Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Franzl]

It should get at least 25 votes out of 30.

I just wanna say, that the bill just passed the state senate by a vote of 26 to 4. I was a little too conservative with my prediction.

You beat me by two minutes.

Did you watch the vote/debate? It was really great.

And I just wanna say, funny thing, 4 Republicans voted for this, as opposed to 3 who didn't. The majority of senate Republicans support marriage equality in Vermont.

Yeah, I was watching it over at Burlington Free Press.

The one Democrat who voted against this was Bobby Starr of Essex. What is it with people named Starr and being against gay marriage?

I only worry about what Douglas will do. Do the Dems have enough votes in the House to override a potential veto? Will the fact that the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill influence his decision?

Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, but he didn't say that he would veto it.
With margins like that, a veto would be futile, so it's highly unlikely that he will use it.

After all, it's not like he has presidential ambitions.

Do you think the House will also pass it by a veto proof margin? I don't know.

Somehow I think Douglas will sign it, though.

[Franzl]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Look...no offense, seriously, I don't want to attack you personally.....

But what kind of garbage is that? How does your opinion of what God believes or demands have any effect on what the government should allow or not allow?

And concerning the bolded part, how does government recognition of gay marriage have a negative effect on churches? No church is forced to recognize any marriage they don't wish to. Likewise, any church can let anybody marry as well. That's the whole point of the seperation of church and state.

Forgive me, but what the Bible says about gay marriage doesn't interest me at all, at least concerning what government policy should be.

You can read your Bible and believe every word it says for all I care. That's great. It's good you have something to believe in and you should continue believing whatever you like, but why do people think they have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the population?

(Sorry for this Had to be said.)

[Franzl]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways.  People don't want the Church stepping on the state's toes, but the State has NO right to EVER step on the church's toes.  The BIBLE says marriage is between a man and a woman not between man and man or woman and woman.  Forgive me for being conservative about this, but I believe God's Word stands forever and cannot and will not be trampled on by the state.  God's Word (the Bible) is ultimately higher than any government document.  So, even if the constitution is amended or state laws or changed, God's Word will still supercede that and will ultimately prevail.

Look...no offense, seriously, I don't want to attack you personally.....

But what kind of garbage is that? How does your opinion of what God believes or demands have any effect on what the government should allow or not allow?

And concerning the bolded part, how does government recognition of gay marriage have a negative effect on churches? No church is forced to recognize any marriage they don't wish to. Likewise, any church can let anybody marry as well. That's the whole point of the seperation of church and state.

Forgive me, but what the Bible says about gay marriage doesn't interest me at all, at least concerning what government policy should be.

You can read your Bible and believe every word it says for all I care. That's great. It's good you have something to believe in and you should continue believing whatever you like, but why do people think they have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the population?

(Sorry for this Had to be said.)

Maybe I was a little over the top, and I apologize if I offended anybody.  What people believe is their own prerogative (sp?).  Seriously, I wouldn't dream of forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, I just want to lovingly and gently feed it to them if they so desire.  This previous post really didn't express that too well and I apologize.  I also need to learn to just let go and let God be in control.  Sometimes, I feel this urge to have to "defend" God rather than just being his witness and letting Him take control.  God is big enough to defend himself and defend me, in the process.  I am weak, but He is strong.

That's ok, but you didn't get my point. (I think.)

How does state recognition of gay marriage have anything to do with churches? They're not being forced to recognize any marriages they don't want to. Don't you think that's fair, that churches themselves can let whoever they want marry?

The point is, why should state policy be affected by what any church has to say? Churches, as said, are free to believe and do what they want. Why is your religious belief more valid than what an atheist believes?

The state's job is to be neutral, and that includes rejecting religious attempts to force their views on other people. I understand you think you're doing it for the good of everyone...but the state can't make that judgement (and I know you believe with all your heart that your religion is correct, but it can't be proven, and the state can't blindly accept religious teachings.)

The point being: Let the state be the state, and let the churches be the churches.

Legalized gay marriage poses no threat to heterosexuals like myself or any churches.

[Franzl]

a shame really, I actually do like Douglas.

That said, bad move if he vetoes it.

[Franzl]

Let's just say that I am shocked...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/BREAK/904290299/1030

Back to the House for the amendment, though. I have no objection to the amendment, although I think it's frivolous. (Basically, saying that the state won't force churches to conduct marriages--which is implicit anyway.) I can't see the House rejecting this version after passing the earlier version.

No news on who switched their intentions. On BlueHampshire's count, all of the waverers must have voted yes, plus either a Republican, Reynolds or DeVries.

has Lynch said if he intends to sign it?

[Franzl]

This will be followed by a referendum in Maine, almost certainly... it's going to get ugly but at least this time the pro-marriage side will be organized instead of dropping the ball like in California.

"An amendment aimed at putting the bill to referendum failed amid a debate in which one legislator said that Pontius Pilate had put Christ's fate to a referendum."

Voters can get a referendum on the ballot with about 50,000 signatures. I am sure the web servers are crashing in Provo and Mesa this minute.

I'd like to see a referendum on this! It'd be really interesting.

Guess there's some danger that they'd vote against legalization...but that might be worth the risk

Seriously, what could a theoretical referendum result look like? Without any special knowledge....I'd guess 55-45 YES.

[Franzl]

Indeed, congratulations Maine!

[Franzl]

Does Lynch even have the bill yet....or is that one amendment still pending approval in the NH House? Probably the latter, although I haven't heard anything about it in the last couple of days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I guess it's still in the House.

[Franzl]

What's going on in NH now, anyway?

[Franzl]

ok, that's what I thought....but I was under the impression that those 5 days were up yesterday....

[Franzl]

!!!!!

Well kinda!!

He said he wants even MORE protection to the churches to decide what to do what they want, "like Vermont and Connecticut" he said. Whatever. Exciting!!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUUXsl3sakXbS8W1AYb4xSxxEMIgD9866GHO0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very pleasent surprise...I really didn't expect that.

[Franzl]

As always, I'm sure everybody appreciates Mike Keller's brilliance.

[Franzl]

A single mom's sexuality cannot be determined.  Especially if she is adopting a child by herself.

OK...    But I'm comparing the mother who had a child and didn't marry the biological father.   AKA "the single parent home" as they call them.     You are saying that homosexuals can raise children just as good as the traditional mother/father home. I'm telling you NO they can't.

There is no replacement for the mother and father ran home.

My father was a drunk who beat me. My mother worked three jobs to make up for my lazy father and I hardly every saw her. Meanwhile, my best friend was raised by two gay men who held normal 9-5 jobs, always had time for their family, and loved my friend unconditionally.

Which household was it better for a child to be raised in?

Still the heterosexual biological mother and father home.  

Wow.

EDIT: I really can't get over how horrible a person you are. Wow.

awww...not really. just stupid. poor thing.

[Franzl]

So, to all the gay people and left wing people in America, the UK is the place to live!

Unless you believe in freedom of speech of course.

So, where's your evidence that there's no Freedom of Speech in the UK then?  Hmm?  I can assure that there's plenty.   

     He's referring to the strict slander & libel laws in the UK.

They can be, as you say, somewhat strict (in a sense- the onus of proof is always on the defendant here), but I doubt that's grounds for a complete absence of Free Speech though.

Of course not...but you must realize who made that claim

[Franzl]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Great ideal, the federal government force the states to recognize it.    

Ever heard of a little document called the Constitution?

[Franzl]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Great ideal, the federal government force the states to recognize it.    

Ever heard of a little document called the Constitution?

Sure.

Gay marriages have nothing to do with the constitution though.   

Great to see we have those who think the government should just take over.  Damned the states rights or the 10Th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Irrelevant.

Full Faith and Credit Clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

That a majority of California voters like restricting the rights of a significant minority.