rmd: (Default)
[personal profile] rmd
vermont legislature overrode the veto. so now there are *four* states with marriage equality.

I'm not planning on relocating any time soon, but now there are three other places i could move to if needed without suddenly becoming a second class citizen. (well, three and a half if you count NY, which recognizes same-sex marriages but doesn't perform them.)

Date: 2009-04-07 05:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadowsmark.livejournal.com
But surely Vermont should get extra credit for being in the vangard with Civil Unions. Even though that seems retro now, it was ground-breaking not so long ago.

Date: 2009-04-07 05:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
Vermont is still the first state to implement gay marriage via its legislature. That was because, when Vermont's Supreme Court first struck down prohibitions against recognizing same-gender relationships, they refused to be "activist judges" and merely informed the state legislature that they were required to come up with some way of dealing.

"Civil unions" was the compromise.

Today, the compromise has been struck down as insufficient.

Some other state can have the honor of having their bill signed by their governor.

Date: 2009-04-07 05:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] adb-jaeger.livejournal.com
Some other state can have the honor of having their bill signed by their governor.

In what way, other than ticky-tacky scorekeeping, is that important?

It's either the law or it's not. In Vermont, it is.

Date: 2009-04-07 05:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
Mostly, it's ticky-tacky score-keeping.

But there's still a sizable faction out there which claims that all gay marriage is the work of "activist judges". Those people are full of crap, of course, but by having the legislature pass the law, this argument is cut off.

Date: 2009-04-08 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] achinhibitor.livejournal.com
More importantly, legislative approval -- by 2/3 -- shows that the popular support is strong enough that a constitutional amendment to thwart it is not going to happen.

Date: 2009-04-08 02:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
"Shows" to whom? The flatlanders who'd have no problem dumping gigantic amounts of ad money into a cheap-media state?

They tried that seven years ago. Vermonters told the flatlanders to spend more, and voted against them.

Date: 2009-04-08 03:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com
Have you ever heard of Take Back Vermont?

Date: 2009-04-08 03:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
Crotchety old farts. Yeah, they took lots of out-of-state money for their lawn signs. But yes, they did find some xenophobic old yankees to put the signs on their lawns.

They're also a vast minority.

Profile

rmd: (Default)
rmd

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 20th, 2026 07:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios