PDA

View Full Version : General Politics VT legislates Gay Marriage


oldandslow
04-08-2009, 08:17 AM
House veto override successful - Marriage Equality is now the law

Vermont House: 100-49
Vermont Senate: 23-5

The bill in question, 15 V.S.A. § 8 reads:

Quote:
§ 8. MARRIAGE DEFINITION
Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. When used in this chapter or in any other statute, the word "marriage" shall mean a civil marriage.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Passed/S-115.pdf

I await the approval of those conservatives who say they want civil rights to be legislated instead of decided by the courts. Perhaps the stepwise procedure Vermont followed (first civil unions, then marriage) will be a model for other states.

BucEyedPea
04-08-2009, 09:01 AM
We really do live in the age of Newspeak when a legislature re-redefines a word who etomological roots come from "mater" meaning mother.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:14 AM
Next stop, the courts.

FD
04-08-2009, 09:17 AM
There's democracy in action. Can't argue with that.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:26 AM
Next stop, the courts.

You think the Vermont Supreme Court is going to overturn this?

The US supreme is another story, but that would fall under the "judicial activism" mantra that all conservatives rail against.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:27 AM
You think the Vermont Supreme Court is going to overturn this?

The US supreme is another story, but that would fall under the "judicial activism" mantra that all conservatives rail against.

Full faith and credit makes it a federal case. Too bad about that, eh? ;)

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Full faith and credit makes it a federal case. Too bad about that, eh? ;)

Oh, I agree. I think it all comes to Kennedy as well.

Still, it's judicial activism.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:34 AM
Oh, I agree. I think it all comes to Kennedy as well.

Still, it's judicial activism.

Why would you pretend that the full faith and credit clause in not part of the Constitution? As such, another Consitutional provision....national supremacy makes it a federal case.

By definition, it's a "federal" case. That's not activism.

orange
04-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Why would you pretend that the full faith and credit clause in not part of the Constitution? As such, another Consitutional provision....national supremacy makes it a federal case.

By definition, it's a "federal" case. That's not activism.


Why are you ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act? Unless and until that law is swept aside, other states (and congress) do not need to recognize any same-sex marriage from another state.

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

As it stands now, this is Vermont's business alone.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 10:27 AM
Why are you ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act? Unless and until that law is swept aside, other states (and congress) do not need to recognize any same-sex marriage from another state.

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

As it stands now, this is Vermont's business alone.

I'm thinking ahead on this....because ultimately DMA will be challenged in the courts. The full faith and credit clause will require that the SC rule on the issue at some point. So it's just a matter of "when."

orange
04-08-2009, 10:29 AM
I'm thinking ahead on this....because ultimately DMA will be challenged in the courts. The full faith and credit clause will require that the SC rule on the issue at some point. So it's just a matter of "when."

DOMA has already been challenged multiple times. And won. The Supreme Court will continue to let stand rulings that it agrees with. They'll only take up the case IF some lower court throws out DOMA.

While DOMA stands, no other state nor the feds have any grounds to challenge Vermont's law. They are suffering no harm.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 10:31 AM
DMA has already been challenged multiple times. And won.

Not in the way that will force the issue. Wide-spread gay "marriage" in a few states will eventually force the SC to issue a ruling.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2009, 10:37 AM
There's democracy in action. Can't argue with that.

You really can't.

jAZ
04-08-2009, 11:00 AM
We really do live in the age of Newspeak when a legislature re-redefines a word who etomological roots come from "mater" meaning mother.

Please stop.

First it's etymological (the study of language origins) not etomological (the study of insects).

That error is a harbinger of your completely false claims.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage

From Anglo-Norman, Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry, literally “give a husband to”’”), from maritus (“‘married man, husband’”), probably from Proto-Indo-European *mari-, perhaps a feminine stem of *mer-yo- (“‘young man, young woman’”) (hence *mari-to- (“‘given a wife’”)), if not somehow connected with *mas (“‘male’”) (stem mar-).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

KC native
04-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Please stop.

First it's etymological (the study of language origins) not etomological (the study of insects).

That error is a harbinger of your completely false claims.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage

From Anglo-Norman, Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry, literally “give a husband to”’”), from maritus (“‘married man, husband’”), probably from Proto-Indo-European *mari-, perhaps a feminine stem of *mer-yo- (“‘young man, young woman’”) (hence *mari-to- (“‘given a wife’”)), if not somehow connected with *mas (“‘male’”) (stem mar-).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.


ROFL

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:06 PM
Good for them. They did it the right way. I approve of both the method and the result (although I don't care about the stepwise part one way or the other). IMO, this is the first legitimate gay marriage law in the country. Amnorix, take note of the date for future versions of "this date in history".

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:08 PM
Next stop, the courts.

Why?

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 12:24 PM
Why?

The Full Faith and Credit issue will, ultimately, have to be decided by the S.C.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:29 PM
The Full Faith and Credit issue will, ultimately, have to be decided by the S.C.

What's the issue? It seems to me that DOMA will either be struck down or it will be upheld. Other states will either have to honor Vermont marriages or they won't. I don't see how Vermont's marriage law itself will be challenged.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 12:36 PM
What's the issue? It seems to me that DOMA will either be struck down or it will be upheld. Other states will either have to honor Vermont marriages or they won't. I don't see how Vermont's marriage law itself will be challenged.

My educated guess is that a gay couple will insist that ,under full faith and credit, that their Vermont "marriage" must be accepted by another state....leading some liberal activist judge to strike down DOMA. That case will end up before the SC.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 12:54 PM
My educated guess is that a gay couple will insist that ,under full faith and credit, that their Vermont "marriage" must be accepted by another state....leading some liberal activist judge to strike down DOMA. That case will end up before the SC.

OK, I thought you were saying that the Vermont marriage law would be subject to review by SCOTUS. I take it that we agree that Vermont gay marriage is safe from any reasonable judicial challenge?

jAZ
04-08-2009, 12:54 PM
My educated guess is that a gay couple will insist that ,under full faith and credit, that their Vermont "marriage" must be accepted by another state....leading some liberal activist judge to strike down DOMA. That case will end up before the SC.

But not this law.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 12:55 PM
OK, I thought you were saying that the Vermont marriage law would be subject to review by SCOTUS. I take it that we agree that Vermont gay marriage is safe from any reasonable judicial challenge?

But not this law.



I don't know the Vermont Constitution, but I suspect someone will try--in Vermont courts.

oldandslow
04-08-2009, 01:00 PM
I don't know the Vermont Constitution, but I suspect someone will try--in Vermont courts.

I don't think so...

and if they did, the Vermont Supreme Court would throw it out really quickly. There is liberal and then there is the State Supreme Court of Vermont.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:04 PM
I don't think so...

and if they did, the Vermont Supreme Court would throw it out really quickly. There is liberal and then there is the State Supreme Court of Vermont.

I agree.

WoodDraw
04-08-2009, 01:11 PM
What would the Vermont court care about anything? They can't order another state's court to do anything, so any case based on equal protection, due process, and/or full faith and credit would have to begin in another state's court and move up from there.

I'm sure it will happen, and it will be interesting to watch. I'm not sure how far you can extend the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause before you openly gut it. I won't even touch equal protection or due process here.

My guess is that the federal courts, especially SCOTUS, will try to stay out of this as long as possible.

vailpass
04-08-2009, 01:15 PM
phucking phags.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 01:20 PM
If the supreme court ever gets its hands on this (I doubt they even want to touch it), the end result will be the federal recognition of gay marriages. Anti-gay marriage activists are barking up the wrong tree if they want government to discriminate or even "define" what marriage is. They'd be much better served by working to remove government from the whole "marriage" equation.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 01:22 PM
phucking phags.


Over the long term, bigots are always on the losing side of social issues in a free society.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 01:24 PM
I don't think so...

and if they did, the Vermont Supreme Court would throw it out really quickly. There is liberal and then there is the State Supreme Court of Vermont.

Regardless, a gay couple from Vermont (or another gay "marriage" state) will inevitably take their "case" to another state where they think another liberal/activist court will strike down DOMA, and set the stage for the S.C. case.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:26 PM
Regardless, a gay couple from Vermont (or another gay "marriage" state) will inevitably take their "case" to another state where they think another liberal/activist court will strike down DOMA, and set the stage for the S.C. case.

You seem to want to change the subject away from the Vermont law itself.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:27 PM
Over the long term, bigots are always on the losing side of social issues in a free society.

Anti-Christian bigots seem to be doing pretty well on the abortion issue, stem cell research, school prayer and other social issues. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 01:31 PM
You seem to want to change the subject away from the Vermont law itself.

The Vermont law will be irrelevant in the end. Full faith and credit makes it an issue that cannot, ultimately, be avoided....much as the SC may want to avoid it. At some point, they'll have to take it on, otherwise a crazy patch-quilt of state marriage laws will create a chaotic situation for "married" couples--especially gay couples who move to non-"gay marriage" states. It's one of the reasons they stepped in on abortion--except there is much more persuasive federal case for full faith and credit related to marriage.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 01:33 PM
Anti-Christian bigots seem to be doing pretty well on the abortion issue, stem cell research, school prayer and other social issues. :shrug:


I'd be more impressed with your attempt if you could demonstrate that "anti-Christian bigots" are doing pretty well at preventing people from attending church, or obtaining drivers licenses because of their belief in Christ, or somesuch.

I don't think being pro-stem cell research is compelling as an "anti-Christian" position. I can favor stem cell research AND be a Christian, in fact. I can be anti-public school prayer, AND be a Christian. I can be pro-Choice, AND be a Christian. Being a Christian has one requisite: belief in Christ.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 01:36 PM
Also, that's not to say that anti-Christian bigots don't exist. They certainly do. It's just to say that anything that they try to do to keep Christians from enjoying the same rights and priviledges as everyone else will ultimately fail (in a free society).

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:39 PM
The Vermont law will be irrelevant in the end. Full faith and credit makes it an issue that cannot, ultimately, be avoided....much as the SC may want to avoid it. At some point, they'll have to take it on, otherwise a crazy patch-quilt of state marriage laws will create a chaotic situation for "married" couples--especially gay couples who move to non-"gay marriage" states. It's one of the reasons they stepped in on abortion--except there is much more persuasive federal case for full faith and credit related to marriage.

The Vermont law won't be irrelevant in Vermont. I can't see any way that the SCOTUS would invalidate the Vermont law wrt the state of Vermont. They'll either leave it alone, allow other states to ignore it, or force other states to recognize it.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:42 PM
I'd be more impressed with your attempt if you could demonstrate that "anti-Christian bigots" are doing pretty well at preventing people from attending church, or obtaining drivers licenses because of their belief in Christ, or somesuch.

I don't think being pro-stem cell research is compelling as an "anti-Christian" position. I can favor stem cell research AND be a Christian, in fact. I can be anti-public school prayer, AND be a Christian. I can be pro-Choice, AND be a Christian. Being a Christian has one requisite: belief in Christ.

Maybe you were just careless with your language then. That people can support abortion or stem cell research without being anti-Christian bigots doesn't change the fact that actual anti-Christian bigots are having quite a bit of success on the social issue front.

SBK
04-08-2009, 01:43 PM
How about that, a law is made by the legislature and not a couple of unelected judges. Who'd have ever thought that was possible?

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 01:45 PM
The Vermont law won't be irrelevant in Vermont. I can't see any way that the SCOTUS would invalidate the Vermont law wrt the state of Vermont. They'll either leave it alone, allow other states to ignore it, or force other states to recognize it.

If they review it in the next couple of years, I'd bet they allow other states to ignore it--as an "exception" to full faith and credit, which FTR....marriage has ALREADY been an "exception"--the "quickie divorce" exception established under Johnson vs. Johnson (a NC case from the 60s or 70s), IIRC.

Pitt Gorilla
04-08-2009, 01:47 PM
How about that, a law is made by the legislature and not a couple of unelected judges. Who'd have ever thought that was possible?I think most knowledgeable people understand that it happens all the time.

WoodDraw
04-08-2009, 01:50 PM
How about that, a law is made by the legislature and not a couple of unelected judges. Who'd have ever thought that was possible?

People bitch about judges making "decisions" based on their own whims, but that's not honest.

The judges in Iowa decided the case (unanimously no less) based on a reading of the State constitution. The legislature and the people can respond by amending the Constitution, but the judges themselves cannot. This is the very opposite of judicial activism.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
People bitch about judges making "decisions" based on their own whims, but that's not honest.

The judges in Iowa decided the case (unanimously no less) based on a reading of the State constitution. The legislature and the people can respond by amending the Constitution, but the judges themselves cannot. This is the very opposite of judicial activism.

Judicial activism is nothing new; it's a mainstay of the judiciary in this country. It happens every day. The issue is, as always, whose Ox is being gored. If it's your "ox," it's activism. If it's the other side's "ox" it isn't.

You may be right regarding this law, but the full faith and credit issue....when it's eventually settled by the S.C. will surely gore someone's ox.

Taco John
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Maybe you were just careless with your language then. That people can support abortion or stem cell research without being anti-Christian bigots doesn't change the fact that actual anti-Christian bigots are having quite a bit of success on the social issue front.

On those individual issues, sure. But they're not having any success keeping Christians from enjoying the same rights and priviledges as everyone else.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
I think most knowledgeable people understand that it happens all the time.

AFAICT, most people seemed to think that the only way to achieve gay marriage was through the courts.

patteeu
04-08-2009, 02:04 PM
On those individual issues, sure. But they're not having any success keeping Christians from enjoying the same rights and priviledges as everyone else.

There are some examples where less common (in the US) religions receive special accommodations in the name of multiculturalism that wouldn't be allowed for Christians, but for the most part I agree. By the same token, I suppose there are some Christian accommodations (like the generic winter holiday happening to cover Christmastime) that other less common (in the US) religions don't get.

WoodDraw
04-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Judicial activism is nothing new; it's a mainstay of the judiciary in this country. It happens every day. The issue is, as always, whose Ox is being gored. If it's your "ox," it's activism. If it's the other side's "ox" it isn't.

You may be right regarding this law, but the full faith and credit issue....when it's eventually settled by the S.C. will surely gore someone's ox.

People may equate any decision that they disagree with judicial activism, but that doesn't make it so. Judicial activism is a specific, exaggerated problem used as a rallying cry for political support and donations.

***SPRAYER
04-09-2009, 10:51 AM
You can't make this stuff up

http://www.freep.com/article/20090407/OPINION05/90407048

ROFL

patteeu
04-09-2009, 11:07 AM
You can't make this stuff up

http://www.freep.com/article/20090407/OPINION05/90407048

ROFL

Will they settle for an apology and condemnation of the America that Michelle was never proud of from our Apologizer in Chief?

RaiderH8r
04-09-2009, 02:36 PM
This is great news for polygamy, because why not? Why bother defining marriage by number when the state won't define it by gender?

Brock
04-09-2009, 02:37 PM
This is great news for polygamy, because why not? Why bother defining marriage by number when the state won't define it by gender?

Agreed. Why not?

patteeu
04-09-2009, 02:47 PM
This is great news for polygamy, because why not? Why bother defining marriage by number when the state won't define it by gender?

It would be far greater news for polygamy if it were imposed by a court on the basis of an equal protection argument (right-based argument). As long as it is legislatively created (policy-based argument), I don't see it helping the polygamist cause in any way other than by chipping away at the psychological barrier that "marriage" is "traditional marriage" and nothing else.

Legislatures draw lines all the time and often they are more arbitrary than the line between traditional marriage and gay marriage or the line between 2 party and 3+ party marriages.

Pitt Gorilla
04-09-2009, 03:28 PM
This is great news for polygamy, because why not? Why bother defining marriage by number when the state won't define it by gender?It appears that they explicitly defined it by number. You can read, no?

Adept Havelock
04-09-2009, 05:29 PM
This is great news for polygamy, because why not?

As long as all involved are consenting adults, indeed, why not? :shrug:

jAZ
04-09-2009, 05:59 PM
I don't know the Vermont Constitution, but I suspect someone will try--in Vermont courts.

So I guess we are down to interpreting your original comment to mean "end up in the courts" as "anyone can BRING a lawsuit, no matter the lack of merit and someone is surely going to try to find an activist judge to overturn the law".

I'm sure in that sense, you are 100% right.

:thumb:

RaiderH8r
04-15-2009, 12:39 PM
It would be far greater news for polygamy if it were imposed by a court on the basis of an equal protection argument (right-based argument). As long as it is legislatively created (policy-based argument), I don't see it helping the polygamist cause in any way other than by chipping away at the psychological barrier that "marriage" is "traditional marriage" and nothing else.

Legislatures draw lines all the time and often they are more arbitrary than the line between traditional marriage and gay marriage or the line between 2 party and 3+ party marriages.

I was just going for the cheap seats with regard to chipping away at the psychological barriers part.

Also, I do think the question is legitimate. Why define marriage by number? The issue of defining marriage is now open so why stop at just homosexuality? If love and consent are the standards then let it be so that I may have a harem of wenches and concubines to serve my every whim.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 02:08 PM
I was just going for the cheap seats with regard to chipping away at the psychological barriers part.

Also, I do think the question is legitimate. Why define marriage by number? The issue of defining marriage is now open so why stop at just homosexuality? If love and consent are the standards then let it be so that I may have a harem of wenches and concubines to serve my every whim.

My personal opinion about why we should stop at 2 people is that I think 2 person relationships are more stable (despite whatever the rampant divorce rate tells us about how stable they are) and because I think it means that more people will be able to find mates (rather than having a handful of alpha males like the two of us luring all best ladies into our harems, ;) ). I do agree that your question is legit though.

RaiderH8r
04-15-2009, 02:12 PM
My personal opinion about why we should stop at 2 people is that I think 2 person relationships are more stable (despite whatever the rampant divorce rate tells us about how stable they are) and because I think it means that more people will be able to find mates (rather than having a handful of alpha males like the two of us luring all best ladies into our harems, ;) ). I do agree that your question is legit though.

It's an interesting question I like to pose particularly to supporters of gay marriage. Interestingly, or not, the women seem to be the most offended by the notion. So yeah, they're liberal but not THAT liberal.:p

Pioli Zombie
04-15-2009, 09:56 PM
Gay. Gay. Gay. Gay. Gay. Gay homo. Homo. Fag. Fag. Fag. Gay. Gay.

Isn't that what this really all about? I'm a Christian. Being a christian I believe homosexuality is a sin. So is fornication. Dishonoring your parents. So is greed. So is envy. So are a lot of things. Sin is sin.
I do not like it when politically conservative Christians scapegoat homosexuals. And I don't think this is a religious issue. Its a civic one.
There are two seperate things we are discussing. The Religious definition of marraige and what government recognizes.
My church doesn't believe in Gay marraige. So we don't do Gay marraige ceremonies. But I don't think that has any bearing on what happens at city hall

So have at it. Gay marraige does not threaten my marraige as we already made a hash out of it. But likewise, if you are Gay don't expect my church to support you.

Get married and shut up.
Posted via Mobile Device