Gov. Douglas vetoed, it is going to be close in the Vermont house.

Woohoo! I bet you those New Englanders were getting nervous that the midwest was going to one-up them!

So now that's 3 states? Rhode Island and New Hampshire are going to join them by Decemember, mark my words. New Hampshire already recognizes civil unions and has an openly gay bishop, no?

Woohoo! I bet you those New Englanders were getting nervous that the midwest was going to one-up them!

So now that's 3 states? Rhode Island and New Hampshire are going to join them by Decemember, mark my words. New Hampshire already recognizes civil unions and has an openly gay bishop, no?

I'm waiting to see how the anti-gay crowd deals with this.

For years they have complained that gay marriage was a scam pushed by judges and that the legislatures should decide. Well, now they have. Wonder what they will argue now?

Speaking of gay bishops, did you see the time the guy was on the Daily Show? One of the funniest exchanges ever.

Jon Stewart: It must have been difficult for you to go through the crowd at the Obama inaguration, Bishop, since you can only move diagonally.

Bishop: Well, you forget -- I'm also a queen.

At least Vermont had the balls to do it properly instead of taking the easy way out and passing the buck to its co-equal brethren.

"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," - Tony Perkins, on the veto override in Vermont

All we need is one state to pass it by the people and I think all their arguments will be shot to hell.

I just can't see California making the same mistake twice. If we get it on the 2010 ballot, I think it will for sure pass

Ironically, for all the conservative whining, the California legislature DID pass marriage equality, which was vetoed by the GOP gov. It was BECAUSE of the conservatives that the courts got involved instead of the legislature, not in spite of them.

Like Groucho suggests, the conservative belly-aching over the courts is a smoke screen. They just don't want gays to get married. Period.

That is the case for some people, maybe most people, but not all.

You realize that the governor is part of the legislative process, right? The court's are not, except in an indirect way wherein they give and take with the other two branches.

You're blaming gay rights activists for taking cases to the courts instead of getting these laws passed through the legislature. And I'm saying they TRIED that in California. Had the governor not vetoed it, which is his right to do, the case would not have gone to the courts.

And the court's role here is to determine the constitutionality of these laws. That's their job, just like the governor's job is either to pass laws or veto them. It's all part of the process. Not only is it a perfectly legit way to pursue the issue, it's also the most expensive and complicated way, hardly the "easy way out."

I'm not blaming gay rights activists for anything. They chose the method best fit to attain their goals, more power to them. My only beef is with the courts usurping power from the other branches. When the court interprets a Constitutional provision, when it might not be clearly applicable to a case, that closes the door, for the most part, to the other branches enacting laws in that area.

But who decides that it is "not clearly applicable to a case"?