason rent would be high. As the apartment complex owner will just shift the cost onto the renter. I cant say I blame them, really. I didnt think itd be $900, though. that surprised me. Very high rent is a reason i didnt move to New Jersey a few years ago (in central NJ, in the New/East Brunswick area). My job would have paid me the same thing there, not adjust to cost of living. I'll have to look at apartment rates in Keene. Or Chesterfield, too. Rent here is thankfully good. I pay just $600 a month for a one bedroom and this is a typical middle class suburb. A good neighborhood, too.
[ Parent ]
Another thing to be aware of:
Some towns, including Burlington, allow the property manager to literally pass the tax burden onto the renter in addition to rent. I'm going to have to pay a $125 property tax bill from the management company this month, in addition to the $900 monthly rent I've already paid to live in a 16 year old building (new by VT standards). My apartment - the worst I've ever lived in but good by area standards - is a run down, apathetically managed 2 bedroom with a horrible bathroom, tiny kitchen, leaky windows, a mold problem, peeling plaster, and smashed flies on the ceiling because the property manager didn't bother to clean the place before we moved in. It's about 900 square feet, but barely habitable. This is considered good in Burlington. Part of the reason for this is that Vermont's code enforcement department (under Douglas, of course) basically was asleep at the switch between 2002 and last fall, when they were forced to start actually doing their jobs by court order. Previously, if anyone complained to them about code violations, their response was generally to simply evict the tenant and leave the problem unaddressed. I understand that Maine is even worse where hidden taxes are concerned, though they seem to have slightly better housing stock than we do. NH seems to have a lot of really shady property managers and shitholes due mostly to laxer rental laws. We looked for a place in the Concord area a couple of months ago and couldn't find anything good at all, even after a week of research. Manchester was similar. You might find something in Portsmouth, but it'll also be the most expensive part of the state to rent in because of UNH. I don't know much about the market in Keene, except that there's a state college there, so it might be a bit more expensive than you're willing to pay (though definitely not as bad as Hanover, which is flat out not in your price range, or even ours). I do know, however, that there's precious little right on the VT/NH border that hasn't been incredibly gentrified.  

I strongly suggest you look around on craigslist and apartmentratings.com before you take the plunge. New England is basically unaffordable unless you're making at least $40k a year. Rent is the worst expense, but food and gas are big hits on the wallet, too, especially for the wage that most jobs here pay. Hidden taxes/fees and skyrocketing car insurance costs are also a problem in every New England state except for VT.

Another important thing to get used to, coming from a place like Texas, is that our roads royally suck. Most of them are (literally) paved-over buggy tracks, and getting from point A to point B always takes longer than it should (at best) and can be a goddamn ordeal at worst, especially during tourist season (March-November). I absolutely hate driving in most populated areas in New England for this reason alone (and don't even get me started on Boston, which is probably the worst place to drive in the entire country during the day thanks to a million people taking its converted buggy tracks to and from work), but even in the rural areas, there aren't many freeways to get places quickly, and the freeways that have been built don't have good on/off ramp placement, requiring a lot of backtracking (except for the tiny section of VT-4 that's freeway between the New York border and Rutland, which is, IMO, the best freeway in America because nobody's ever on it). It's not an efficient place to drive, to say the least.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I think that Connecticut is (somewhat) backwards.
New Haven is the most famous or second most famous city in Connecticut, and is the one with the famous university, and is the one with the train station.

Drive an hour north, and you get to the other famous city and state capital, Hartford.

Drive another half hour or hour north, and you get to the major international airport of south-central New England, Bradley International Airport, which serves basically all of CT (unless you're close enough to New York or Providence).  Drive another half hour or hour north and you reach Springfield, MA, which also shares this airport.

This is in contrast to south Florida, where I lived for many years, and where there's an airport in Fort Lauderdale, an airport in Miami an hour's drive south of FLL, and an airport in West Palm Beach an hour's drive north of FLL.

And yes, housing is OLD and EXPENSIVE.  House prices still haven't dropped much since the explosive real estate boom (which could be a good thing).  But you definitely get less bang-for-the-buck if you're moving up from Florida or something like that.

Oh, and standard of living.  Way higher here.  (Not to mention extra taxes relative to Florida.)

Roads and stuff seem to be built to get around/stay out of the way of existing features.  Which makes sense.  But that means you get strange combinations of exits (e.g. Exits 39 and 41 have the same ramp, and split later), and you get lots of small roads that criss-cross communities.  It looks nothing like the sort of parallel-road planning that took place in South Florida (look around Fort Lauderdale and you'll see a near-regular pile of various major horizontal (east-west running) roads named after presidents).  Google Maps is definitely an asset.

Oh, and the hills.

I admit to being spoiled in south Florida.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Thanks, again
For the tips. Makes me think twice about moving there, LOL. Ive also thought about Asheville, NC. Maybe the costs are a little better there ;). I never thought the overall costs would be so high in New England outside of much of MA, CT and RI. I always thought NH and VT were reasonable. Glad Ive learned all this, though. if i had a much better paying job then it wouldnt matter as much. Or at least a roommate (and thatd have to be a girlfriend/wife as im a very private person. And as of now im single unfortunately). Also didnt realize the apartment qualities were so horrendous. Theyre usually pretty good here, thankfully. Im surprised VT allows property managers to pass the tax burden onto the renter. As well as previously not enforcing code violations. And basically just letting their apartments be in poor condition. Given how liberal VT is. I would think theyd be more 'renter friendly' as opposed to 'property owner/landlord friendly'.  
[ Parent ]
Lack of culture
Honestly, while having 'alot of culture' (such as concert clubs and museums) is a good thing its not the end of the world. Id be moving to NH because its drop dead gorgeous and its in the middle of other very beautiful states (MA, VT, ME, etc). Hell, im the kind of guy whod love to one day spend the rest of my days (besides travelling, which i love and will always do often) on a ranch in Wyoming or Montana. Im in love with nature. And besides, if i want to go to a really good concert ill just make the long drive to Boston, Springfield or Worcester.
[ Parent ]
Fair enough.
Just remember that you can't eat scenery.

If you present yourself as a Texas refugee who wants a more progressive lifestyle, you might be able to fit in pretty well in a place like VT. You may have problems with some knee-jerk thought police liberals who assume that you're automatically an oil-slick dripping fundamentalist asshole just because you're from Texas, but you get something like this anywhere.

Not that you're considering doing it, but I lived in Missoula, Montana for seven months. If you were to move there, saying "I'm here for the scenery" is exactly the wrong response and will make people hate you. The Mountain West is an incredibly rough place to move to if you allow the natives to even for a second think you're a part of their "California problem". (Basically, a bunch of Hollywood people and washed up celebrities moved there to get away from SoCal and built huge McMansions in the Bitterroot Valley, which encouraged the unscrupulous real estate developers to move there and buy up the rest of the land, sending home prices through the roof. The average 3 bedroom house in Missoula costs about $450,000 now, while the average job in Missoula pays about $10/hr. People who have lived there for generations can no longer afford to buy property in their own towns, and development has become such a crutch to their economy that if the developers were to leave now, the entire city would shut down, even though it's entirely new condos for rich outsiders that are being built there. We left Missoula because we realized that, being outsiders, we were considered part of the problem, and really didn't belong there anyway.) Not saying you'll do it, just FYI - don't move to the Mountain West unless someone else sends you there. (They have no problem with business or military people transferred there, but liberals coming in for the scenery are a no, and not being able to give a good answer as to "why did you come here?" - which is a standard question in every Montana job interview - is an automatic fail.)  

[ Parent ]
Ive heard..
Similar stories in the Mountain West. One of my fav. shows is the cartoon King of the Hill. In one episode they visited Peggy Hill (the wife/mother)'s hometown in Montana. The locals considered Hank Hill (the main character) to be 'Hollywood' even though hes a conservative, small town Texan whos the opposite of anything 'Hollywood'. Have also heard, from a customer at work whos lived in Wyoming, that theyre not exactly the friendliest people in the world. Colorado is probably alot more hospitable to liberals and people moving there 'for the scenery'...but the places theyd want to live in, like Nederland, are waaaay too expensive. Youve practically gotta be a techie from the Silicon Valley or something, not someone with a low or really average paying job. It sucks that someone would think low of me just because id want to move there due to the beautiful land. As Im not a rich dude whos contributing to the problem you described. So long as i respected them, their way of life, their land, etc and didnt make trouble or contribute to any problems. Im pretty use to people moving here from other places. I actually grew up with a few people who were from West Virginia of all places. Kind of ironic many folks in the Mountain West have an 'anti outsider' view...as there was a time, way after America was formed, when their own ancestors were the outsiders. Whether to the Native Americans or to the 'original' white settlers.
[ Parent ]
Well
I do not support same sex marriage, but I would much rather have it made legal in this manner rather than though a court re-writting laws. I think its also the smarter thing for gay rights activists to do. With many court actions like in MA for example they may have gotten it legal in MA, but there was a major public backlash and it became soildily illegal in many, many states.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
It's not re-writing laws
These Supreme Courts, such as California and Iowa, that overturned bans on same-sex marriage are far from liberal courts.  Your whole "activist court" argument is comple BS.  These courts merely interpreted state laws to base their decisions.
[ Parent ]
I'd agree with that
But I also agree with Kyle - the best way to legalise it is to pass it by referenda or legislative actions. That way it's much harder to demagogue against and the antis are far more likely to have to resort to red-state/blue-state bashing of the sort that will be distinctly harmful to the long-term strength of their cause.
[ Parent ]
This opinion has no basis in history
If the civil rights pioneers of the 20th century didn't have a few "activist judges" at their disposal, they would have gotten nowhere.

And once again the south is a morass that will have to be steamrolled at the federal level.  

[ Parent ]
That's what I see coming, maybe 15-20 years from now
I'd guess that almost all the states outside the South (minus Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho) will have legalized same-sex marriage, and at that point the Supreme Court will finally have the will and the political makeup to bring Alabama, Missisippi, Tennessee, etc. into the 21st century.

Of course, I'd much rather it happen sooner, backlash or not.  I would never presume to tell an oppressed group that they need to "wait" because it isn't politically expedient for them to get their rights now.

[ Parent ]
Exactly
And thank you.
[ Parent ]
What about Nebraska and Kansas?
Assuming you take Oklahoma and Kentucky to be part of the South.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
Don't be so sure on Wyoming
It's one of the least religious states in the sountry and tends to have a libertarian bent.  Banning people from getting married doesn't sound like a top priority among voters out there.
[ Parent ]
Probably
I have no doubt that what you say probably will happen. I know at some point in the not too distant future gay marriage will be legal in most places, either though court action or eventually the public viewpoint moving in its favor. People that support one man one woman marriage laws will be labeled as hateful, homophobic, or worse.  

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
[ Parent ]
or worse
religious zealots trying to impose their Christian will on a secular country.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
This country
would be alot different if all those people voting for traditional marriage amendments were all "Christian zealots". There many others who voted for them that are not religious. Heck even a good number of Democrats. I read somewhere where it was the minority population, that voted in very large numbers for President Obama, that got Prop 8 to pass in Cali last year.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
[ Parent ]
The minority vote was mostly based on religion, though
You do have a point that a lot of Democrats are opposed, but minorities, especially Latinos (Catholic) and African Americans tend to be quite religous.  And on the other hand a lot of Christian white Democrats oppose it for the same reasons.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
Never been to Brooklyn huh?
the minority population is quite religous  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
If the shoe fits, wear it.

[ Parent ]
Black and white
You dont have to be homophobic or hateful to be against gay marriage. Thats kinda one of the things I tried to get across when The Advocate had me write an artical for them about gay marriage and different people's viewpoints. I actually have a special feeling for gay people. It isnt a black and white situation.  

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
[ Parent ]
It is a black and white issue.
Removing religion, which, following the 1st amendment, isn't a reason to uphold a law, and you're left with no rational basis for denying gay marriage.

The Iowa Supreme Court was very good at explaining why any proposed state reasons for the law were not valid.

[ Parent ]
I don't expect to convince you otherwise
but there's no logical difference between what you say now, and what people said 60 years ago about Jim Crow laws and interracial marriage. You might not think that your position is bigoted and hateful, but objectively, it is.  
[ Parent ]
The position is bigoted and hateful
but the motive is not always. That is, I think what Kyle is saying.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, the end result
is the same, regardless of the motivation.
[ Parent ]
I agree 100% but I don't agree with calling all
non-supporters bigoted.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
I see no reason to be nice about others' bigotry

[ Parent ]
I do
There is NO justification other than bigotry for opposing a fundamental right that hurts NOONE by becoming law.
[ Parent ]
I agree that it is not justification
but in their mind it is.  I'm not defending them, because I think that it is wrong to push your religion onto others.  But, there are devoutly religous people, even a lot of Democrats, who are not homophobic (specifically Catholics) but cannot in good faith support something that they feel goes against their religous beliefs.  It's not right but it doesn't make the homophobic, which is fear or hatred of homosexuals.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
This is a secular country
your religious beliefs just don't matter...there's a word of a government that regulates on religious beliefs...theocracy.

I vote against my religious beliefs all the time, because I don't want a theocracy.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Actually they are
I couldn't care less what their dogmatic personal beliefs are.  If they want to impose those beliefs on everyone else they need to get their head examined.  You can justify pretty much anything you want with religion.  
[ Parent ]
I don't neccessarily agree
Consider the Democratic Vermont legislator who wanted to support the GM bill, but felt he would be alienated from his Catholic Church.  (I assume he voted for veto override, and good for him)  but the point is many religous people who I know personally are not homophobic or hateful.  Where they go wrong is pushing there religion on others, but I don't think this is neccessarily homophobic.  Granted, there are loads of hateful and homophobic people, so this isn't everyone.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
They are all of those things
People that support one man one woman marriage laws will be labeled as hateful, homophobic, or worse.    

What they suggest in this case to TAKE AWAY rights.  Conservatives love to preach individual freedom until it comes to extending those freedoms to people they don't like.  That is hypocrisy at it's worst.

Sorry, but quoting fiction written two thousand years ago doesn't pass the smell test on denying people fundamental rights anymore.  You are your kind are what kept western society in the Dark Ages for centuries, silencing rational thought and substituting it with religious dogma.  Your day has long since passed, and I'm glad I'm alive now and not when your beliefs were law of the lands.

[ Parent ]
That's because they are
In my experience those who support any legal recognition of gay couples but are afraid of marriage usually change their mind when they realize their churchs would not be required to marry gay people.

Those who still oppose it do because it's "disgusting" or "sick"

that I call bigotry and homophobia

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
I just don't like your legal
argument. These are not activist judges, and they are not as RedState suggests, rewritting the consitution. The consitution gurantees equal rights under the eys of the government, therefore the government cannot tell one group of people they cannot have the same legal rights as another group, despite however popular it might be with the Religious and homophobic population.

Old laws that banned interracial marriages were really popular too, but courts overruled those. Its the same principle, trying to legislate certain demographics from having common legal rights is wrong and against the spirit of this country in everyway and could be turned around to excus all sorts of other rights and violations against other Demographics. The courts are there specifically to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
interracial marriage
Yes.  FYI, the poll numbers for banning interracial marriages -- back around when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining states' bans on interracial marriage in the best-named supreme court case of all time, Loving v. Virginia (1967) -- are STUNNING.  I thought you poll junkies might be interested in this:

By 1972, FIVE YEARS after bans on interracial marriage were lifted in all states, here's what Gallup found about attitudes toward interracial marriage:

18-30 year olds: 44% approve of interracial marriage
30-49 year olds: 28% approve
50+ year olds: 19% approve

(Figures from Renee Romano's book "Race Mixing," page 207)

Basically, interracial marriage was VERY unpopular, even more unpopular than gay marriage is today.  But there was huge generational change afoot.  And lo and behold: today, we can recognize that it is wrong, both morally and constitutionally, to ban interracial marriage.  We'll get there on gay marriage too, I'm confident.

[ Parent ]
The big years for this
was between 1984 and 1992 according to Pew.  In 1984, 49% approved of interracial marriage.  In 1992, it had jumped to 71%.
[ Parent ]
WY
Ive always heard that WY, like Alaska for example, is much more socially moderate than people think. People assume because of how GOP it is then its a bastion of social conservatism. But remember ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, was hardly a social conservative. Theres alot of folks there who are libertarian-minded on social issues. Probably one of the reasons Idaho isnt like them is theres a much larger percentage of Mormons.  
[ Parent ]
Yep
Like I said earlier in the thread Wyoming is more libertarian than authoritarian socially.  They seem to vote republican more for economic policy than social issues.  It has one of the highest rates of people with no religion of any state in the country.
[ Parent ]
Hence I thought that Idaho was a tougher nut to crack than Wyoming
but crack it Walt Minnick did--and in a presidential year no less.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
amendment-reversing process
States' political leanings are obviously important.  But I also think a big factor in determining which states go when is going to be the process required, which differs from state to state.  Lots of states now have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  In those states, we need to know how quick or cumbersome the process is for amending the constitution again to undo the anti-gay-marriage amendments now in place.  I think that will end up making a pretty big difference.  Also, it'll matter which states don't have these amendments; those are obviously much more fertile ground since all we need is a statute.
[ Parent ]
Florida
The problem with Florida is that ballot initiatives now take 60% to pass.  I think 60% is better than a simple 50% majority in most instances.  But the problem we face now is that reversing the marriage bill that was passed in 2008 with just over 60% will now take 60% to reverse.  That's a big hill to climb.  And it may take a very long time for it to be reversed.
[ Parent ]
That's why we need a federal solution
and a better U.S. Supreme Court.
[ Parent ]
Maybe in a decade
I'll guarantee we don't even have close to enough votes in Congress for even civil unions, much less full marriage.  we're probably close to a decade away from even having the votes for civil unions on a national scale.
[ Parent ]
Obama needs to replace 3 judges, inclusive of Kennedy
And none of the replacements can be the execrable Cass Sunstein.  
[ Parent ]
Three judges?
I'd probably say more.  Outside of Ginsberg and maybe Souter, there aren't any votes for ruling that gay marriage is a fundamental right.  

Stevens is really old school, he is reportedly very uncomfortable with gay marriage personally.  And I don't think Breyer (the most moderate of the liberal wing) has the guts to rule for gay marriage, even if he personally is ok with it.  I'm not sure where Ginsberg or Souter stands on gay marriage, but my guess is that they would probably be ok with ruling for it.

 

[ Parent ]
I'd say at least 20 years before
the Supreme Court rules for gay marriage at the national level.  And probably longer than that before Congress will support gay marriage (especially with the filibuster in the Senate)
[ Parent ]
I'm content
I'm content letting state courts and legislatures sort it out for the next decade or so.  Public momentum is moving in our favor on this issue and the state courts and legislatures seem to be going in the right direction.  As I predicted several years ago the northeast and west coast are leading the way on this issue.  Eventually it will spread to the less liberal states.
[ Parent ]
One thing is certain
the wingnuts have certainly lost this issue.  The only way for them to not lose it is to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, but there are 13 certain states to block it from being ratified ever: WA, OR, CA, HI, ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, and MD.
[ Parent ]
I dunno about some of the other states, but I'm in CT
and I sure as heck ain't gonna vote for that.

And this is coming from someone (myself) who personally actually agrees with the term "marriage" as meaning a union between a man and a woman.

(Yes, there's a big difference between personal preference and policy decisions.)

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Any federal amendment
must be approved by 3/4 (38 of them) legislatures.  The states I listed will never have state Houses and Senates who will approve FMA.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, by "vote for that" I meant "support that".
And yeah, I know what you mean.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
I can never be "content" about my own civil rights

[ Parent ]
Lawrence v. Texas laid the groundwork
We just need the votes. It's close--I'm sure of it.
[ Parent ]
We have one vote right now IMO
That is Ginsberg, and she'll likely retire soon.  Maybe also Souter.  
[ Parent ]
Stevens
I seriously doubt he's still on the court by the end of Obama's first term.  His spot and Ginsberg's are the two most likely vacancies within the next few years.
[ Parent ]
Well
from the court's work in interpreting the law, these states already did pass gay marriage through referenda or legislative actions.  That's what the courts are telling them, you already passed a law that inherently says gay marriage should be allowed.  So the religious right really needs to just shut the fuck up because them, us and our fellow citizens are the ones who legalized gay marriage years ago in several states through constitutional amendments protecting said states citizens and giving them equal rights.  Suck it up and deal with it whiners.

(not calling you a whiner Englishleft)

[ Parent ]
wups
(y)
[ Parent ]
My solution: a compromise.
NO ONE gets to have a marriage.

According to the government at least.  Call everything a civil union.

Let other people (such as churches) decide for themselves what  a marriage is.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
I hate that
In that compromise no one is happy.  Everyone wants the term marriage to be applied to their relationship and changing it to simple civil unions would piss off everyone.  And, this is only making the two relationships equal be "lessening" the straight one instead of bringing the GLBT one up to where straight couples are.  Wrong type of movement.
[ Parent ]
No, I'd actually make "civil unions" have the same benefits as a marriage.
This way, it's the same as a marriage, effectively, with the one and only difference being that the government doesn't literally define what the "marriage" is.

Heck, you could even do this to circumvent the Federal Marriage Amendment (I think; I'm not familiar with the wording so I can't say for sure).

And you leave people to call it whatever they want.  They can disagree all they like, but it'll no longer be "the damn government's fault" for misusing the term relative to their belief systems.

Not to mention, this solution would solve that piece of near-useless-legalistic-detail mental dissonance as well.

Okay, okay, I'll admit, there's also a certain amount of satisfaction to tell two brawling children that neither of them gets to play with the toy.  But they get the toy back anyway, as I see it.

Granted, I'm also neither a devout religious conservative nor a homosexual (and nor am I married, for that matter), so I'm probably not very good at understanding the social meaning of the term "marriage", and thus I'm probably not good at trying to predict what would happen if such a change to laws were to be enacted.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Meh
still changing the words because straight people have a problem with gay people getting to be married.  Straight people would compromise linguistics and the GLBT gets to compromise their civil rights, no thanks.

The word marriage in today's society implies the highest level of committment and love a couple can have.  So by changing the terminology to civil unions, instead of the institution as a whole being raised, it is being degraded so teh gays aren't left out.

There needs to be a solution that provides equal rights and doesn't denegrade the entire institution, and that change is simply gay marriage.  Not civil unions, which I'll just say I really fucking hate that term and will NEVER allow it apply to my relationships, even if that is all I get.  The whole idea of compromising on something I know I deserve is well, insulting.  (No worries, you didnt really insult me, I'm just talking more about the idea in general as it has been suggested many many many many times).

And our side shouldnt compromise on this issue whatsoever.  We are very clearly in the right on this issue (we all paid attention to the civil rights movement section of history class) and furthermore, we are obviously going to be the victors in this fight.  Why on Earth should we compromise when you if you give it a decade, a good majority of the GLBT community should be able to marry, especially since I'd say a very large majority of the GLBT community lives on the coasts and in the Upper Midwest+Illinois where gay marriage will be legalized by then.  

[ Parent ]
It's not just terminology, as Venslor points out.
Pardon me for being a devil's-advocate here, but you might get heterosexual (supposedly) conservative right-wingers arguing for their right to marry, and that might be fun for irony's sake.  The word isn't just significant to the GLBT community.

Just wanted to point that out.  I have not much else to reply to.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
the irony
The irony in millions of right-wing Christians having defend their right to a government sanctioned religious institution might be fun though. haha "You can't take away my marriage!" Well, you just took away mine with Prop 8 dummie!
[ Parent ]
that framework basically already exists
with one word change - it is "civil marriage" instead of "civil union".

So much of the marriage debate gets caught up in the religious baggage around the word "marriage" and the images that people have about big church weddings, etc

In reality, marriage is a civil institution -- licensed and regulated by the state. The state extends the right to religious groups/clergy to perform those ceremonies ("by the power invested in me by the state of....")  But under current law heterosexual couples don't need a religious blessing to have their civil marriages recognized by the state (when I was a Justice of the Peace the couples I married were every bit as "married" as where those presided over by a minister, priest, rabbi, or imam.)

Given the huge legal infrastructure and social understanding that currently exists around "marriage" it seems extremely unrealistic to expect the country to suddenly give up the idea that they are "married" and instead are partners in a "civil union."  Rather than attempt to completely abolish the existing concept of "civil marriage" and replace it with a concept like "civil union"  it is far more feasible to extend the rights of the existing legal institution to additional citizens (akin to what happened around when the institution of civil marriage was opened to inter-racial couples.)

Under existing laws, religious groups already can have their own guidelines about what they are willing to recognize as "marriage"  - the state cannot force an Orthodox rabbi to preside over a mixed marriage. Similarly, gay friends of mine were married more than 15 years ago in their Quaker congregation and were considered fully "married" in a religious sense even though the state would not recognize that.

One of the things we made a point of doing here in Vermont over the last few years was to talk continually about not just "marriage" but always "civil marriage." That distinction was critical in convincing policy makers and the public to open that institution to gay couples (while continuing to respect the authority of religious institutions to decide what they would recognize as religious marriage within their faith system).


[ Parent ]
Quakers tolerate gays?
I didn't know that.

Then again, I know little enough about gay rights, and even less about Quakers.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
From my experience
They are one of the more liberal religious groups.  A college professor of mine (and a Quaker) actually ran for Congress in FL-07 a few cycles ago as a Democrat.  He said most of the mombers of his congregation are liberal Dems.
[ Parent ]
Wow.
How devout are Quakers today?

If they are rather devout, that goes to show that very religious people need not be arch-conservatives.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
They are VERY non-violent
Probably more anti-war, non-interventionist than any other religion in this country.  I believe the main society of their religion even won the Nobel Peace Prize in the past.  That seems to be the biggest reason they tend to be liberals.
[ Parent ]
True ...
It was the American Friends Service Committee, which won the Nobel prize like 50 years ago or something like that, and has been pissing off right-wingers ever since!
[ Parent ]
Outside of the old communities
Quaker devoutness isn't measured in churchiness or even the isolation of the old-timers, but in, as they say, good works and social movement work.  I've met VERY few conservative members of the Society of Friends.  They do exist, I'm sure, but I've never known one, and I've known quite a few (including one of my former college Chaplains--incidentally an out lesbian and all around wonderful rebel-rouser in her own quiet and incredibly wonderful and thoughtful way).

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Now that's a denomination that
I'm tempted to join, haha!

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
Russ HoltI
I know Russ Holt, congressman in central NJ, is a Quaker. Wasnt Nixon, too? For some reason, when i think of Quakers, i think of devoutly anti-war but very socially conservative people. guess i was wrong! Im sure theyre still quite anti-war, though.  
[ Parent ]
Err, Rush Holt
Sorry
[ Parent ]
The Good Rush.


party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
The other Rush is also a pacifist
But only when it comes to his serving the country.
[ Parent ]
There are some internal differences
Like almost every other religious denomination, there are differences. There are two main strains within the Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers)... while there is no formal schism, there are some definite differences among congregations and regions.

The eastern grouping (with roots in the Philadelphia meeting) has tended to be very progressive, often quite radical in social mission. They are both anti-war and very strong on social/economic justice issues.  If you want to get a sense of the shape their beliefs and politics tends to take, take a look at the website for the American Friends Service Committee    --   http://www.afsc.org/    They are a reflection of the more radical Quaker tradition -- one that was not just anti-war, but were extremely active in abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights, and a host of other issues up to this day.

The mid-western and western groupings have tended to include more meetings (congregations) with a more conservative outlook (although there are also plenty of progressive meetings in those regions as well) -- while anti-violence is part of their teaching, they have made more exemptions for members to serve in the military,  far less emphasis on social justice, and more of an enterprise/business focus.

The two Quaker presidents (Hoover and Nixon) both came from this more conservative tradition (although Hoover was probably closer to the middle - his work with the Red Cross etc was in line with the Quaker humanitarian tradition).

The divisions are quite fluid -- for example, Earlham College in Indiana used to be very much aligned with the more conservative tradition, but over time has become much more progressive (in line with Haverford, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr - Quaker founded colleges in the Philly area.) On the other hand, Whittier College (Nixon's alma mater) is an example of the several Quaker schools that continue to adhere to the more conservative strain.


[ Parent ]
Weird stuff
Two of the most villified Presidents in U.S. history were both Quakers.

Though as you allude to, Herbert Hoover was arguably the best Commerce Secretary the country ever had.  He just wasn't cut out for dealing with a depression as President.

[ Parent ]
Of note
From what I've read Hoover was somewhat anti-war.  Supposedly when asked by the President (can't remember if Truman or FDR) of his opinion of a mainland invasion of Japan in 1945 (before he knew about the bomb), he advised against invasion and in favor of peace negotiations.  Of course I suppose a lot of people wouldn't have had the stomach to actually invade Japan, which would have cost several hundred thousand U.S. lives.
[ Parent ]
They are quintessential liberal pacifists
Just read about William Penn (as in Pennsylvania).  
[ Parent ]
I wonder
Where they are on abortion, though. Maybe Catholics, afterall, like Tim Ryan and Marcy Kaptur and Jim Langevin are liberal on almost every single issue but abortion.
[ Parent ]
Roe v. Wade and the right to get an abortion is all caselaw
It is up to the federal government to pass the freedom of choice act in order to cement that decision with a law, so states can stop trying to overturn the law.  

That's how I see the gay marriage issue.  If courts are going to strike bans down based on equality clauses and equal protection it is up to the state legislatures to cement those decisions with laws that prevent what is occuring in California right now.  

[ Parent ]
I agree from a publicity standpoint
it's nice to have a legislature legalize it so (California would have been first, if not for Arnold's head-scratching veto).  However, from a legal standpoint, the courts ARE supposed to be able to review laws passed by legislatures for constitutionality.  It's part of the separation of powers.  Legislatures (both at the state level and federally) may pass any law they wish (assuming approval of the governor/president or with enough support to override a veto), but the judiciary is tasked with ensuring that the laws passed square with the constitution.

I hate to appear like I'm talking down to you, explaining what most people learned in Schoolhouse Rock videos, but there's really no other way around it.  Judges are there to prevent an emboldened majority from ignoring the constitution.  It took judicial action to defeat segregation, to legalize interracial marriage, to legalize contraception, and to strike down sodomy laws.  It did as well with same-sex marriage, at first.  But I think we will soon see other states go the legislative route, seeing as it is politically safe now.  New Hampshire isn't far behind, and New York should have the votes after another election cycle.  Rhode Island is probably just waiting for the GOP governor to get term-limited out this coming year.

[ Parent ]
I think we may also see Maryland legalize it soon
but barring any court rulings, that is probably the only state that will legalize marriage equality before 2010, unless Rhode Island wants to do what Vermont did and override the veto. Didn't it only barely pass in NH with Lynch promising a veto?  I've been paying some attention to gay marriage worldwide, as well.  Sweden and Nepal have just recently legalized it, with debates expected soon all over Europe.

16, Male, MI-01
[ Parent ]
Problem is
even legislatures with large Democratic majorities are not interested in pushing marriage equality. You've often got a lot of DINOs in the ranks there, and often the legislative leaders (where there are no term limits) are fossils from another era who don't have any desire to push a progressive agenda.
[ Parent ]
Or it gets bottled up in committee
Case in point: the Hawaii state house voted with 2/3 in favor for civil unions, and it went to the state senate.  However, despite about 2/3 of the state senate also being in favor, it got deadlocked in the judiciary committee in a tied vote, and the whole senate didn't get to vote on it.

And we control the state senate by a 23-2 margin.  That's correct, in what I believe is the most lopsided state legislative body in the country, Republicans only have 2 out of 25 seats.  Yet we can't get a civil unions bill out of committee.

[ Parent ]
any word
Any word on when it will officially become legal? Don't these things usually have a few months for the marriage offices and such to prepare? Oh, and Kyle, being SSP's ONE rational Republican, my guess would be that you would support civil union style agreements at the very least?
I think there are two
InRepublican might qualify as well.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
September 1


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Dates
Vermont goes on-line September 1.  Iowa is much sooner...April 24.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
I can't believe Jim Douglas actually took the time to veto the thing.
What a small man.

Anyways, NH isn't far behind. The House passed a SSM bill last week. Molly Kelly is introducing a Senate version before Memorial Day. This all seems to be happening so fast. A bit surreal.

Douglas may be a small man
But NH Governor Lynch is even smaller.  I have little doubt he'll follow through with his veto of the equality bill should the state Senate also pass it.  He's known for not signing onto anything that doesn't have overwhelming support.
[ Parent ]
As far as I know
he is still publically uncomitted when it comes to vetoing the bill.  Governors do have the option of letting bills become law without their signatures, but it would be an extremely cowardly move for him to veto it.  He's not an idiot, he knows the entire region is moving towards acceptance of same-sex marriage, all he would be doing is delaying the inevitable by a few years.  All he would be doing is shooting himself in the foot, just like Jim Douglas did.

Governor Baldacci (D) of Maine is also refusing to say whether he will veto a marriage bill moving through Maine's legislature.  Democrats made some major gains in the legislature this past election and might have the votes to pass it, but not over a veto.

[ Parent ]
a lot depends on the public opinion
let's face it, Governors will not veto popular legislation. If there is no public outcry against gay marriage, I can see Lynch letting it become law without his signature. Baldacci too, especially since he's not up for reelection.

Douglas must've known his veto would be overtturned, so he decided to satisfy the wignuts of his party.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Which is what makes him a small man
The guy has no ambitions beyond Governor.  If he did he would have announced a run for Senate in 2010.  He has a ton of political capital with his 70%+ approval ratings.  If he won't spend a little of it to do something as just and fair as marriage equality he's a useless waste of space.

If he had an ounce of courage he would have supported this a long time ago.

[ Parent ]
This is all super duper late Chad but...
Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if Lynch vetoed the bill. The biggest problem we're going to have is getting it through the Senate. The body is pretty closely divided and I expect at least 1 or 2 Dem 'nos'. At least one moderate Republican (Sheila Roberge) is leaning toward voting for passage. The numbers are vague right now.  
[ Parent ]
Ya, state Senate is a 14-10 split
If even 2 Dems defect it's a tie, and I'm not sure what the tiebreaker is.  Hopefully that one Repub breaks our way to give us wiggle room.
[ Parent ]
5 people in Vermont who deserve some love today
I took some time to figure out who exactly should be thanked for switching their votes and passing this bill.

-Speaker Shap Smith, who didn't vote for the original bill for some reason.

Debbie Evans, Robert South, and Jeff Young, all Dems who voted no on the first goaround but flipped their votes.  Evans had publicly stated that she's switch her vote last week.  I don't know anything about the other two, so I'm guessing they were more cliffhangers.

-Republican Richard Westman, who didn't vote on the first bill but voted yes for the veto override.  Even though he's a Republican, he is a committee chair thanks to the speaker.  Maybe he's really liberal or maybe he got strongarmed by his buddy the speaker, but either way, his vote put the good guys over the top.

And boo to Dem Rep. Sonny Audette, who had said he'd switch his no vote but instead didn't vote at all.

Oops
Apparently I accidentally struck a line through part of my comment.  Is there any way to edit them once you've posted it?  (I'm new here, by the way, so I'm not familiar with the mark-up codes.)
[ Parent ]
Can't edit -
I always forget about that and will occasionally strike my lines too.  As long as you don't have multiple -'s in one line you should be fine.  
[ Parent ]
I've read that the Speaker rarely votes
unless it matters, as it did today.

[ Parent ]
That's correct
Same is true in the US House.  Pelosi rarely votes, but it is not marked as an absence in the record.  She does occasionally vote on major legislation, like the budget, for example, even though her vote isn't needed for passage.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
a little clarification on the flipped votes
1- Speaker Smith has been an enthusiastic supporter (and sponsor) of the legislation. He didn't vote the first time because under Vermont House rules the Speaker only votes in the case of a tie. This rule does not apply to a veto override situation, so he was able to vote this time.

2 - Rich Westman had to miss the first vote on the issue, but had already said he supported it. However, the next day he was present in the House and voted "yes" on the "third reading" (the final step on sending the bill forward). He is a moderate Republican with an very independent streak. (As for the Committee Chairmanship, the Vermont legislature has a tradition of including the minority party in chairmanship positions, and Westman has been a leader on transportation issues for the 20 years  he has been in the legislature - so he is a natural choice for the Transportation Committee leadership).

3. Deb Evans said she voted against the bill because of her personal religious (Catholic) beliefs, but that she would vote to override because she was angry about the way the Governor had announced his veto plans, and because she wanted to support the overwhelming vote of the legislature.)

4. Robert South actually had a change of heart -- he was wavering around his initial vote, and over the weekend a concerted grassroots campaign by supporters (in his very conservative district) helped him understand the justice of the issue better and he decided he didn't want to be on the wrong side of history.

5. Jeff Young was probably the one legislator who was pressured by party leaders into switching. He represents a strongly Democratic community (albeit not an extremely liberal one), and his Democratic seatmate (Kathy Keenan) had already voted yes. Local Democrats weighed in heavily with him to switch, and the legislative leadership emphasized how much his support would mean to them and to his future success in the Democratic caucus.

As for Sonny Audette, the man was personally torn apart by the whole thing -- he is a devout Catholic and received extreme pressure from church officials. At the same time he tried to reconcile his belief that gay couples should be treated equally - even though he had at one point said he planned to vote for override, we knew over the weekend that he was wavering. I'm not trying to defend him - he should have had the backbone to override - but in some ways not showing up was better than showing up and voting to sustain the override - taking a walk could have impacted the final number of votes needed to reach 2/3rds.
-

Finally, we shouldn't forget that in addition to Westman, the other 5 Republicans who had voted in favour of the bill, including Republican House leader Patti Komline, held for the override vote despite tremendous pressure from Republican activists to switch and support their Republican governor... if even one of them had switched we would have lost.  Of the Republicans I don't think any of them except for Westman are likely to face political damage in their districts from this. (Westman could be in a harder position, as the one  of the leaders of the anti-equality position is based in his district, and because of his personal mannerisms there have been rumours about Westman's orientation that could potentially hurt him in a Republican primary.)

[ Parent ]
Patti Komline
Might she be someone whod run for statewide office in the future? Such as if Douglas doesnt run for re-election in 2012. Not sure of her age though. Shes an interesting name given that shes a pro-gay marriage (and i assume very moderate) Republican whos also a House leader. But even in the VT GOP I imagine shed have a tough time in a primary.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for all that detailed info!
What I love most about this site is being able to learn all these details about other states' politics that most national political sites wouldn't bother with.

I'm shocked that the GOP leader would vote to buck her own party and governor on this.  Is this vote going to put her position in jeopardy?  In any other state, this vote would be an instant political death sentence for a GOP leader.

[ Parent ]
OR
More logically, this is a Republican that does not want to stay in the statehouse the rest of her political career. We'll see how this plays against the Governor, but she is probably a shrewd politician, and realizes the way the wind is blowing in Vermont, and nation-wide. If she ever wants a chance to move up, she'll need to be perceived as a moderate.  
[ Parent ]
Patti Komline
I don't think Komline is in any real danger of losing her leadership position in the Republican caucus. She said at the beginning (before the debate heated up) that she was in favour of passing gay marriage, and there wasn't really any outcry in the caucus. She is new as party leader this legislative session, and is generally viewed as doing a better job than her predecessor

The district she represents is a pretty well-educated, moderate area  that doesn't have a lot of social conservatives, so I don't think she is facing a primary threat.

On other issues she is a fairly mainstream Republican (by Vermont standards) - she sides with the governor on tax/spending/cutting government issues, but she isn't a fanatic. (She spent a lot of her childhood overseas, which may have impacted her social views.)

She certainly has potential as a statewide candidate - the Republican bench is pretty thin in Vermont, and she has the kind of profile that can win statewide races for them. I doubt she is looking at 2010 unless there is an unexpected opening for Gov or Lt Gov - I suspect she'll try to stay a couple more terms (2 year terms here) and try to improve the Republicans' standing in the House and establish a higher statewide profile before launching a campaign.

Interestingly, Richard Hube is one of the other Republicans who voted yes and he is definitely viewed as a likely future statewide candidate -- many people interpreted his vote as a calculated move in that regard.

While there are certainly a large section of social conservatives in the  Vermont Republican Party, as a whole the party is much more centrist than Republicans anywhere else in the country -- in the State Senate, a majority of the Republican caucus voted to pass same sex marriage (ok, it was only 4-3) -- how many other states would that happen in?  


[ Parent ]
Happy to see this
As I said on the 4/7 digest (when i should have here, sorry). And as i said there...i use to be only in favor of it if the voters passed it in a referendum but now im in favor of it if the courts rule it, the legislature does or in a referendum. I wonder what the next state will be to pass it. HI, RI, ME, MD, NJ, WA? Certainly HI and RI have enough votes to override a veto by the Republican governor. And I know ME, MD, NJ and WA are Dem-controlled in both the legislature and the Governor's office. Maybe their Governors are technically against same sex marriage but would they really veto it like Lynch probably would? And like Douglas, a Republican, did. I did read somewhere that said Corzine wouldnt veto it if the legislature passed it. I could see O'Malley having a tough re-election but if America is 55-44 in favor of gay marriage like that recent poll says then I am sure most Marylanders support it. And im sure many who dont are indifferent to the issue.
Well, if we're putting down bets . . .
I'll go with Rhode Island.

Not enough political will in Maine. Legislature is too thin to pass it in New Jersey (however, I am sure Corzine would jump all over it if he could). Hawaii was just sad with it failing in committee. Too many rural dems and a governor walking a fine line in WA. I don't think O'Malley has the will to go for it in Maryland (although the legislature might be).

I see Oregon as a possibility, just they have to get past the constitutional amendment put in place in the 2004 election. Perhaps they are hoping to put it into play after 2010 in hopes of having an even bigger majority in the House and a new Governor with political capitol to spend.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
And one more
New Mexico. They banned the death penalty and the recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. Richardson may want to put as much good liberal cred as possible on his record should legal investigations catch up with him.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
Their
domestic partnership bill just failed in the Senate a few weeks ago.  10 Dems switched to the GOP side for this vote, and this was only domestic partnerships.  Civil unions or gay marriage and a ways away in NM.
[ Parent ]
I would imagine
There are alot of conservative, rural Democrats in NM.  
[ Parent ]
does anyone
Does anyone know of a site where I can find all the constutitional bans in one place, and how much each received of the vote in all the states. I'm curious, and I really don't want to go to each sec of state website to look them up. lol
Conservative columnist Cal Thomas had an interesting thing to say...
A passage from http://www.worldmag.com/webext... . Also thanks to Politics1 for the quote. He said: "To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve 'traditional marriage' in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them. The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are -- to recall Harold Hill [in The Music Man] --'closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.'"
Wow.
Thank you!

I've had that opinion for a while now.  They should stop going after homosexuals trying to marry and start going after heterosexuals who divorce in massive numbers anyway (isn't it like 1/2 of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, or something? I remember reading that from my AP Psych textbook in high school).

And as a practical matter, homosexual couples willing to adopt can actually provide two parents for children, as opposed to single heterosexual parents.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override | 149 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox