Category: LGBT Discussion
Vermont’s House and Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
The Senate voted 23-5 to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto, according to the Senate office. Shortly afterward, the House overrode the veto on a 100-49 vote. The votes surpassed the number needed — two-thirds of those present — to override the veto.
The action makes Vermont the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriages. The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and, as of last week, Iowa.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html?iref=newssearch
This is an awesome change. I am looking forward to more states joining this beautiful thing.
This is wonderful. But I must ask. Is this same sex marriage or domestic partnership because we live in NJ and my parents had a domestic partnership in 2007. For those not in the know, there really are legal differences between a domestic partnership (or civil union) and marriage (whether religious or civil). so if this is really marriage then I'm doubly thrilled!
Yay finally! another new england state that allows this!
hmm, finally the US is getting its head outta its butt and letting us have the choice, good to hear.
Thanks Bella for posting that, makes me have hope in that country..
not to sound stupid, but what are the differences between demestic partnership and marrage you are talking about?
like I said I don't mean to sound stupid.
I think, in the Vermont case, it's marriage, not the civil union they'd already had. I'm glad to see that, in the Vermont case, the marriage was a legislation, rather than by order of the state's supremes.
A so called, everything but marage bill, just passed in WA state. I don't know the ins and outs of the bill, but I guess it'll give same sex partners nearly all the rights that traditional married couples enjoy.
Weird question:
On the news this morning, one of the anchors kept saying "gay marriage." In my copy editing class, we learned that it should be called same-sex marriage so as not to offend. Thoughts?
Hmmm, I'm not offended by either.
I am not offended either.
Seems both are acceptable.
Wish this would become a federal, rather than state by state decision. Other countries have declared gay marriage, or same sex marriage, legal for the whole country, be nice if we could get this kind of cooperation.
Yes, it would be nice to at least have our same-sex marriages federally recognized for taxation and social security purposes. Thats not likely to happen, though, until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or amended. A while back, I tweeted a link to a Boston Globe editorial piece on the kind of "dual citizenship" married same-sex couples face at tax time. In a state like Massachusetts, you can file jointly as married, but on the federal side, each of you can only file as single.
I'm not affected by what people call it..
As a right winger, I have one opinion on Same Sex marriage, besides taht of my personal views on it, which I will not disclose.
I don't like it legeslated. California got it right by it being a plurality decision. Let the individual states decide, via memorandem and nothing else.
Nick,
If we had done what you are suggesting in terms of civil rights issues in the 60's, the south would still have colored drinking fountains, restrooms, lunch counters etc. There would still be poll taxes, and blacks would still have to sit at the back of the bus. It would be totally legal in most states for employers to discriminate against blind people openly when they apply for jobs. We wouldn't even have the ADA. I know the right has a lot of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Ayn Rand institute, as well as help from the LDS, Evangelical and Catholic churches, running around distributing memos to media personalities and furnishing guests to try to sway people's opinions toward blatant bigotry, just as some organizations did in the 60's against the civil rights act. Something that the right wing fails to understand about this issue, and the very reason why we'll eventually win in the end, is that we're framing it in the context of a civil rights issue, not a biblical one. The truth of the matter is that the real problem most right wing straights have with the issue of same-sex marriage is that they imagine in their minds two guys having sex. The ick factor just makes their stomachs queasy thinking about it. But it's none of their business, period. Despite setbacks in states like California and Arizona, more and more Americans are ignoring the uber religious folks and bigots, and beginning to see it as a civil rights issue. If a church or mosque or temple doesn't want to perform gay marriage ceremonies, no one wants to force them, and under the first amendment, they don't have to no matter what else happens. We simply want to have the same benefits straight married couples have in terms of the legal and tax systems. Some of your right wing compatriots have tried the argument that allowing same-sex marriage is a gateway to allowing bestiality, pediphilia and other utterly ridiculous and disgusting situations. Polygamy has also been mentioned. Well, the American people as a whole aren't buying it. In fact, over 70% in recent polls from the Pew research center, the USA Today Gallop poll and others state that they are at the very least in favor of civil unions, and more than 50% are in favor of just calling it marriage. I'm glad to say that the right isn't likely to win this one.
I would ask you, if you truly believe in actual right wing principles, to examine why it is that you have issues with same-sex marriage. You need to understand for yourself whether it's the ick factor of two men getting it on, or whether it's a biblical issue for you which is a whole different issue. Most non-religious right wingers I know actually still believe in a separation of church and state. If you're a constitutionalist, then you should rethink turning religious views into laws. I don't know you, so I don't know what it is for you, but if you're truly going to oppose it, you need to rethink the logic you used in the previous post as it is not sound when applied to other similar situations.
Please understand, I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I want you to see the flaws in the arguments of the right on this particular issue.
Our forefathers founded this country on a central government offset by states' rights. That is what I protect. As far as I'm concerned, I'm greatful for what we as disabled people have, but as far as I'm concerned, it is a privilege, not a right. As far as i'm concerned, everything we have in this world is a privilege, not a right. My personal views on same sex unions, seeing as you asked for them, are unconventional.
I am a strict nomenclature obsessive. I don't really care, so long as the name "marriage" isn't used. To that end, I would rewrite the marriage codes to take the word out of it. Let the actual word marriage remain in the religious community, and in official governmental circles, the word I would use is a "union". What that does is seperates church and state even wider than it already is, and appeases the religious right. If a church wants to disallow the term marriage on its own based on text in the bible, they could back it up by saying that one would not be able to use the term "married" in official circles. Politics is all about making deals to attempt to please as many constituantss as possible, this does that.
i livi in iowa, and i'm so damn glad about this same-sex marriage thing!!!
I'm sorry that it took me so long to respond but I haven't been here in while. There are alot of differences between civil unions/domestic partnerships and same sex marriages. Taxes, health insurance, benefits and legality of wills are just a few. More info can be found here.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Hope that helps.
Thanks. i've been interested in the difference. this has been an issue that I hve found very interesting. until civil unions and domestic partnerships guarantee the same rights as same sex marriages, this is unconstitutional. once the rights are the same, I am in support o Civil Unions, just so that the languageissue isn't there and there is a clear separation between religious institutions and the state. i didn't know they weren't the ame.
I think New Hampshire got it right with the inclusion of language that allows churches and religious institutions to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. Church and state are well separated. That said, I think churches should see the light and bless same-sex families.
On Tuesday September 1, Vermont's legal same-sex marriage came into effect. We now have to watch and see what happens in Maine. Maine passed marriage but in August the right gathered enough signitures to put the same-sex marriage issue to a vote in November. Voting on people's civil rights is wrong.
I like that last sentence. Rights should be just that, rights, guarinteed for all. New Jersey has civil unions but I haven't heard of any same sex marriage bills yet. That would be awesome though.
It's pretty exciting that 5 states have legal same-sex marriage. The total was /is 6 if including Maine. But so far there is Massachusetts, Connecticut, iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire which goes into efect in January. If maine keeps their legislation then 6. I still can't believe what happened in California with prop 8 and then the state supreme court decision.
Also, it is interesting to note that NJ has civil unions but a comission has found that couples with civil unions are not being treated fairly as compared to married couples. The commission has recommended to NJ that the legislature pass full marriage equality. Hopefully something will come of that. This would be good because unfortunately civil unions create a separate but equal category that unfortunately is not often very equal.
Then there is the whole matter of DOMA, defense of marriage act which prevents even the couples from the above states from being able to file joint federal taxes and many other things. Also it means that a couple who say marries in Massachusetts but travels to say Florida for example, and some accident happens, the hospital and other places do not have to recognize the person as one's spouse and can deny them visitation or the right to decision making etc.
Yeah, that's disgusting about California. Sad about NJ, but as you said, maybe it'll lead to something good. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
This Tuesday, November 3, the voters of maine will be voting on whether or not to overturn the legislatures passing marriage equality last spring. Here's to hoping the vote will go the right way.
On another note, it looks quite possible that New York will pass marriage equality in December.
My view is that people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. If homosexuals want to marry, that should be up to them. Their marriages don't cause harm to the rest of us, just as my marriage doesn't have any impact on their lives.
As for religious institutions and people, they should follow their religion, not just the bits they agree with. If a religion is against same-sex marriage, those who practice that religion shouldn't endorse or assist the process of same-sex marriage. Homosexuals should marry in more secular places, or create their own places where they can marry.
Excellent news, even though I am neither gay, or American.
The City Council voted Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, giving supporters a victory after a string of recent defeats elsewhere and sending the issue to Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation's capital.
Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which passed 11-2, and gay couples could begin marrying as early as March if Congress allows it to become law. Democratic congressional leaders have suggested they are reluctant to get involved, though gay marriage opponents say they will try to get it overturned either in Congress or at the polls.
Federal lawmakers declined to weigh in the last time they had a chance, after the council voted in May to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Congress let that bill become law without taking any action, avoiding what could have amounted to a referendum on gay marriage.
The bill that passed Tuesday had overwhelming support among council members and the outcome was no surprise. Two members said "I do" when their turn came to vote, and a packed chamber erupted into cheers and clapping when the bill passed.
"Make no mistake, 2009 has been one hell of a year for marriage equality," said David Catania, who introduced the bill and is one of two openly gay council members.
The "no" votes included former mayor Marion Barry, who said, "I don't," when it was his turn.
If the bill becomes law, the district will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They will be able to wed in New Hampshire starting in January.
Gay marriage supporters have had less success elsewhere recently. Maine voters overturned the state's same-sex marriage law last month. Earlier this month, the New York state Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed gay couples to marry. And New Jersey's legislature, which had been working on a same-sex marriage bill, postponed a recent vote when the measure appeared headed for defeat.
Tuesday's vote in the district came after several months of discussion, including two marathon council hearings at which some 250 witnesses testified.
Opponents included the Archdiocese of Washington, which said it might have to stop providing adoptions and other services because the law would force it to extend benefits to same-sex couples.
"Today the District of Columbia joined a handful of states where legislatures or courts have redefined marriage to include persons of the same sex," the archdiocese said in a statement after the vote.
The law will likely take effect around St. Patrick's Day in this city of 600,000, which is about 1/17th the size of Rhode Island. Congress has 30 working days to reject it, but that has happened with similar legislation just three times in the past 25 years.
Still, opponents plan to try. Members of a group called Stand4Marriage, led by local pastor Bishop Harry Jackson, have met with members of Congress to urge them to oppose the bill.
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."
The group Mitchell represents made a similar request this summer, when the city passed a law recognizing gay marriages legally performed in other states. The board declined to put the issue on the ballot, saying that would violate a city human rights law.
Jackson said Tuesday he believed that the group had an "airtight legal case" and that "if it gets to the vote, we win."
The group also has a lawsuit pending from earlier this year, when it tried to get an initiative on the ballot asking voters to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The elections board again cited the human rights law in saying no. A hearing in that case is scheduled for January.
Wow. This is all wonderful news. Let's hope things continue to improve. That comment about adoption services not being offered really shows immaturity, selfishness and nontolerance. I'm totally fine with those who oppose gay marriage, so long as they don't harm others with their opinions by trying to ban it or have it not pass, and especially by harming innocent children who may have the chance to be raised by loving parents just because their views don't match. Very sad. Anyway, good luck. Maybe, people will start waking up in NJ sometime soon.
MEXICO CITY — Mexico City lawmakers have become the first in Latin America to legalize gay marriage.
City legislators passed the bill 39-20 on Monday with five lawmakers absent.
Gay marriage is currently allowed in only seven countries and some parts of the United States.
Leftist Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard is widely expected to sign the decision into law.
The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city’s civic code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be “the free uniting of two people.
I love the new definition, and wish it'd transfer over to all 7 states where it's recognized.
D.C. joins Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa in allowing same-sex marriage.Washington (CNN) -- The District of Columbia's same-sex marriage law will go into effect as scheduled this week, after the Supreme Court refused to stop its enforcement.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a three-page order Tuesday, a day before the law becomes official. He concluded the high court should defer to local matters in the federal district of Washington. And he said a separate ballot initiative to overturn the law would give voters a chance to weigh in on the question.
A group of Washington residents had objected to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which expands the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
Those opponents had argued city residents should have been given a chance to vote on the high-profile issue before the city council passed the measure. They still seek to force a ballot initiative after the law takes effect. Local courts had turned down various lawsuits to block it.
The district's marriage bureau says same-sex couples can begin applying for marriage licenses Wednesday. However, by law, "three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued," the bureau, part of the district's superior court system, says on its Web site, so no marriages would be held this week.
A $35 application fee is waived for couples who are registered domestic partners, although a $10 fee for the license is not, the bureau said.
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a measure recognizing same-sex marriages as legal in December, after the city council overwhelming passed it. It then had to go through a review period during which Congress had an opportunity to intervene.
The district joins Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa in allowing same-sex couples to marry.