Daylife/AP Photo
|
The Vermont Legislature today overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering one more vote than needed to preserve the measure.
Approval had been expected in the Senate, where the vote was 23 to 5. But the outcome in the House of Representatives was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. In the end the vote was 100 to 49, just slightly more than the required two-thirds majority of members present.
After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.
“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”
Vermont is now the first state where the legislature deemed same-sex marriages legal – rather than letting the courts take the political heat from the holier-than-thou crowd.
#40 Olo Fag of Bywater said “blah blah blah”
So let me see if I have this correct – you approve, no endorse two guys sticking their dingus up each others butt then accuse others of having issues. Sounds freaky to me and with such a perverted endorsement I’d say any accusations of issues should be directed towards you.
Phydeau, I’m gay, so you can pretty much throw your attempt to throw me into the category of people who say homosexuality is immoral in the trash.
To be perfectly clear, homosexuality is just an expression, much like words. I’m all for gay unions, equal benefits to couples who join in unions/marriages, if that’s what a couple, or truple, or quadruple wants, but I am not for using the term marriage for gays. The simple word marriage is for straights who by the way they were manufactured or evolved or what have you, can in most cases, create new life. If gays can’t accept that they are NOT COMPLETELY EQUAL to straight couples, they are either stupid, egomaniacs (Rosie is one good example). Gay couples are not 100% equal to straight couples because they cannot make human beings in such a union whatsoever, so their “equality” argument is not on par with that of other civil rights matters.
May I remind anyone interested, my point as a gay dude is that gay unions be called “unions”, not “marriage”.
When gay couples make babies by having sex, let me know, then we can revisit this equality matter and start fighting over a word in a way that matters.
#42 Tele, well, I’m gay and I say throw your ass back in the trash. Calling yourself gay neither makes you more of a spokesperson for the gay community nor the final word on the definition of marriage.
Your point about “..my point as a gay dude..” makes you even more suspect as a liar hiding behind an alias in addition to being a moron.
A more concerning issue is the redefinition of a word (marriage) that has 6000 years of human history to define its lexical meaning as a man+woman in marital union.
If a judge can change the meaning of a word that has consistent meaning over centuries throughout the earth, what other words are safe…
While you left loons will rejoice about this, thinking judges will now legalize every sexual perversion under the sun…and make free speech rights of conservatives illegal…
Pendulums swing both ways…and the massive power you loons gave Government to redefine anything they like probably will bite you when we take over in 2012…when we are the ones to decide what perversions you will be free to practice, or not…after the public reacts to Obama and Democratic Congress’ destruction of our economy, and puts us back in charge of the power you gave to Big government.
However, we have too much integrity to do to you what you are doing to us…so its more likely we will only undo the unconstitutional crap you gents generated…
#44–Alfie the befuddled==you do know this thread is about the people thru their elected representatives OVERRIDING a pandering repuglican religious wingnut to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexuals?
It has nothing to do with judges at all. Thats all in your fetid imagination==as are most things. But your ability to flex and receive new information is once again displayed.
We prolife people ought to thank the liberal loons for showing us the way…
In 2010 both houses will again be Republican or Third Party Conservative…
We will then elect judges who will redefine words to our liking…
Just as the meaning of marriage came to include all sorts of unions of flesh…
We can change the meaning of “fetus” to mean child in every instance…and thereby all abortion becomes murder.
We can change the meaning of “tenured” so that it only means “employed” and get rid of all liberal loon professors infesting our schools.
Affirmative action would become Government affirming merit, not race ect, as determinative for Government contracts ect.
Fairness would again mean we are all treated equally, not some given checks while the money to pay for the checks is STOLEN (taxed) from the middle and rich class.
I’m certain conservatives can think of a whole range of words now given a liberal meaning, that must be changed
“Legislature legalizes same-sex marriage – again!”
Why again? What happened the last time the legislature passed a law redefining marriage in Vermont?
# 45 bobbo said, on April 8th, 2009 at 5:13 am
#44–Alfie the befuddled==you do know this thread is about the people thru their elected representatives OVERRIDING a pandering repuglican religious wingnut to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexuals?
It has nothing to do with judges at all. Thats all in your fetid imagination==as are most things. But your ability to flex and receive new information is once again displayed.
In California (and other states), activist judges override our legislative intent.
You must think yourself a wit when you call me Alfie and your opponents wingnuts etc…
You are half right.
#46 Alfie –
Except for 2010, I (we) agree those are your intents if elected into office!
#44, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
So what word are the judges changing the meaning for?
mar·ry
v. mar·ried, mar·ry·ing, mar·ries
v.tr.
1.
a. To join as spouses by exchanging vows.
b. To take as a spouse.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: “His material marries the domestic and the exotic” Clifton Fadiman.
v.intr.
1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties.
2. To combine or blend agreeably:
Seems there are enough definitions to make this the correct word for two people in love to join together.
#50
Webster
marriage
Function: noun
Etymology: M.E. mariage,
Date: 14th century
marriage the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
A more concerning issue is the redefinition of a word (marriage) that has 6000 years of human history to define its lexical meaning as a man+woman in marital union.
Wrong. For one thing, many societies have defined marriage as one man and many women. And how do you know that at some point during the last 6000 years gay couples haven’t lived together in relationships recognized as marriage? You don’t, you’re only going on your prejudice. And since homosexual behavior is prevalent in the animal kingdom (See “Biological Exuberance” at Amazon) it’s certain that homosexuality has existed in humans forever. And yet, society hasn’t crumbled. How about that.
# 52 Phydeau said, “And since homosexual behavior is prevalent in the animal kingdom…”
In the animal kingdom so is infanticide, “murder”, fratricide, theft, etc., etc… So, you want to use animal behavior to determine what is acceptable human behavior? Yes, or no?
# 52 Phydeau said “a great big funny”
What a knee slapper! So now you’re trying to justify your particular brand of perversion by comparing homosexuality to animal behavior. Holy crap, talking about a blind squirrel finding a nut! I would write more but I can’t top laughing at you.
Where was your outrage when they redefined icon?
And hey you suckin’ Obama…crawl back under your rock.
38 Hugh
The most famous “gay” penguin I know about…
Gay Penguin Leaves Lover
But it all ended when a new female penguin was introduced to the area. Silo has now built a nest with her, leaving Roy to raise their chick.
http://tinyurl.com/dxsst7
Next you’re going to tell me dogs that hump your leg is proof of the natural beauty of inter-species sex.
RBG
#54, ILove Obama said,
I hope a squirrel finds my nuts
Ten thousand comedians out of work and you’re trying to be funny. Don’t give up your day job standing outside Home Depot waiting for the boss to show.
#53 Paddy O’Troll, we’ve already gone over this in threads about homosexuality. It’s been explained to you. Go troll elsewhere. Shoo.
#54 Anti-gay bigots have for a long time criticized homosexuals for engaging in “unnatural” behavior. I’m just pointing out to you that it is very natural. If that makes you feel squicky, deal with it, pal.
#56 You are absolutely right. That penguin wasn’t gay… he was bisexual. Totally different.
# 58 Phydeau said, “we’ve already gone over this in threads about homosexuality.”
Okay, so you do think that because animals do something it is okay for people also. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. If someone murders you, remember it is okay because animals do it too.
#57 Fusion said “Ten thousand comedians out of work and you’re trying to be funny.”
You’re complaining to the audience, talk to Phydeau about playing Letterman. What the hell is a Phydeau anyway French for lawnmower head.