Don't let the anti-marriage equality folk denigrate the sweeping and historic victory in Vermont. They are running around squawking like, well like angry bigots attempting to dismiss the compounded wins there as razor thin and narrow one-vote upsets.
Forget that. What happened included:
- Both houses of the legislature passed same-sex marriage by large majorities.
- This followed several years of discussion, study and public hearings, plus lengthy public testimony and legislative debate.
- The Senate voted 26 to 4 for SSM.
- The House voted 95 to 52 for it.
- The governor delivered his promised veto.
- The Senate overrode that veto 23 to 5.
- The House overrode it 100 to 49.
Let's keep our perspective. By the way the government makes laws, representative democracy, it worked. Everyone had a say, some many times. There was a ton of lobbying from all comers. The anti-SSM folk gave it there best shots.
In the end, it was not a one-vote anything. It was an overwhelming repudiation of God-tells-me-how-to-vote form of government. Humanity, fairness and compassion won. They won in the initial votes and they won in the overrides. The House override remains not a one-vote victory for equality, but a two-thirds one.
Actually, the percentages seem to come to 82% in the Senate and 67% in the House. Those are huge numbers in lawmaking.
The following riff on this appears also at Marry in Massachusetts.
The anti-equality sophists were ready when the Vermont legislature
overrode Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of same-sex marriage. In a tribute to
how simple-minded and emotional their followers are, the National
Organization for Marriage led the way painting the rights victory as a
single-vote aberration.
That is a fascinating, spurious and
delusional way of describing a two-thirds override. The count in the
Vermont House was 100 of 149 reps in attendance.
Lead news
on the NOM website reads, "By only one vote, the Vermont House just
voted to override Governor Douglas's veto, overturning the common sense
definition of marriage shared by people of diverse faiths, backgrounds,
nations, and political parties. Today is truly a sad day for Vermont
and this nation." Likewise, their executive director, Brian Brown, was
a this-but-that interviewee in the Washington Post yesterday. His spin included:
The
Vermont House voted by only a single vote to override Governor
Douglas's veto, a single vote. This vote clearly goes against the
peoples understanding of marriage. Common sense and basic democratic
norms dictate that such an important question should have gone directly
to the voters of Vermont. Instead, the Legislature refused to allow the
people a direct say in the future of our most important social
institution--marriage.
Let's concentrate on this group of
the numerous anti-SSM ones. It has all the coarseness and duplicity
that comes with the position. (Do read all of the WP dialog. Brown
repeats numerous lies, such as Massachusetts Catholic Charities being
forced to halt adoptions instead of choosing to do so instead of
complying with non-discrimination laws.)
The anti folk fall back
to their last, best hope, ballot initiatives. Hell, that recently
worked in California, overturning SSM in a state where the legislature
legalized it twice (and the governor vetoes that, crying out for a
court decision), and the high court mandated it.
There were
numerous calls from inside and outside Vermont for a plebiscite when it
was clear that the majority of the elected senators and representatives
were in favor of SSM. Unfortunately for the bad guys, that state is in
the half of those in the nation that do not have ballot initiatives to
allow a tyranny of the majority of change-resistant voters.
So,
in Vermont, the anti-SSM folk called out for a non-binding referendum
before the SSM bill passed. That simply was a ruse to give them two
years to figure out a way to turn a one-third minority into at least a
simple majority. Right.
Even our beleaguered Globe loves the one-vote-margin story. Today, it runs a piece
on one of the House members who switched his vote. This is myth
enabling and perpetuation, including downplaying the two-thirds vote as
well as the 6 Republicans who voted for the law and the 7 Democrats who
voted against it. One guy claiming to be afraid for his political
future makes a better story.
The fact is that Vermont's
legislature, both houses, went for SSM. They went heavily for SSM. In a
get-along state, they dared an extremely rare override to do the right
thing.
~Mike Ball
Said one Republican lawmaker: "Our worse fears have been realized."
must be nice to live in such a utopian paradise that this is your worst fear...and frankly, in the current economy, Iowa could do worse than aspire to become a destination state. Let's see...your state gets a huge economic boost, your become known internationally for treating people with respect and for not discriminating against people based on who they choose to love and/or sleep with...so, I'm missing it, where's the "worst fear" here? Maybe he's afraid his loving God will decide to kill all the firstborn children of Iowa to punish their perfidy...or maybe He'll drown'em...watch those spring floods this year, Iowans...
This is actually a happy day for those in favor of natural marriage. It will galvanize efforts to pass constitutional amendments in EVERY state to prevent perverts from claiming a right they're not entitled to. And it's going to be a big plus for Republicans running for office. Now the American people can see what happens if such issues are left in the hands of judges. The people will have to see to it that the gay marriage issue is given to the people for a vote. When that happens, gay "marriage" will fail, as it did, twice, spectacularly, in California.
As for Iowa, the struggle is just beginning. I don't live there, but I have made a donation to an organization that is fighting to reinstate natural marriage as the ONLY valid form of marriage. As as for gays' "jubilation"...they will find that their foolish efforts have only gained them less acceptance and more resentment. They are losing the tolerance they'd gained in recent years. And they will fail in their efforts in the end.
Said one Republican lawmaker: "Our worse fears have been realized."
And they wonder why the charge of "homophobia" is (correctly) made over and over again. Their fear of homosexuality is so great they're willing to devote huge amounts of time, money, and energy working for the sole purpose of oppressing their neighbors and denying them the same rights straight people take for granted.
This fear is very old, but the younger generations are much more tolerant and accepting. Eventually, love will win and people like Lochinvar will lose.
Just wait till the profit thirsty Republicans realize how much money is to be made being Mecca (LOL) They will prostitute their own values (Kuh-Ching Kuh-Ching)
The good thing is that the extremist Christians are going to be losing even more in the near future. Everybody is getting tired of them spewing hate and bigotry all the time. If they showed more love and compassion instead of the other, maybe they wouldn't be so rejected and seen as judgmental. As Gandhi on said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
the people who wrote the old and even older testaments (snarky, snarky)didn't understand that gay and lesbian sexuality is what is natural and righteous for some people. Modern ideas of sexuality, love and freedom have no room for hardcore religionists imposing their values on everyone else.
Lochinvar, is "natural marriage" a euphemism for something? From the sound of the term, I thought you'd be supportive of same-sex marriage, but the rest of your post seemed to be against it. Speak plainly!
And JohnFranc is right - same-sex marriage is inevitable, as soon as a few more of the older generation are gone it will be universal, because younger people are generally very supportive of it.
how can anyone read of same sex couples who've been together for many, many years and not want to treat them as full citizens? Seems very mean to me. Christians are not obliged by their religion to impose their values on others, that's an individual choice.
“The court has recognizd that civil marriage is the province of government and religious marriage is the province of the faith community. That’s what our constitutional principles mandate. Clergy are free to perform or decline to perform marriage ceremonies, while the governmnt treats everyone equally when it comes 2 civil marriage."
Duh! and you talk about your "fears" being realizeed! How about the above fact?! what is there to fear??!!
When ultra-conservative Christians/Republicans say that "their worst fears have been realized" because gay marriage has been made legal in the state of Iowa, I have to wonder . . . what exactly is it that are they afraid of? What "danger" is lurking around the corner if an evangelical Christian family lives next door to a happily married lesbian couple with two children of their own?
Lochinvar.. "perverts"? I think we're better off without your form of "tolerance" anyway.
Weekend packages??? The horror!
I'm still trying to figure out how having laws against gay marriage is even constitutional. Wasn't it decided by our founding fathers that all men are created equal? And wasn't it also determined that law and religion shall remain seperate? And if that's so, then why is religion the only "reason" given for gay marriage being illegal.
I think it's wonderful that we are becoming a less ignorant society and learning to accept people for who they are and let them live in happiness. I have one particular friend who has been with his partner for 20 years and is absolutely thrilled, and I'm thrilled for him. And everyone is right about younger generations being more open-minded. This is definitely just the beginning.
I'm still trying to figure out how having laws against gay marriage is even constitutional. Wasn't it decided by our founding fathers that all men are created equal? And wasn't it also determined that law and religion shall remain seperate? And if that's so, then why is religion the only "reason" given for gay marriage being illegal.
I think it's wonderful that we are becoming a less ignorant society and learning to accept people for who they are and let them live in happiness. I have one particular friend who has been with his partner for 20 years and is absolutely thrilled, and I'm thrilled for him. And everyone is right about younger generations being more open-minded. This is definitely just the beginning.
Someone pinch me, I must be dreaming! -John Hosty-Grinnell