Breaking: Vermont Legalises Gay Marriage

[Ziggy Stardust]

If there are, I'd bet money that they're just pretending to be atheists so they can claim to be doing it on non-religious grounds.

I'm willing to believe that there are atheists out there who just plain don't like gay people. I've learned never to underestimate the extent of homophobia.

[Mayabird]

If there are, I'd bet money that they're just pretending to be atheists so they can claim to be doing it on non-religious grounds.

I'm willing to believe that there are atheists out there who just plain don't like gay people. I've learned never to underestimate the extent of homophobia.

Oh, there's probably somebody (given a large enough population, there's always a somebody for everything), but the average here is way more important.

And speaking of, Vermont is the least religious state in the U.S. Yes, beating out the great Pacific Northwest, which I note is lagging behind on the gay marriage issue as well. Chop, chop, Washington! We've gotten complacent here.

[erik_t]

I strongly suspect part of the problem regarding the Northwest is the proximity to Utah. Now, I lived in Utah and in many ways I loved it, but nowhere else in this country will you find such a homogeneous bloc of reactionary religious people with nonzero money to their names.

[Samuel]

If there are, I'd bet money that they're just pretending to be atheists so they can claim to be doing it on non-religious grounds.

I'm willing to believe that there are atheists out there who just plain don't like gay people. I've learned never to underestimate the extent of homophobia.

Oh, there's probably somebody (given a large enough population, there's always a somebody for everything), but the average here is way more important.

And speaking of, Vermont is the least religious state in the U.S. Yes, beating out the great Pacific Northwest, which I note is lagging behind on the gay marriage issue as well. Chop, chop, Washington! We've gotten complacent here.

I believe the communists pulled off the descriminating against gays while being atheists, but they were totalitarian. Outside of them all we have are assholes.

[wautd]

I believe the communists pulled off the descriminating against gays while being atheists, but they were totalitarian.

Being a communist doesn't automatically means you're an atheist

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And in other news..

Visit DesMoinesRegister.com throughout the morning for coverage of today's rallies at the Capitol.

People were yelling "Let us vote" from the Iowa House galleries just after 10 a.m., after a Republican attempt to call up the constitutional amendment against gay marriage was ruled out of order.

Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen had asked at 9:26 a.m. for a call of the House and sought to bring to the House floor the resolution to propose a constitutional amendment.
Advertisement
Quantcast

The call of the House required all representatives at the Capitol to report to their desk and they are not to leave the House chambers. Such moves are often made when controversial votes come before the legislature to help prevent lawmakers from leaving.

After a huddle involving leaders from the House and Senate, House Speaker Pat Murphy ruled Paulsen's motion out of order shortly after 10 a.m.. Shouts erupted from the galleries, which were packed with spectators, as lawmakers filed into closed-door meetings.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal spoke to the House leaders in the well about the attempt to suspend the joint rules to bring up the proposed marriage amendment resolution.

“One chamber can’t do that,” Gronstal said. “I was there to defend the joint rules.”

The only way to suspend the joint rules is for someone to introduce a resolution in rules and administration committee. If it starts in the House, then there’s a vote in House committee and in the full House. If it passes, it goes to Senate committee then a vote of the full House.

About 10 a.m. Murphy ruled out of order the effort to bring up House Joint Resolution 6, the marriage amendment. He also ruled out of order the call of the House. Loud shouts of protest erupted from the gallery as lawmakers moved into closed-door caucus meetings.

“We’re not going to let mob rule rule this state,” Murphy said as people exited the chambers, noting his frustration with the chanting.

Murphy is a long-time supporter of civil rights and believes same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry.

“If you take a look at history, the court’s job has always been to protect the minority. Whether it was women’s right to vote, whether it was an African American doesn’t have to be a slave. An African American has the right to marry a white person. That’s what this is about.”

Chuck Hurley, of the Iowa Family Policy Project, said his group would continue to work to ban gay marriage.

“I’m ashamed of my state’s leaders. I’m ashamed of the people not having the chance to vote,” Hurley said.

Hurley noted that his group is not telling people how to vote.

“The essence of what we do is love and love,” Hurley said. According to history and sacred writings, love always perseveres. It doesn’t give up. If you really love God and your neighbors, you don’t give up. That’s the message.”

Earlier today, roughly 400 opponents of same-sex marriage took part in a prayer at the Capitol.

They're asking lawmakers in the House to allow a bill that would launch a constitutional amendment to move forward.

Security was stepped up considerably at the Statehouse this morning. Troopers are standing guard outside the chamber doors, in the balconies and around the Iowa Capitol.

The prayer was led by members of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage. They said they would work to vote elected officials who support gay marriage out of office.

“You can let them know today that this issue is different. This is not about taxes or spending and regulations. This is about morality and the word of God,” said Family Policy Center Board Chair Danny Carroll, a former Republican representative from Grinnell.

One Iowa, the state’s largest gay-rights advocacy group is also making an appearance. Members of the group were handing out stickers and gathering in support of gay marriage.

Even if the bill were to pass this year, it would also have to pass the Legislature in 2011 and couldn’t be on the ballot until 2012.

Murphy and Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, have publicly stated support for last week’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling that allows same-sex couples to marry.

About 80 people, predominantly dressed in red shirts, gathered in the rotunda outside the House chambers. Doorkeepers said safety officials declared the House too full to let another person inside.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff arrived decked fully in red - a fire-engine red suit coat and red slacks.

Troopers watched the crowd carefully, but all remained peaceful as of 10 a.m.

Ratliff has led many protests against same-sex marriage. He contrasted the issue with those of civil rights related to race and ethnicity.

“I think this is a choice issue. As an African American, I was born this way. Based, at least the information that has been gathered this far, homosexuality is a choice. So I see that as two different situations.”

Brad Clark of One Iowa urged lawmakers to stay focused on issues of common concern to all Iowa families.

“The Supreme Court, the governor, the attorney general and legislative leadership have clearly articulated that all Iowans should be protected under the Iowa Constitution,” Clark said.

Meanwhile, the chambers of the Iowa Senate were calm and empty of anyone but
clerks and lawmakers.

“They have nothing available to them in the Senate,” Gronstal said. “No Republican introduced a marriage amendment in the Senate so there’s nothing for them to take up on our side."

Protesters said they were disappointed at the amendment didn’t take a step forward.

“We didn’t really think it would, but we were hopeful that it would,” said Dave Pierce of Grinnell. “I see it more of a spiritual matter than a political matter.”

Pierce said he e-mailed about a dozen representatives last night who he heard were “on the fence” about bringing up the amendment. And he telephoned his representative, Eric Palmer D-Oskaloosa.

His nephew, Ethan Pierce, 9, managed to get a seat in the House balcony to watch events unfold. Ethan lives in rural Grinnell, and his representative, Betty DeBoef, R-What Cheer, was firmly on the family’s side, they said.

Short of Iowa going ahead and actually writing an entire new constitution for the state just to ban gay marriage, which I think is such an extreme step as to be unfathomably impracticable, there will be no gay marriage ban in Iowa until 2014 due to the decision of the democratic legislative leaders. So, at minimum, five years of gay marriage in Iowa is now in the offing.... And any such ban wouldn't take effect until November of 2014 at the earliest. Closer to six years than five, actually. That may actually be enough time for opinions in Iowa to change to the point where the christers can't muster 50% + 1 at the ballot. Maybe.

[General Zod]

So they're using the typical dishonest "homosexuality is a choice" bullshit? How totally . . .unsurprising.

[Darth Wong]

If there are, I'd bet money that they're just pretending to be atheists so they can claim to be doing it on non-religious grounds.

I'm willing to believe that there are atheists out there who just plain don't like gay people. I've learned never to underestimate the extent of homophobia.

Oh, I know there are. But the kind of person who is willing to devote his time and money to travel around spreading the word about how evil gay marriage would be? No way. Atheists who don't like gay people are motivated by simple conformist aesthetics, and that is nowhere near as powerful a motivator as religion.

As I said, I'm sure these people are just pretending to be atheists.

[Edi]

Short of Iowa going ahead and actually writing an entire new constitution for the state just to ban gay marriage, which I think is such an extreme step as to be unfathomably impracticable, there will be no gay marriage ban in Iowa until 2014 due to the decision of the democratic legislative leaders. So, at minimum, five years of gay marriage in Iowa is now in the offing.... And any such ban wouldn't take effect until November of 2014 at the earliest. Closer to six years than five, actually. That may actually be enough time for opinions in Iowa to change to the point where the christers can't muster 50% + 1 at the ballot. Maybe.

Five years is a long time and given how many of the opponents of gay rights are old farts, a lot of them will keel over dead of old age and disease in that time, so it is probably more likely for them to have more difficulty when it comes up again.

[RedImperator]

I'm hoping the Vermont move will kick the New Jersey legislature in the ass. We already have civil unions which are marriage in all but name, Governor Corzine has said he'd sign a bill legalizing gay marriage. Unfortunately, this is an election year, so it would probably have to wait until 2010 (or at least until the lame-duck session in December).

[Alferd Packer]

Five years is a long time and given how many of the opponents of gay rights are old farts, a lot of them will keel over dead of old age and disease in that time, so it is probably more likely for them to have more difficulty when it comes up again.

In addition, those five years are going to allow a lot of gay couples to marry and put down roots in Iowa. Sure, most of them will settle and start their families in the more liberal-minded urban centers, but some will move into the rural countryside. Minds could be changed, as well, just through simple exposure, a kind of "Hey, this actually isn't the end of the world!" sort of realization.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, it is pretty impressive. It'll be at least five and a half years, actually, 5 years, 7 months before a vote can be held on the subject in Iowa. Again, of course, assuming that they don't rewrite their entire constitution for the sole purpose of banning gay marriage, but I have difficulty to believe that will happen--especially since it will be on the ballot as "hold a constitutional convention", not "hold a constitutional convention to ban gay marriage," and theoretically anything could be adopted if it was approved... These measures receive very, very little support every ten years, naturally, and that support will probably not reach 50%. A lot of people will have second thoughts, after all, of holding a constitutional convention where the Iowa democrats could just as easily insert a constitutional right to free housing as the Iowa republicans could ban gay marriage.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm pretty sure any ban would need to include fairly numerous concessions to pass the legislature, anyway, like a provision for fully separate-but-equal civil unions and allowing all the existing marriages to remain licit, and that the ultimate vote will come down to the name. If the idiots overreach so far as to try and ban all unions similar to marriage for gays and nullify the existing marriages, they'll probably badly miscalculate in doing so.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Just recently, I had a cretin actually try to argue that legalizing gay marriage in Vermont is oppression against the other states because of the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. By recognizing it in place X, they must also recognize it in place Y, whether they want to or not, thus it is tyranny.

I don't know how these people can say that with a straight face. It's like freedom is slavery, up is down, 2+2=5. It took some massive mental gymnastics to turn a liberating event into an oppressive one.

[Darth Wong]

Just recently, I had a cretin actually try to argue that legalizing gay marriage in Vermont is oppression against the other states because of the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. By recognizing it in place X, they must also recognize it in place Y, whether they want to or not, thus it is tyranny.

I don't know how these people can say that with a straight face. It's like freedom is slavery, up is down, 2+2=5. It took some massive mental gymnastics to turn a liberating event into an oppressive one.

Southern Confederate apologists have been doing that for 150 years. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch for this type of person.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I don't know how these people can say that with a straight face. It's like freedom is slavery, up is down, 2+2=5. It took some massive mental gymnastics to turn a liberating event into an oppressive one.

Its not that hard when you look at it from thier point of view... for them Its all about "Us" forcing "them" to do something thy dont want... As Gay marriage passes, they imagine hordes of snarling liberals and Homos Marching into "their" churches and into "their" cities, running up and shouting "I DEMAND you marry us in YOUR church!"

These sorts of acts are very real to them, you can read about it constantly on various blog, an almost hysterical fear that, the moment gay marriage passes somewhere, Soliders from some Homosexual army will marhc into a church demanding they be married !

[FSTargetDrone]

My apologies if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see those commercials put out by the "National Organization For Marriage"? There was one on MSNBC last night (during Olbermann's show, of all things). It was pretty vile.

Story:

News & Opinion

Thursday, April 9, 2009

The gay-marriage war hits TV

The gloves are off in the fight over gay marriage, said Ben Smith in Politico. The National Organization for Marriage, a key backer of the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in California, is launching a $1.5 million ad campaign to “energize” gay marriage opponents in key states “by making the case that it will impinge directly on their own lives.”

The first ad, titled “Gathering Storm,” said The Christian Broadcasting Network, points out that “threats to religious and personal liberties will become very real if same-sex marriage is legalized.” The main goal of this campaign is to “educate the public about the pressuring of courts and legislatures by gay rights activists to re-define marriage against the wishes of voters.”

Claiming that gay marriage would actually hurt any of the people in these ads is an “infuriating” lie, said Alex Pareene in Gawker. But watch the anti-gay-marriage ad audition reel, and the whole nasty episode starts seeming a little bit funny.

The fight against same-sex marriage is no joke, said National Review in an editorial. Gay marriage support isn’t growing, despite what its proponents say. So, before the courts foist gay marriage from coast to coast, supporters of traditional marriage have a right and a duty to the value to our culture and our children, who do best with a mother and father who are married to each other.

The “theocons” on the right must think society has no “interest in the welfare of its gay citizens,” said Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic. “One day, they will understand the callousness and bitterness and willful ignorance they currently represent. As civilized society leaves them increasingly behind.”

The commercial in question is here.

The fear-mongering and homophobia is pretty thick.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know how these people can say that with a straight face. It's like freedom is slavery, up is down, 2+2=5. It took some massive mental gymnastics to turn a liberating event into an oppressive one.

Its not that hard when you look at it from thier point of view... for them Its all about "Us" forcing "them" to do something thy dont want... As Gay marriage passes, they imagine hordes of snarling liberals and Homos Marching into "their" churches and into "their" cities, running up and shouting "I DEMAND you marry us in YOUR church!"

These sorts of acts are very real to them, you can read about it constantly on various blog, an almost hysterical fear that, the moment gay marriage passes somewhere, Soliders from some Homosexual army will marhc into a church demanding they be married !

It's more than that. Even if you can convince them that no one will force them to marry gays in their own churches, they think no one should even force them to allow gays to marry in court. They think that is a form of tyranny, just as the Southerners thought it was "tyranny" to force them to release their slaves.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Agreed.

One need only look at the current rash of lawsuites trying to allow various christian doctors and heath workers to refuse any practice they don't 'agree' with...

Basically ANY practice that Fundis find reprehensable, they believe should simply be done away with, or, they should be exampt from preforming under any circumstances... Abortions, giving out contraseptives, Birth control pills, Transgender operations.. There are a host of lawsuites of health care workers who saw hey shouldn't have to do Any of this, and scream "Tyranny!" when they are asked to do so...or quit their jobs..

[General Zod]

Basically ANY practice that Fundis find reprehensable, they believe should simply be done away with, or, they should be exampt from preforming under any circumstances... Abortions, giving out contraseptives, Birth control pills, Transgender operations.. There are a host of lawsuites of health care workers who saw hey shouldn't have to do Any of this, and scream "Tyranny!" when they are asked to do so...or quit their jobs..

Uh. . .abortions and transgender operations are generally specialized procedures anyway. So the chances of finding fundies in those particular lines of work are slim to nil.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

When California repeals Prop 8 with a voter-initiative, I wonder what new tactic the bigots will come up with since they will no longer be able to claim that the majority of voters consistently reject same-sex marriage.

[Crossroads Inc.]

When California repeals Prop 8 with a voter-initiative, I wonder what new tactic the bigots will come up with since they will no longer be able to claim that the majority of voters consistently reject same-sex marriage.

AH.. but do you think such an intiative has a serious chance of passing?

[Feil]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD97DMT400

link to the article quoted in the OP

[Pint0 Xtreme]

When California repeals Prop 8 with a voter-initiative, I wonder what new tactic the bigots will come up with since they will no longer be able to claim that the majority of voters consistently reject same-sex marriage.

AH.. but do you think such an intiative has a serious chance of passing?

Of course. Perhaps not as great of a chance in 2010 but definitely in 2012 and beyond. With that said, I believe the group behind the ballot initiative for next year will be announcing the commencement of their signature collection efforts this upcoming Monday.

[RedImperator]

Basically ANY practice that Fundis find reprehensable, they believe should simply be done away with, or, they should be exampt from preforming under any circumstances... Abortions, giving out contraseptives, Birth control pills, Transgender operations.. There are a host of lawsuites of health care workers who saw hey shouldn't have to do Any of this, and scream "Tyranny!" when they are asked to do so...or quit their jobs..

Uh. . .abortions and transgender operations are generally specialized procedures anyway. So the chances of finding fundies in those particular lines of work are slim to nil.

Um...no they're not. Not abortions, anyway: virtually any gynecologist can perform one, and under current regulations (passed at the last minute by the former administration), any nurse can refuse to assist in the operation.