Congrats, Vermont!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Eanair, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #1
    Equality, FTW!

    Only... 46 to go. :)

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...use-senate-overrid-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/

    Emphasis mine.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Wow... two in a week. At this rate, 6x12 will turn into 6x10.
     
  4. dmr727 macrumors G3

    dmr727

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    They're starting to fall like dominos. We will have equality in the US! :D
     
  6. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #6
    I hope so, but I'm not going to hold my breath...


    But it's certainly all great news!
     
  7. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    As someone once said "I'd better get out before they make it compulsory"

    Intelligence wins sometimes.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Or like a dam about to burst...
    ;)
     
  9. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    Excellent news.

    So, when is the UK going to go the whole hog and get gay marriage then?
     
  10. Eanair thread starter macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #10
    And as I understand it, what's especially great about Vermont is that this was done via a legislative process, so the folks against gay marriage can't start blaming activist judges for it. This would make Vermont the first state to allow gay marriage purely via the legislative process rather than a ruling (as in Iowa, MA, and CT).

    Mad props for Vermont.

    *waves from Boston*
     
  11. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    Well, there is already civil partnerships in the UK, I went to one a few years ago.

    Marriage in all but legal definition, and under the law it counts.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    I know about the CPs (;)), but whilst the UK follows separate but equal legislation there is no guarantee that the current equality with marriage will be maintained by future governments. Tory MP Michael Ancram has already stated that he wants to see tax credits granted to married couples, but not to those in a CP as that would "insult the intelligence of the British public". Now whilst Dave & Co. quickly told Michael to keep his mouth shut on that occasion, you do have to wonder about the commitment to equality the very likely incoming Tory administration is going to have.

    This is the exact same reason for the case in Vermont, which had CPs up until today. Equal today doesn't mean equal forever unless things fall under the same legal definition. A parallel one can't cut it.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Dunno about in the UK, but 'round these parts, "separate but equal" is not considered equal...
     
  14. That-Is-Bull macrumors 6502

    That-Is-Bull

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Edmond, Oklahoma
    #14
    This is horrible news. No wonder my marriage is starting to crumble, my son came home from school yesterday asking about butt sex, and I've been having gay fantasies about all the gay people that have been popping up (pun not intended) everywhere.

    Just kidding. I'm 17, I hate marriage, and I hate kids.
     
  15. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    Aye, fair point, it's a step up from getting run out of town, incarcerated or shot, but as you point out, it's not the whole deal.

    Queso, those Tories just can't shake the old prejudices can they?
     
  16. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #16
    So, that was the brunt of the move to overturn it? I imagine this biggest benefit of making no distinction is in making the case for federal recognition and all the benefits it affords them. Still, I am curious how satisfied the people affected were with having the full rights of marriage as recognized by the state (although they may be subject to not getting future benefits).
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    That was too funny! Thanks!
     
  18. Eanair thread starter macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #18
    That is what I was thinking. If you classify gay civil partnerships/unions as marriages, then when the DOMA is overturned, those who are in gay unions/partnerships/marriages can then have all the federal rights of marriage as well as the rights of the state.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Which is exactly as it should be.
     
  20. todd2000 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Location:
    Danville, VA
    #20
    This is just the beginning, wait and see. Iowa was the turning point, even though I know VT was in the works before the Iowa decision, I bet it got some members of the legislature to change their mind. They were 5 votes short of the 100 needed to overturn the veto, and apparently got them to change their mind! 46 more to go!
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    The weird thing is so many senior Tories are gay, and their intertwined relationships with the business world means most of them count some very powerful gay people as their friends. It's just that people like Ancram don't seem to be able to link these gay people they know with the gay people they talk about in their speeches. It's either an extreme naivety or a form of delusion, but I've never quite worked out which :confused:
     
  22. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #22
    Pardon my ignorance but on an issue such as this why is it not a central issue?

    Currently you have a situation where a marriage will be legal in one place but not valid in one just next door.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    As I said on Wikipedia to this same comment:

    And also what the judge says in the case involving two lesbians who married in Canada who were then recognised as having a civil partnership in the UK: Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership (source).
    And if it isn't kept equal I'd fight for equality there, besides its probably protected under the human rights act regardless.

    There is something to be said for appeasing the religious who want the word marriage to be reserved for a relationship between a man and a woman and just offering a compromise here. There are a lot more things much more worth fighting for with religion, like general rights for homosexuals and women for such a minor point to be worth considering.

    Also given how the English language insists on having a word (or three :p) for every concept calling gay marriage as something different just fits that part of our culture - unless our language culture changes course completely even if we call it marriage now there'll be a different word for it (and probably a different word for lesbian marriages) in 100 years anyway.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    We're just as puzzled, X. The states have been using the "states rights" excuse to deny or grant equal marriage rights, when you are correct, it should be a federal issue. Unfortunately because of DOMA (thanks Clinton! :mad:), this is the only present way to accomplish our goals. Once DOMA is repealed, it can be addressed at the federal level.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    That is a sh*t law.
     

Share This Page