Gay Marriage in Vermont

Congratulations, Vermont folks. As a gift to aid your celebration, I offer you the tears of Tony Perkins:

Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor’s veto on same-sex “marriage” as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,” said Perkins.

“The vote today by the D.C. City Council was a direct affront to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

Sweet, sweet FRC tears.

I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






142 replies
  1. 1
    SP says:

    "the vote of the Vermont State Legislature" … "determined to destroy…democracy as well."
    IDTTWMWYTIM.

  2. 2
    eric says:

    so, which is it: is the vermont legislature a cabal of wealthy homosexuals or of liberal elites or, worse yet, of wealthy, liberal homosexual elites?

    or possibly, persons respectful of human dignity?

    eric

  3. 3
    random asshole says:

    I love how elected legislators voting in favor of new legislation is the destruction of democracy. I never knew democracy was so fragile.

  4. 4
    The Anti-Christ says:

    Muuhhaahahahaa.

  5. 5
    Paul M says:

    Activist legislature.

  6. 6
  7. 7
    Tsulagi says:

    Activist legislators!!

  8. 8
    Cris says:

    1. FUCK YEAH
    2. Suck it, Jim Douglas
    3. The fact that this was a veto override makes it even sweeter, because that means it wasn’t just some bare-majority, one-vote-margin thing. Did you see that Senate roll call? 23-5!

  9. 9
    Xenos says:

    DOMA might be next, as the folks at GLAD in Boston have it in their sights, and things could get quite interesting over the next few months.

  10. 10
    AkaDad says:

    The best thing about your gift is that straight people can enjoy it too.

  11. 11
    Tom65 says:

    Curses, he’s on to us!

  12. 12
    Zandar says:

    Soon the horrible specter of equality will darken the halls of our traditional hidebound prejudice!

    GG, Homonups, GG indeed.

  13. 13
    JM says:

    Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,” said Perkins.

    Yeah, but The Greatest Generation is dying faster than you can scare them to the polls, jack.

    Once they’re gone, you religious extremists are toast.

  14. 14
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @AkaDad: Unfortunately, I can’t gaymarry cuz I’m already married.

  15. 15
    Bill Teefy says:

    Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well.

    Maybe it’s neither. Maybe I just like sitting in my mom’s basement watching pron-clips of Tony Perkins snivel.

    Oh. And Tony… Happy Holidays!

  16. 16

    As a bisexual Vermonter who has been boinked by other men I’d just like to say BUAHAHAHAA WOOHOO! ROCK! GO VERMONT! :D

  17. 17
    Dr.BDH says:

    Why "wealthy homosexual activists"? I thought conservatives valued wealth and liked wealthy people. And does he mean homosexuals of ordinary means don’t support gay marriage? Or that all homosexuals are wealthy? It’s so hard to parse these rantings.

  18. 18
    gopher2b says:

    Mock him all you want but Burlington and St. Albans have already descended into violence and anarchy.

  19. 19
    Ash Can says:

    Attn Tony Perkins:

    I’ll thank you to stop debasing my marriage by continually and publicly claiming that the only thing that makes it a marriage is the fact that my spouse and I are physically capable of sexual intercourse with each other.

    Sincerely,

    A heterosexual whose marriage is evidently much healthier than yours.

  20. 20
    Ricky Bobby says:

    As a gift to aid your celebration, I offer you the tears of Tony Perkins:

    It’s the schadenfreude that keeps me coming back here you know…

  21. 21
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Odd, Tony Perkins laments the destruction of democracy while working for theocracy.

  22. 22
    John PM says:

    I do not understand how allowing more people to marry destroys the sanctity of marriage. As long as the state does not force you to marry someone of the same sex or force your church to marry two people of the same sex, you are not harmed and you have nothing to worry about. The only two reasons I have been able to come up with for conservative religious objections to allowing gays to marry is (1) God will punish us like Sodom & Gommorah for our wicked ways in allowing the gays to marry; or (2) the ranks of conservative Christian religions will be decimated as thousands of repressed gays leave their loveless heterosexual marriages as they are allowed to express their true selves. Should Vermont and D.C. experience sudden showers of Fire & Brimstone, then (1) will have some legitimacy. Barring that, however, I have to go with (2).

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    I have no idea what you mean by this statement. I have often wished that religions were not in the marriage business. My ideal would be that everyone who wants to get married has to have a civil service at the time they obtain a marriage license. If the couple then wants to obtain the blessing of their particular religion on the marriage, they can do so.

  23. 23
    gopher2b says:

    DOMA might be next, as the folks at GLAD in Boston have it in their sights, and things could get quite interesting over the next few months.

    Years….not months….which is probably a good thing because you will need to flip a few more states and at least one big one before the Supreme Court has the balls to rule the DOMA unconstitutional.

  24. 24
    Matt says:

    The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

    I know. I haven’t slept for years.

  25. 25
    toujoursdan says:

    We, in the Province of Québec, say "It’s about time, neighbours!"

  26. 26
    random asshole says:

    @Dr.BDH:

    It’s so hard to parse these rantings.

    It’s really not that hard. Let me try to simplify it for you.

    Shorter Tony Perkins:

    Yay, people are paying attention to me!

  27. 27
    Cris says:

    @gopher2b: Mock him all you want but Burlington and St. Albans have already descended into violence and anarchy.

    And buttsex.

  28. 28
    gbear says:

    So did Tony Perkin’s relationship with his wife crumble and turn to dust this week? It’s sick that the only way that he can measure value in his life is thru the denial of rights to others. He’s foaming at the mouth over an action that hasn’t changed one atom of his own family’s life, and it’s his own consuming hatred that destroys him and others like him.

    Shorter version: Perkins can rot in his own private hell.

  29. 29
    Punchy says:

    Not to pick a fight….but….where is TZ to tell us all how gay "marriage" will never fly (i’m paraphrasing), and how only civil unions will be acceptable to the masses? How those of us in favor of gays getting married, not unionized, were idiots pushing too hard and liable to implode all the built-up support?

    Cant wait to hear how he explains this…..and Iowa.

    Gays are 1-2 years away of being married in 20+ states. Absolutely.

  30. 30
    Ricky Bobby says:
    @gopher2b: Mock him all you want but Burlington and St. Albans have already descended into violence and anarchy.

    And buttsex.

    WIN.

  31. 31
    gbear says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Unfortunately, I can’t gaymarry cuz I’m already married.

    But I thought divorce was a part of the straight marriage program. Now I’m confused.

  32. 32
    Lev says:

    John, I disagree. Government has to be in the marriage business so long as people want to get divorced. Were it not for that, I could grant your point, though perhaps you think that government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses, only divorces? Interesting theory, that.

    Anyway, here’s hoping this becomes a full-blown trend. I’m anticipating my native California reverses the effects of Prop 8 soon, as I expect will happen within a few years.

  33. 33
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @gbear: It ain’t a part of The Fuckhead’s marriage program. We took a death vow. Onliest way I’m getting gaymarried is if she accidentally falls down the stairs and gets shot.

  34. 34
    Xenos says:

    I have no idea what you mean by this statement. I have often wished that religions were not in the marriage business. My ideal would be that everyone who wants to get married has to have a civil service at the time they obtain a marriage license. If the couple then wants to obtain the blessing of their particular religion on the marriage, they can do so.

    This is pretty much the reality – clerics who perform marriages do so by virtue of a license from the state that allows them to solemnize the marriage.

    But this distinctions are lost on most people, like how nobody noticed the absurdity of George W, Bush, Methodist, declaring that marriage was a sacrament. I would not be surprised to hear Tony Perkins (Baptist ?) say the same.

  35. 35
    asiangrrlMN says:

    Woot! Good for Vermont. You are now officially on my list of places I can actually live. California, for now, is out. I’m still on the fence about Iowa, gay marriage or not (rival state and all. Besides, that’s what we bis do best–stay on the fence).

    However, I am conflicted because I have issues with the idea of marriage itself. I don’t want to marry anyone, and I get frustrated that our society is so couple-oriented. I do agree with John that if we must couple off, everyone should receive civil unions through the state that give the same benefits to everyone. Religions can have their own ceremonies and discriminate however they want.

    In the end, this is a great day for democracy, and, hopefully, the tipping point for this issue. We have more important things with which to grapple than who marries whom.

    P.S. I find it strange that I can marry Rush Limbaugh just because he purportedly is an intact male (even though I detest the man), and yet, I cannot marry Rachel Maddow (even if she were single), whom I adore.

  36. 36
    gopher2b says:

    I would like somone to ask Palin what she thinks about the "small town" states (Iowa, Vermont) approving gay marriage. This is, afterall, where real America lives.

    New Hampshire (my home state) will flip soon enough.

  37. 37
    Zandar says:

    With all this moral fabric constantly being destroyed, you’d think people would invent moral fabric with better wear and tear properties.

  38. 38
    Indylib says:

    @Ash Can:

    I’ll thank you to stop debasing my marriage by continually and publicly claiming that the only thing that makes it a marriage is the fact that my spouse and I are physically capable of sexual intercourse with each other.

    Here, fucking Here!

    I never have been able to figure out how gay marriage is supposed to effect my own marriage either way.

    Do they think teh gay marrieds radiate bad magic vibes that straight married couples don’t?

  39. 39
    Corner Stone says:

    I’m sorry people but Perkins is absolutely 100% right on this one.

    “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well.

    This fact just can not be denied.

  40. 40
    Emma Anne says:

    John, please do explain what you mean by wanting government out of the marriage business. How could that possibly work? Taxes, inheritance, next of kin, custody, divorce, all become a huge mess.

    And if you are going to say people should write contracts to deal with these things, I respectfully ask you to poll your readers to find out how many have up to date will. My guess: less than 25%.

    Oh yeah, and woo hoo Vermont!

  41. 41
    Clambone says:

    I wish that I could add a macro that would transform "Tony Perkins" to "Tony Perkins, who was fined for lying about paying David Duke for his mailing list".

  42. 42
    gex says:

    @random asshole: Oh absolutely. Merely participating in democracy destroys it. This is why democracy was best advanced by the dictatorial manner of W.

  43. 43
    wasabi gasp says:

    This is a slippery slope that will surely lead to a new irresistible Ben and Jerry’s flavor threatening the sanctity of lickin’ between a man and his cone.

  44. 44
    The Moar You Know says:

    Gays are 1-2 years away of being married in 20+ states. Absolutely.

    @Punchy: I’m not sure it will be quite that soon but it will happen.

    Tony Perkins and his lot are finished and they know it. The few smart ones in that movement will milk it for all the money that they can squeeze out of it, turn around and rat out those who are still in it, and cash out on that end as well. The stupid ones will lose their money and eventually their dignity, turning into old, raging Archie Bunker types who nobody listens to.

  45. 45
    Zandar says:

    @Corner Stone: Hence the need for tougher moral fabric.

    Maybe the kind that has quick stain-release power too and stays bright wash after wash.

  46. 46
    Laura W says:

    @Bad Horse’s Filly: I left something for you over on the Open Thread.

  47. 47
    GSD says:

    I’ll never forgive Tony Perkins for hitting his mother over the head with a shovel after asking if she’d like a cheese sandwich in Psycho II.

    I’ll never forgive him.

    -GSD

  48. 48
    gex says:

    @Cris: What I find most refreshing was that the original vote didn’t have override numbers. They went out and got more votes. I imagine that some symbolic votes (this will pass so I can just placate my district) got tested by the veto. I really didn’t expect that to happen.

    Iowa, now Vermont. This is bringing tears of joy to this gay girl. I hope someday my state AND my country will let me get married too.

  49. 49
    Keith says:

    I hope those with a stake in the abortion debate keep this process (and where the right is going to go next with this – constitutional amendment banning what they don’t want) in mind when the right argues that they want RvW overturned simply to turn it over to the states to decide. It’s the same tired notion of trying to get what you want by asking mom, then dad, then the grandparents until someone in the chain of command gives the "right" answer.

  50. 50
    Timmy C. says:

    "I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business."

    Well there is a movement in California pushing for just that for the State….a proposed ballot initiative gathering signatures now:

    "Secretary of State Debra Bowen has approved for circulation a ballot initiative that would effectively get the State of California out of the "marriage" business. Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright, two heterosexual Southern California college students yesterday submitted a ballot measure initiative with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that would replace the term "marriage" with "domestic partnership" in California law."

    This effort already has the approval of the CA Libertarian Party, and

    More info: http://www.dompar.org

    and: http://donklephant.com/2009/03.....state-law/

    and:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42833687407

  51. 51
    Joel says:

    As someone who is going to be making the shift to filing jointly next year, I think the whole marriage tax credit thing is a sham. Funk dat.

  52. 52
    Jay B. says:

    I don’t want to marry anyone, and I get frustrated that our society is so couple-oriented.

    Don’t marry anyone. And don’t sweat whatever you think "society" is oriented toward. I mean Valentine’s Day isn’t taking away your right to be single.

    These days, I’m married with a young kid in LA and my life and society is family-based and oriented. But having lived in New York City as a single hetero male in my late 20s and early 30s I can say that nothing seemed less couple-oriented than that society.

  53. 53
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @wasabi gasp:

    This is a slippery slope that will surely lead to a new irresistible Ben and Jerry’s flavor threatening the sanctity of lickin’ between a man and his cone.

    Best statement so far. Made me laugh so hard. Let’s see if I did the block quotes correctly. Almost correct. Hopefully, I fixed it.

  54. 54
    Punchy says:

    I’m not sure it will be quite that soon but it will happen.

    The Iowa SC laid out some rather vociferous statements w/r/t the unconstitutionality of oppo-sex-only marriages. Unless Iowa’s state consty is significantly diff than other states’, I would find it hard to see how other non-Southern state SC’s could rule to uphold them.

    That said, it may be entertaining in a train-wreck way to actually see how the Missy, Bama, Georgia, etc. SCs actually do defend this bigotry. Because we both know there’s just no way they could rule otherwise and remain alive for very long, both in office and biologically.

  55. 55
    dm says:

    @IndyLib:

    I never have been able to figure out how gay marriage is supposed to effect my own marriage either way.
    Do they think teh gay marrieds radiate bad magic vibes that straight married couples don’t?

    I think they worry that, if gay people can get married, lots of heterosexual couples will get divorced in order to find true happiness in gay marriages. I’m not sure how this is supposed to work — perhaps they think that sex is the only thing that holds a marriage together?

  56. 56
    Stefan says:

    I never have been able to figure out how gay marriage is supposed to effect my own marriage either way. Do they think teh gay marrieds radiate bad magic vibes that straight married couples don’t?

    Look, it’s quite simple: there are only a limited number of marriage licenses the government makes available. If the gays take them all, then there are no more licenses left and the straights can’t marry.

  57. 57

    Shorter Tony Perkins: gays want to destroy marriage by participating in it.

    Maybe if a bunch of us evil libruls started attending evangelical churches…nah, not worth the trouble.

  58. 58
    MikeJ says:

    Ben and Jerry’s Equality Swirl: Plain vanilla and tutti frutti living side by side.

  59. 59
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Jay B.:

    Oh, I don’t care about public opinion; I am talking about all the legal benefits that marriage confer, along with the fact that I have to pay nearly the same price for a hotel room as does a couple. Other than that, I am happily un-coupled.

    In other words, I don’t like the fact that this is the issue LGBTs decided to latch onto because it means that I have to suffer heartache over something I think is unequal in itself. However, if straights can marry, then so should LGBT folk, so I am forced to give a damn.

  60. 60
    kay says:

    @Lev:

    I disagree too. Divorce. Or die without a will. Or have children, and then divorce. There’s a process available for people who have children and don’t marry, and then can’t agree on raising those children, but no one likes it much, particularly men. No, I’d have to say states have to stay in the marriage business. I don’t see it working. Talk about chaos.
    Anyway, congrats to gay Vermonters. I’m for less chaos. I like an orderly process that’s equitable. In case things don’t go, shall we say, as planned. I don’t say things like this at weddings, by the way. I promise.

  61. 61
    The Other Steve says:

    Now that the sanctity of my own marriage has been destroyed I am forced to agree with Tony Perkins on everything, for he is the Dungeon Master.

  62. 62
    JM says:

    This fact just can not be denied.

    Which one? The one where only wealthy gays are working on this issue, or the ‘fact’ where I’m trying to destroy Democracy?

    I must know!

  63. 63
    gbear says:

    With all this moral fabric constantly being destroyed, you’d think people would invent moral fabric with better wear and tear properties.

    Please, just don’t let it wind up being something that gets used to make bicycle shorts.

  64. 64
    John Cole says:

    @Emma Anne: Government gives everyone civil unions for all the things you listed, churches can bestow the title of marriage.

  65. 65
    Jay B. says:

    This is a slippery slope that will surely lead to a new irresistible Ben and Jerry’s flavor threatening the sanctity of lickin’ between a man and his cone.

    Would you like Chubby Hubby’s Hubby or Girl on Swirl?

  66. 66
    Zifnab says:

    @Stefan:

    Look, it’s quite simple: there are only a limited number of marriage licenses the government makes available. If the gays take them all, then there are no more licenses left and the straights can’t marry the gh3yz will buttsex your kids.

    Not my boy! Not my beautiful baby boy! Oh won’t someone, anyone, save my precious darling from teh buttsex?!

    Liberals make you gay and then the gays sodomize you to death. Then they abort all the fetuses in a brilliant conspiracy to wipe out all life on earth. Also one of the reasons they want to keep everyone from burning coal or eating transfats. They’re trying to destroy America.

  67. 67
    John S. says:

    This is a slippery slope Dublin Mudslide that will surely lead to a new irresistible Ben and Jerry’s flavor threatening the sanctity of lickin’ between a man and his cone Americone Dream.

    Fixed for ice creaminess.

  68. 68
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Zifnab: Relax, you can turn him straight again by letting him take a shower with James Dobson.

  69. 69

    Douglas’ tears are delicious as well.

    "What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

    It’s like a boilermaker of WingTard tears.

    It’s sick that the only way that he can measure value in his life is thru the denial of rights to others. He’s foaming at the mouth over an action that hasn’t changed one atom of his own family’s life, and it’s his own consuming hatred that destroys him and others like him.

    Check the part about Dostis and Kletecka. 25 years without the threat of eternal damnation (or attorney’s fees and alimony payments) to keep them together. I’m convinced stories like these are part of what fuels the frothing by the fundies. Kind of makes the high divorce rates among the TalEvangicals rather … awkward.

  70. 70
    gex says:

    @jake 4 that 1: Well, Douglas could have saved everyone some time by not vetoing the bill. What he considered a waste of time became a big waste of time due to his actions, and his actions alone.

    Of course the point is that the legislature will never have a session where there is literally nothing to do, so voting for gay civil rights will always be a "waste of time."

    What a jerk. (him, obviously, not you).

  71. 71

    This fact just can not be denied.

    I deny it!

    Whew, that was hard work. Time for some ice cream!

  72. 72
    Xenos says:

    Oh, John, I was afraid you were taking the ahistorical TZ line on this. I have clogged up these comment lines ad nauseum about this, but marriage throughout American history has been pretty much entirely civil. The churches started trying to muscle in on the business in the 19th century, but they are full of shite when they claim some sort of important role.

    To restate the legal truism, there are three parties to every marriage: the two spouses and the state. Churches can be brought in, but it is just window dressing for sentiment’s sake.

  73. 73
    Zandar says:

    Please, just don’t let it wind up being something that gets used to make bicycle shorts.

    I was thinking more of unisex ponchos and fanny packs.

  74. 74
    joes527 says:

    @John PM:

    I have no idea what you mean by this statement. I have often wished that religions were not in the marriage business. My ideal would be that everyone who wants to get married has to have a civil service at the time they obtain a marriage license. If the couple then wants to obtain the blessing of their particular religion on the marriage, they can do so.

    It is a pretty straight forward concept an would make a world of sense.

    We could have "Thing X" Which is a legal contract that boils down to issues of shared property and debt, and something like limited power of attorney. (to pre-approve some actions like medical visitation and etc)

    Thing X is a government construct. It implies recognizing rights and responsibilities. It introduces legal issues that need to be considered like: How do you dissolve this contract. And do actions over time imply a "common law" Thing X?

    There is no "Thing X" ceremony or service. You apply for it, pay the processing fees, sign the papers and it happens. (ideally you could do it all on-line)

    Then you could have "Thing Y" Which is about love, and tradition, and everything is beautiful, and nuts and bolts, and "I’ve got mine, so you get nothing" "God love MY, not YOU" and I H8 TEH GEYHS. And … oh hell, it doesn’t really matter what Thing Y is all about, because it doesn’t have _any_ legal definition, and anyone who puts of a shingle "I will pre-approve and perform Thing Y on youse" gets to decide what it means.

    Thing X and Thing Y do not require each other, but they are compatible. (since Thing Y has no legal definition, the government doesn’t care about it at all)

    Now JUST TO MAKE THING EASY, lets call Thing X "Civil Union" and "Thing Y" marriage.

    There is a move in California to solve our problems by doing just that.

  75. 75
    PaulW says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    @AkaDad: Unfortunately, I can’t gaymarry cuz I’m already married.

    Well, you know that the traditionalists are saying that the next thing to go are the polygamy laws, so you can be married and get gaymarried too! Enjoy.

  76. 76
    kay says:

    You have to laugh at conservative Tony Perkins relying on a big, fat federal law trampling all over the traditional state law province of marriage.

    I am just continually disappointed in conservatives and their bogus allegiance to state’s rights. I actually bought it, as a good-faith difference, to a certain extent. It’s just elastic as hell, this bed-rock principle. I feel I’m a better state’s rights advocate than conservatives, at this point. At least I know my limits, and am straight-forward about it.

  77. 77
    Kyle says:

    The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

    I must have missed the part where gay marriage became compulsory for all. Otherwise, who else but a tormented crotch-sniffer would give a shit about someone else’s marriage?

  78. 78
    Paul L. says:

    Now lets work on polygamy.
    I have no problem with Gay Marriage as long as the legislature does it.
    But I am a misogynist who believes marriage is a raw deal for men.

    At the very least, a man should demand his wife take his name in honor of the tremendous sacrifice he’s making by chaining himself to marriage and all the state-sponsored anti-male tyranny that entails.

    So careful what you wish for.
    While on the subject of fairness,
    Any chance now of passing a law to allow men not to pay child support for a child that they can prove is not theirs by DNA testing?
    Do men have any reproductive rights?

  79. 79
    Dork says:

    Relax, you can turn him straight again by letting him take a shower with James Dobson.

    It worked for Reverand Haggard, didn’t it? Wait, what? It didnt? Nevermind.

    Maybe it’s Haggard who "cures" the gheys by showering with them. Hold on a sec….yep…..that’s it.

  80. 80
    The Moar You Know says:

    "What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

    @jake 4 that 1: Hunh. So this is what it takes to make a Republican give a shit about the economy.

  81. 81
    Jon H says:

    @Cris: "3. The fact that this was a veto override makes it even sweeter, because that means it wasn’t just some bare-majority, one-vote-margin thing. Did you see that Senate roll call? 23-5!"

    Real Christian American states have more than 28 Senators.

  82. 82
    Zifnab says:

    @Dork: The problem with Haggard was that he failed to do a sufficient amount of Meth.

  83. 83
    Emma Anne says:

    @John Cole:

    Oh. You want states in the marriage business but you want them to *call* it the domestic partnership business. Why? What do you get by taking away the name states have always used and giving it to the churches instead? I know what you lose: the brazillions of statutes and court cases that use the term marriage are now suspect. But I don’t see what you gain.

    (not married in a church and cranky that someone wants to take "married" away from me)

  84. 84
    Corner Stone says:

    @JM

    Which one? The one where only wealthy gays are working on this issue, or the ‘fact’ where I’m trying to destroy Democracy?

    Isn’t it obvious? I think it should be clear at this point.

  85. 85
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Homonups

    Sounds like a brand of German candy….

  86. 86
    The Moar You Know says:

    @Paul L.: Oh, you’re one of those guys. No wonder you’re so pissy. Ease up and you might get laid.

  87. 87
    gex says:

    @PaulW: This is perhaps the time I can just get one of my pet peeves off my chest.

    Religious fundamentalists will tell you the gays brought on this slippery slope. Do not forget that polygamy existed first and was very common in their tradition according to their inerrant word of God book.

  88. 88
    demkat620 says:

    @Kyle:

    I must have missed the part where gay marriage became compulsory for all.

    Dude, I’ve had 6 gay marriages just this week. And it’s only Tuesday. Didn’t you read the fine print on your liberal card?

  89. 89
    kay says:

    @Paul L.:

    It’s going to be hard, Paul L. but I see your point. "Child of the marriage" goes back a long, long time. Too, the standard is "best interest" and that means the child. I see the unfairness. I just think perhaps you’re oversimplifying and looking for a guilty party, and there isn’t one. They patched it together. I assure you, no one could have planned this mess, or some of the admittedly ridiculous outcomes.

  90. 90
    gbear says:

    Oh man. Sorry Paul. I never realized how victimized you’ve been. Apologies for that and I hope we can do whatever it takes to make you feel whole again.

  91. 91

    @gex: I know, and that’s what makes it doubly laughable (now, last week, not so much). Douglass is too chicken shit to come out (hur) and say he’s against it* so he takes the soft core bigot line and mumbles that this isn’t the right time, there are more important things to do, ask me later. Then to explain his time saving measure of vetoing the bill, he gives us this:

    This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents. Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same sex couples married in Vermont. This bill will not change that fact.

    Got that? He was just concerned that it wasn’t good enough and anyway things are awful outside of Vermont so … uh … I’m not sure wtf his point was. And when his legislature smacks his ass he goes back to whining about the economy.

    When is he up for re-election? I want to watch.

  92. 92

    *I’m assuming he’s against = marriage rights. Hard to tell with this spineless cretin.

  93. 93
    Brandon T. says:

    I’ve suspected this for a long time, after the W. presidency and all, but Perkins’ comment confirms it.

    To conservatives, Democracy is some holy ideal, like the Shroud of Turin or Grandma’s Perfect Living Room, where the actual engagement with or enjoyment of irreparably pollutes it. Hence, the proper treatment for Democracy is to wrap it in plastic, laud it, and let dictators do the dirty work so that the purity of Democracy can be maintained.

  94. 94
    anonevent says:

    @PaulW: And the next battle will be that you can gay marry once, but all other marriages must be heterosexual.

  95. 95
    gex says:

    @jake 4 that 1: Huh. Wonder if he takes this view on all other legislation that happens in Vermont. "Well, if the other 49 states and the Federal government don’t have this same law, we might as well not write it."

  96. 96
    joes527 says:

    @Emma Anne:

    (not married in a church and cranky that someone wants to take "married" away from me)

    The beauty of getting rid of "married" as a legal term is that all you have to do is spill the blood of a black swan at midnight* and you are married again.

    * You can actually substitute any ritual or lack-of-ritual that you want. No one can check up on you.

  97. 97
    joes527 says:

    @joes527: Hmmmm…. Starting a line with a "*" make it look like you are shouting.

  98. 98
    Cris says:

    this space intentionally left blank

  99. 99
    Bulworth says:

    Yeah hate when them activist legislators go on and do that voting thing. Very bad for democracy.

  100. 100
    Kirk Spencer says:

    I’m saving some of my popcorn for Loving v Virginia round two.

    Sooner or later, one of the couples wed (in Iowa or Vermont or where-ever) will be in some state where ‘that ain’t allowed’ and will run afoul of the law. Oh, I don’t think it’ll be criminal. It’ll be civil – something that is the full right of a wife but which gets denied because "In this state, you aren’t married."

    Sadly, my bet is on a death where there isn’t a will, and the blood-family of the dead spouse challenge the probate of the court. It’s happened before even with written wills (which is one of the reasons that argument fails), so I think it highly likely. This time, however, it’ll not get stopped at the state level as a constitutional aspect will be in play.

    Article IV, section I.
    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    Popcorn.

  101. 101
    John S. says:

    (not married in a church and cranky that someone wants to take "married" away from me)

    I wasn’t married in a church, either. I was married here, with the entire wedding party and 90% of the guests dressed in renaissance garb. My mother-in-law, who is a notary public, performed the service. I had to file paperwork with the county to make everything legitimate. Religious institutions had FUCK ALL to do with any of it.

    Of course, nobody is trying to take away my marriage since my spouse is of the opposite sex.

  102. 102

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    Same here, as it is the root of the "problem." Government will get out of the marriage business when politicians calculate that they no longer have, or maybe need, marriage as a wedge issue to manipulate people. Because on that day, all appearance of necessity for government to be in that business will disappear.

    Meanwhile, question ……. back in the old days there was an "amazon donate to the blog" link on the front page. Does that still exist and I just can’t find it, or did it go away? That was the easiest donatin’ gadget and I’d be glad to use it once in a while if it were there.

  103. 103
    Xenos says:

    @joes527: It may sound like a nice compromise to you, but what you are proposing is a much more radical legal change that expanding marital rights to same-sex partners. There would be a lot of unintended consequences.

    It would also make my marriage into a civil union. That would really, really piss me off, and could cause all sorts of legal trouble for me and my family. Would this retroactively revoke my wife’s green card?

    There was a notorious act of parliament in the 18th century that dissolved the Presbyterian marriages in Northern Ireland, effectively bastardizing a whole generation of children. That is pretty much what you are threatening to do to the children of atheists and of people who choose to keep the church out of their wedding ceremony.

  104. 104
    Josh Hueco says:

    Forgive me if this has been mentioned upthread, but perhaps Tony Perkins can recruit guys like this to help Defend Marriage(tm)

    Mmmmm…Hypocrisy…NOM NOM NOM

  105. 105
    Kirk Spencer says:

    re marriage – I wish to note that there are more than a few longstanding places where civil and religious law exist already, even on marriage.

    Consider divorce. The catholic church does not recognize divorce. It’s not the only sect to have this, but it’s the best known. With a few exceptions (usually purchased, pardon my cynicism) a person who’s had a divorce cannot get remarried by a priest.

    A base problem, probably irresoluble but certainly representative of John’s issue, is that civil and religious marriages are not the same thing. There are many, many rights and assumptions that are the result of civil marriage over which religious belief has zero authority. The reverse is equally true. It’s unfortunate but unlikely to change anytime soon that both are "marriage".

  106. 106
    chuck says:

    I think Tony Perkins’ real problem is that he’s starting to realize that there are millions and millions and millions of people who don’t actually care if Tony Perkins disapproves of them.

  107. 107

    Same here, as it is the root of the "problem." Government will get out of the marriage business when politicians calculate that they no longer have, or maybe need, marriage as a wedge issue to manipulate people ^the moon and sun collide with Uranus because every marriage license represents money in the state or county coffers.

    Fxd.

    If people really want to screw with the elected defenders of traditional marriage, start insisting the government shouldn’t charge people to exercise their God-protected right to marry. I’m sure someone smarter than me could make an argument that it isn’t Constitutional.

    Or we could just hope these folks get a bigger megaphone.

  108. 108
    Mayken says:

    @Emma Anne: Thanks, for that. I’ve said it before in different forums: I am married, not civilly unioned or domestically partnered and they can have my marriage license when they pry it from my cold dead hands. I refuse to concede the word marriage, which has had civil connotations in the English language since at least the middle ages, to the religious wrong. I think we are all grown up enough to understand that an institution can have secular and religious connotations without falling apart as a society. It’s been done for centuries.

  109. 109
    Xenos says:

    @Kirk Spencer:

    The reverse is equally true. It’s unfortunate but unlikely to change anytime soon that both are "marriage".

    I know I am getting tiresome, but they are not both "marriage". If the state permits a marriage, then whether the agent of the state who solemnizes the marriage is purely secular or is also holding clerical credentials is irrelevant.

    The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints likes to perform "spiritual marriages" so that its elders may fool 14 year old girls into polygamous relationships. That is the only example of a purely religious marriage that anyone claims the right to perform, and it is clearly fraudulent.

  110. 110
    slag says:

    Sweet, sweet FRC tears.

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    Agreed and agreed.

  111. 111
    torrentprime says:

    I’m doing backflips over VT and DC today, but looking back at my own sad Golden state… Boy, is the CA Supreme Court going to look stupid when it de-legalizes same-sex marriage. Even though it was a vote of the people that did the deed, the legal case will be in a category with Dred Scott (ok, hyperbole) when the CA Supremes uphold Prop 8 and take rights away from a minority group and send them back down to the minors with legally-validated oppressed status. I hope they’re ready for the place in history they’re going to earn. And although I don’t think they have the courage to follow the Prop through to its (cruelly) logical conclusion, can you imagine if they also forcibly divorced 18,000 couples… Boo.

  112. 112
    AkaDad says:

    Now that we have gay marriage in Massachusetts, I’ve become physically attracted to dogs and cats. See what you’ve started!

  113. 113
    Michael D. says:

    @Chris Johnson:

    As a bisexual Vermonter who has been boinked by other men I’d just like to say BUAHAHAHAA WOOHOO! ROCK! GO VERMONT! :D

    Jesus dude, do you need to rub your homosexuality/bisexuality in our faces!!!

    Fun tho, ain’t it??

  114. 114
    TenguPhule says:

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    Better them then the churches.

  115. 115
    Kirk Spencer says:

    @Xenos:

    I know I am getting tiresome, but they are not both "marriage". If the state permits a marriage, then whether the agent of the state who solemnizes the marriage is purely secular or is also holding clerical credentials is irrelevant.

    No, not tiresome. I think, however, you’re missing the point.

    The state permits a marriage, which has specific civil (legal) connotations and aspects. It allows many people to sign off on this event, some of whom are religious. These religious people ALSO happen to have something called a marriage, which they do simultaneously. This marriage – religious marriage – grants no civil (legal) rights, but does grant rewards and recognitions peculiar to that marriage.

    In other words, I agree with you that ‘who solemnizes’ is irrelevant. HOWEVER, there are other events which are also called marriage which, though in the eyes of the law irrelevant, have widespread cultural and community recognition. To dismiss this relevance would be strategically foolish.

  116. 116
    TenguPhule says:

    Unfortunately, I can’t gaymarry cuz I’m already married.

    Harems are next.

  117. 117

    the moon and sun collide with Uranus because every marriage license represents money in the state or county coffers.

    Oh no, quite wrong. There is no way that the fees for those licenses cover the administrative costs. In my jurisdiction, I would guesstimate that the fees don’t even cover 30% of the costs. And a marriage license is like a birth certificate, it’s forever. They are stored and kept available forever.

    You would be amazed at the amount of work that the marriage license represents to the issuing authority. Taxpayers are getting ripped big time by this nonsense.

  118. 118
    TenguPhule says:

    Now JUST TO MAKE THING EASY, lets call Thing X "Civil Union" and "Thing Y" marriage.

    Or better yet let’s call X "marriage" and Y "Bigot Fucking".

  119. 119
    EriktheRed says:

    “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."

    Because it’s only "democracy" when the majority of a state votes for things we approve of, like denying others’ the priveleges we have because they’re of a different religious belief and/or sexual orientation.

  120. 120
    Max says:

    Yay Vermont! Yay equal rights!

  121. 121
    joes527 says:

    @TenguPhule:
    meh.

    If this whole argument is REALY, REALLY, REALLY about the word and not about rights, then getting enough people on your side to care at all is going to be quite a trick.

    In my original post I didn’t not mean to imply that the-thing-called-marriage was anti-gay, merely that marriage becomes a word that means whatever the speaker means it to mean. For some it will mean love and for some it will mean hate. Welcome to the human race.

  122. 122
    joes527 says:

    @Xenos:

    It would also make my marriage into a civil union. That would really, really piss me off, and could cause all sorts of legal trouble for me and my family. Would this retroactively revoke my wife’s green card?

    Nope. on both counts.

    It would not make your marriage into a civil union. It would make your existing marriage license into a grandfathered equivalent to the new civil union contracts used from this point on. Whether you are still "married" is a question for your minister/cult leader/bartender. They are free to insist that you are or aren’t married and you are free to agree with them or not.

    Also, Immigration law is clearly on the side of contracts, so the new civil unions (which you will be automatically grandfathered into) will be treated as marriage has been treated in the past.

    I’m fudging here. Yes, this implies a HUGE shift in the laws, and would actually be quite difficult. (even though it really just boils down to a global find and replace "civil union" for "marriage" in the law books (plus, probably a culling of laws that end up making no sense when we realize that civil unions aren’t about institutionalizing religion))

    But we have made a major goof in this country in using marriage to inject religious belief into contract law. This is going to be hard to walk back no matter which way we go.

  123. 123
    Fax Paladin says:

    Allow me to decode "wealthy homosexual activists" for you: "Only my side should be allowed to pour megabucks into a state to sway a gay-rights decision."

  124. 124
    D-Chance. says:

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    You wish to deny the gubmint their right to collect those marriage license fees in a time of recession?

  125. 125
    Ash says:

    Government gives everyone civil unions for all the things you listed, churches can bestow the title of marriage.

    I still don’t get it. Are you just being nitpicky about semantics? I don’t know, I’m not religious, I have no clue how this stuff works, does the word "marriage" really matter that fucking much to these people?

  126. 126
    joeyess says:

    Hey, you don’t think that Tony and his buddies in the Jebusiness would take this opportunity to fundraise, do you?

  127. 127
    jl says:

    @121 joes527:
    I’m no lawyer, but I hope you are correct. I agree the mingling of religious and civil functions of civil unions has been a huge mistake. Or maybe mistake is not the right word, since nearly every country has the legacy of religiously sanctioned state authority. It is more like an outdated remnant that is causing serious problems.
    I hope the U.S. can put the remnants of that behinds us and start with the grandfathering and ‘find and replace.’

  128. 128
    RAM says:

    I still, btw, wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business.

    Government has always been in the marriage business. With religion, it’s been sort of off and on. Marriage is a legal contract, something generations of genealogists have come to thank their lucky stars for because marriage records are a LOT more common than either death or birth records. The Puritans, those pilgrims we like to recognize at Thanksgiving time, prohibited church weddings because they considered it a secular bit of contract law and not suitable for church. Actually, we’d be a lot better off if only government and not religion was in the marriage business.

  129. 129

    Jesus dude, do you need to rub your homosexuality/bisexuality in our faces

    That’s the other type of teabagging.

  130. 130
    JWW says:

    And in a short paragragh,

    Tell me what you really know about Vermont. Before you answer, just to let you know, you would couldn’t even decipher what a true Vermont peron was saying, without an interpreter. So be as happy as you can be(without knowing a damn thing).

  131. 131
    Ash Can says:

    @jake 4 that 1: the moon and sun collide with my what?

  132. 132

    @toujoursdan:

    We, in the province of BC, say "Welcome to equality for everyone. It sure feels great eh?"

    You know, I was raised Anglican, and I don’t understand the big issue. Make it legal, 100% same as heterosexual marriages, and then leave the option for churches to opt out if they don’t want to be a part. Then those who want to get married can, and those who oppose it can look the other way.

    For those like Tony Perkins whining about the "sanctity of marriage", here are things I consider a "threat" to same-sex marriage: people who don’t marry for love, people who marry for convenience, people who marry because they got pregnant before they were ready, people who marry way too young and/or before they’re emotionally and psychologically ready, and so on. Homosexual marriage has -nothing- to do with the sanctity of marriage.

    /same-sex marriage legal in BC since 2003, and in Canada since 2005.

  133. 133
    Person of Choler says:

    Speaking as a certified (and perhaps certifiable) wingnut, I’m perfectly satisfied that the gay marriage issue was settled by Vermont’s elected representatives rather than having it rammed up the Sullivan Orifice of its citizens by the judiciary.

  134. 134
    Scruffy McSnufflepuss says:

    This is great news for McCain!

  135. 135
    Scruffy McSnufflepuss says:

    "What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

    And how many of those thousand were state employees YOU laid off, you fucking hypocritical piece of shit?

  136. 136
    Cerberus says:

    Um to the civil union people. That’s great and all, but this may shock you to learn, but the wingnuts were lying about how important the term was to them. These people hate any recognition of gay rights and there isn’t a meaningful difference between opposition to civil unions and full marriage. At best, the one will pass about 5 years before the other, but these days, it’s probably closer to 2.

    The Iowa senate leader had a great quote from his daughter. "You don’t get it. You have already lost. My generation does not care." The younger generation doesn’t care and the demographics are such that full marriage rights are rapidly becoming a no-brainer issue on par with segregation. That’s why the religious right are flailing about civil union partnerships and the like. They are trying to buy a handful of years before the free money train dries up and they have to resort to code-words like the racists.

    The younger generation also gets it as far as civil marriage. I’ve been to a handful of weddings among peers and acquaintances and not one was in a church. I’ve gone to beach services, Renn Faire services, stood security at a Comic Con service, gone to services at the State House and at small performing spaces in the honeymoon resort they chose. Not one was in a Church. If they used a pastor, it was only because it would cost more to bring a Justice of Peace in and most just had friends get the one whacky church certificate that lets you preside over weddings as an ordained minister. My parents themselves got married in their backyard. To us, marriage has always been about love over Church and as such the religious trying to claim not only ownership, but specific ownership (guess Synagogues and UU Churches don’t count as religious) to a term that has always been civil is stupid.

    And it would be heinous to sell out anything to these thugs when we’re so readily winning. The only people who care are old. It will pass, slowly or quickly and with a million people suddenly claiming they marched in the post-8 protests and the like rather than fighting for stupid obvious discrimination.

    Also, for those who hate marriage, it’s what’s necessary to advance the idea that queer lives have as much value as a Christian or heterosexual life. That’s why Tony hates the idea so much. He’ll no longer be better than everyone by being successfully closeted or by praying to the right God.

  137. 137
    Persia says:

    @JWW:

    If we live here, do we count? Because I swear people can read my posts.

  138. 138
    Corner Stone says:

    @ # 137
    Wha?..who said that?

  139. 139
    Adam C says:

    @joes527

    Why on Earth can’t we call Thing X "marriage" and Thing Y "religious union" (or even "covenant marriage")? It’s a heck of a lot simpler.

    I really do not understand this desire to cede the title of "marriage" to organized religion. It doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to the people.

  140. 140
    Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan says:

    " Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,”

    And it will take exactly 0.2 seconds for Perkins to change his views on the virtues of defining marriage at the ballot box when California voters overturn Prop. 8 next year.

  141. 141
    Cris says:

    @JWW: Tell me what you really know about Vermont. Before you answer, just to let you know, you would couldn’t even decipher what a true Vermont peron was saying, without an interpreter. So be as happy as you can be(without knowing a damn thing).

    I’m certainly having trouble deciphering what you’re saying.

  142. 142
    paul says:

    the issue of gay marriage will not go away until straights stop giving birth to gay folk.

Comments are closed.