Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

stevenb said:

Of course they aren't, this paves the way for no less than the following:

• Polygamy will be here to stay.
• Marrying farm animals, or other animals will happen. GUARANTEED.
• What about guy friends who get married just for the benefits?
• God disapproves of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah keep laughing at the polygamy argument....just keep an eye on the Muslim population in America while you do

It won't be white pedophile cultists in Idaho making the argument from their compound.

Jerry said:

Yeah keep laughing at the polygamy argument....just keep an eye on the Muslim population in America while you do

Click to expand...

Isn't that what Christians are for?

The Jovial One said:

The tide is beginning to turn. More and more states are starting to realize that denying basic rights to some means NO one is free.

Click to expand...

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Cardinal said:

That seems kind of odd to me. Of the hot-button topics in America today, that seems like an obvious one to take up. Either rule that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional or officially declare that it's up to the states. What are they waiting for?

Click to expand...

They want individual states to solve their own problem........I don't believe its as big a problem as you made it......Most states have shot it down...............President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act which was almost approved unanimously...............Obama is even against it...........Only a couple of states have approved it............

Cardinal said:

I understand that, but surely some case are on their way to the Supreme Court?

I found this article on a quick google search, and it vaguely insinuates that such cases have reached the SCOTUS, but that the court refused to take it.



FACTBOX: U.S. laws on gay marriage, civil unions | U.S. | Reuters

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has indirectly addressed the issue, but it held no legal value. This is from a previous post of mine:

I believe that when the Supreme Court is faced with the issue of same-sex marriage, with the current make-up of the Court, it will rule in favor of it.

The last significant ruling on gay rights was with Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (Regarding homosexuals in general): "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Justice Kennedy: "In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'"

Six justices signed onto the majority in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. Only one justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote a separate concurring opinion stating the government had a right to regulate marriage. All five justices who signed the majority, without the concurrence, are still on the Court (Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsgurg).

LAWRENCE ET AL. v. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Navy Pride said:

I don't believe activist partisan judges be they democrats or republicans should over rule the will of the people............You state got it right by changing the constitution............If you want to change it start another referendun......That is the way we do it in this country.....The will of the people...........

Click to expand...

Never ending referendums?

So you believe that Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote?

disneydude said:

So you believe that Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote?

Click to expand...

Do you believe Constitutional rights can be established (or disestablished) with a popular vote?

If so, you are mistaken.

celticlord said:

Do you believe Constitutional rights can be established (or disestablished) with a popular vote?

If so, you are mistaken.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that they can, which is why referendums such as Prop 8 should be struck down. Constitutional rights should not be establish or disestablished with a popular vote.
Sounds like you agree.

disneydude said:

I don't believe that they can, which is why referendums such as Prop 8 should be struck down. Constitutional rights should not be establish or disestablished with a popular vote.
Sounds like you agree.

Click to expand...

Do not assume about what I agree or disagree.

Do you believe that, as an operation of law, Constitutional rights can be established or disestablished by a popular vote--by a simple 50% +1 majority?

celticlord said:

Do not assume about what I agree or disagree.

Do you believe that, as an operation of law, Constitutional rights can be established or disestablished by a popular vote--by a simple 50% +1 majority?

Click to expand...

Again...I don't believe that they should. I personally believe that it should be decided by the courts and the legislature. If the Court makes a finding the something violates the Constitution, it should take a 2/3rds majority of the legislature to pass an amendment. That ensures the safeguards that the separation of powers intended.

Referendums such as prop 8 that put Constitutional rights to a popular vote are ridiculous and bypass the safeguards intended by the separation of powers.

So, bottom line answer to your question: As many of our states operate now, yes Constitutional rights can be established or dis-established by a 50%+1 popular vote (at least in California). Should it be this way? Absolutely not.

Jerry said:

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it is or is not. Unless you can legally demonstrate how allowing gays and lesbians to marry each other actually impedes your personal liberties, its nothing but a tyranny of the majority for you to deny them the ability to do so.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It doesn't matter if it is or is not. Unless you can legally demonstrate how allowing gays and lesbians to marry each other actually impedes your personal liberties, its nothing but a tyranny of the majority for you to deny them the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against gay-marriage. I'm only pointing out that it's not a civil rights issue.

Things like facts and truth matter to me, apparently no for pro-gm, though...whatever gets them what they want.

Alex said:

So now Vermont has legalized same-sex marriage by way of the legislator. It could be argued that Massachusetts was the first to do this because they voted against a bill defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but that was after a court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. This is the first time I am aware of that the actual issue of same-sex marriage has been addressed in a legislative way and approved.

For all of the debaters who said the court system was the wrong way to this, now it is done the way you wanted it.

Are you fine with it?

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

Click to expand...

I think it's awesome. I'm pissed that the Dems in the NY state legislature are being such ******s about it. They were in the minority for years and had a republican governor, so they used that as an excuse for why they couldn't get legislation passed. They ran on a gay marriage platform, and they now have majorities and a democrat governor. They need to get off their asses and follow through.

disneydude said:

Constitutional rights should never be put to a popular vote. That is the issue the California Supreme Court is looking at right now.
Do you believe that all Constitutional Rights should be subject to a 50% +1 popular vote?

Click to expand...

Gay marriage isn't a constitutional right.

Cardinal said:

I understand that, but surely some case are on their way to the Supreme Court?

I found this article on a quick google search, and it vaguely insinuates that such cases have reached the SCOTUS, but that the court refused to take it.

FACTBOX: U.S. laws on gay marriage, civil unions | U.S. | Reuters

Click to expand...

There are literally thousands of cert petitions filed with the SC each year, so they can only take about 1% of them. They won't take a case unless they think that there's a ripe issue that should be decided. It doesn't seem like the issue is ready yet.

Jerry said:

I'm not arguing against gay-marriage. I'm only pointing out that it's not a civil rights issue.

Things like facts and truth matter to me, apparently no for pro-gm, though...whatever gets them what they want.

Click to expand...

I disagree with it "not being a civil rights" issue. Gays may not be an ethnic or racial minority, they are a different class of minority whose rights have been trampled on for centuries. You do not choose to be gay. It is not a lifestyle choice.

They should not be denied any of the rights enjoyed by others.

RightinNYC said:

Gay marriage isn't a constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Loving vs. Virginia does deem marriage a right however. And that was a SCOTUS case.

celticlord said:

Do not assume about what I agree or disagree.

Do you believe that, as an operation of law, Constitutional rights can be established or disestablished by a popular vote--by a simple 50% +1 majority?

Click to expand...

Constitutions should only be used to regulate the government, not the people.

The Jovial One said:

I disagree with it "not being a civil rights" issue.

Click to expand...

That's nice, but you're wrong, so I don't care :2razz: :2wave:

If gays were merely given something heteros already had, then why did heteros gain something with this ruling?

The only way this could have been a civil right issue is if there were nearly as many heteros fighting to marry someone of the same gender as gays.

Look at Loving. You have whites and blacks fighting for it. Not so with gay marriage. It's the equivalent to only blacks fighting to marry whites, but no whites fighting to marry blacks.

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Jerry said:

I'm not arguing against gay-marriage. I'm only pointing out that it's not a civil rights issue.
.

Click to expand...

If a woman can do something a man can not do like marry a man or a man can do something a woman can not do like marry a woman it is a civil rights issue under the law. Equal protection and all.

winston53660 said:

If a woman can do something a man can not do like marry a man or a man can do something a woman can not do like marry a woman it is a civil rights issue under the law. Equal protection and all.

Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one had the right to marry someone of the same gender: everything was already equal.

To prove my point: Everyone in Virginia are all still bound to every restriction that everyone else in Virginia is. It's still equal. It hasn't become equal, it's still equal, that hasn't changed.

Therefore gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

stevenb said:

Of course they aren't, this paves the way for no less than the following:

• Polygamy will be here to stay. SO, HOW DOES THIS EFFECT YOU?
• Marrying farm animals, or other animals will happen. GUARANTEED. GUARANTEED? YOU'LL BECOME GAY NOW, GUARANTEED.
• What about guy friends who get married just for the benefits? WHAT BENEFITS AND IF TRUE HOW DOES THIS EFFECT YOU?
• God disapproves of it. THEN LET GOD TELL US ALL THAT HE DISAPPROVES, NOT JUST SOMEONE MORE THAN 2000 YEARS AGO.

Click to expand...

Farm animals... BWAHAHAHA... stop projecting.

Jerry said:

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender and no one had the right to marry someone of the same gender: everything was already equal.

To prove my point: Everyone in Virginia are all still bound to every restriction that everyone else in Virginia is. It's still equal. It hasn't become equal, it's still equal, that hasn't changed.

Therefore gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Click to expand...

Equal doesn't always mean it's not a civil rights issue. I can say blacks can't marry whites. That's equal. Black people can marry black people, white people can marry white people; but they can't marry each other. But that's a civil rights issue because you are discriminating on the basis of race. I'm sure there's not many people who would say that barring interracial marriage is right because we've been brought up trying to rid ourselves of such racism. But it still exists with homosexuality. A man can love a woman and those two can get married. But if a man loves a man, those two can not get married, and hence you've discriminated. Everyone may be held to the same standard, but it doesn't make it just or not a rights issue. This is due mostly to the two situations not being equal. You are saying two people who love each other can enter into a contract because they are male and female, but two people who love each other can not enter into that same contract if the are male and male.

In fact, it goes well deeper than civil rights and talks to innate an inalienable rights. Marriage is a State contract, it comes with automatic benefits and powers which are beneficial for married people. Hospital visitation, property issues, tax issues, etc. There are many reasons why people wish to engage in the contract of marriage. But you are infringing upon the innate and inalienable right to contract by denying two same sex couples from forging this State recognized, legal contract whereas you will allow two opposite sex couples to engage in this State recognized, legal contract no questions asked. You either destroy the marriage license, or you allow same sex couples equal access to it. Those are the only two rightful solutions.

Jerry said:

That's nice, but you're wrong, so I don't care :2razz: :2wave:

If gays were merely given something heteros already had, then why did heteros gain something with this ruling?

The only way this could have been a civil right issue is if there were nearly as many heteros fighting to marry someone of the same gender as gays.

Look at Loving. You have whites and blacks fighting for it. Not so with gay marriage. It's the equivalent to only blacks fighting to marry whites, but no whites fighting to marry blacks.

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Click to expand...

Here's your comment, altered to show how silly it is.

If blacks were merely given something whites already had, then why did whites gain something with this ruling?

The only way this could have been a civil right issue is if there were nearly as many whites fighting to marry someone of the same race as blacks.

Click to expand...

There are MANY straights fighting for the rights of gays to marry. I am one of them. It is a civil rights issue.

We all win when justice prevails for everyone.

Maybe I need to be a bit more visual...

Both heteros and gays gained the ability to marry someone of the same gender. Gays did not get anything that heteros already had, and heteros did not stay the same while gay's rights increased. They each got the same right, the same wait was placed on each side.

If marriage rights were unbalanced/unequal before...



...then since each side got the same wait added, marriage rights are still unequal now.


======
However, if marriage rights are equal now...



..then since each side was missing the same amount of wait before, marriage rights were equal then, too.

Before AND after, the scales look the same, therefore gay-marriage is not a civil right issue.


***
Do I need to expand further? When women got the right to vote, men got nothing. Something was added only to one side of the scale….

The Jovial One said:

Here's your comment, altered to show how silly it is.

There are MANY straights fighting for the rights of gays to marry. I am one of them. It is a civil rights issue.

We all win when justice prevails for everyone.

Click to expand...

THAT'S MY POINT!!! :lol:

Where are the heteros fighting for the right of heteros to marry other heteros of the same gender?

I wasn't talking about heteros fighting for some other group, I was talking about heteros fighting for themselves.

Jerry said:

Maybe I need to be a bit more visual...

Both heteros and gays gained the ability to marry someone of the same gender. Gays did not get anything that heteros already had, and heteros did not stay the same while gay's rights increased. They each got the same right, the same wait was placed on each side.

If marriage rights were unbalanced/unequal before...

...then since each side got the same wait added, then marriage rights are still unequal now.


======
However, if marriage rights are equal now...

..then since each side was missing the same amount of wait, marriage rights were equal then, too.

Before AND after, the scales look the same, therefore gay-marriage is not a civil right issue.


***
Do I need to expand further? When women got the right to vote, men got nothing. Something was added only to one side of the scale….

Click to expand...

I must be missing your point.

Without the right to marry, gays don't have a weight on the scale like straights do. By giving gays the right to marry, it balances the scale.