Same ol' story. The GOP insists that their objection to gay marriage is about process, the courts dictating the law, and if only congress would pass a legit law, then that would be okay. Except that's exactly what happened in California, and they did everything in their power to get rid of it anyway.

Now the same thing is happening in Vermont. The state legislature overwhelmingly passed a law allowing gays to marry. The governor is saying he's going to veto it because the debate is a "distraction" from dealing with the economy, because apparently he can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

But they've ALREADY debated and passed the law. All he has to do is sign it. Vetoing is what will be what makes them spend more time on it.

Well, as Iowa goes, so goes the nation?

What happened in Vermont again?

And good with Iowa, it's finally gotten past New England.

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

Are some nays expected to switch their vote? Because otherwise it looks like it probably won't pass.

assholes.

VETO OVERRIDDEN.

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?

The New Hampshire House has already passed legislation to legalize it and the Senate will vote shortly. I agree about Rhode Island and I would add Maine as well. New York and New Jersey are not too far off either.

And it's 4 states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.

:```) Happy tears!

Lynch is an ass though, wouldn't put it past him to veto.

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.

I laughed.




Oh and Chris, I meant in New England. I'm such a Northeast *slut*. I think NYTimes was saying how GLBT organizations are pretty much hedging their efforts on getting all of New England to swing by 2012. I could see that happening even with some veto power. Because it could lead to people losing their positions before then, especially in Rhode Island.

What will anti-gay groups argue?

That courts need to get out of the way and let legislatures/vote of the people decide.

Vermont went about it the proper way and I'm glad they did it.

That gays are evil and will rape your children, that's what they'll argue. It's been the crux of the argument since, what? Since gay marriage was even considered.

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 and so it will be the first time the people have voted to amend the constitution to allow same-sex marriage, no?

I wonder if Vermont will see an increase in immigration over and above its normal amount?

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.

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.



Perkins is describing the role of the state legislature overwhelmingly passing a law here as "destroying democracy." They describe any court ruling they don't like as "judicial activism."

At some point, even the popular vote is not going to be on their side. What will conservatives argue then?

I agree on both points. The big problem in CA last year was that the opponents of Prop 8 relied on political consultants instead of grass roots activists, and they didn't really take the challenge seriously. I don't see the grass roots gay community allowing the HRC to control the issue next time.

This is going to happen in CA. It's just a matter of time.

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. If Republicans take over Congress in 2010, should President Obama meekly sign whatever they write into law?

Let put this another way, how many conservatives bitched about the "activist" courts when they overturned the DC gun ban?

Conservatives have no problem with court intervention as long as they agree with it. That's how they define "judicial activism." There is no underlying principle there. They're arguments are bullshit.



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."

Again, the conservative belly-aching over the courts is a smoke screen. They just don't want gays to get married and will use any convenient excuse to argue against it.

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"?

Well at least if the legislature does, we can vote the bums out and elect people who will better comply/not comply with a "not clearly applicable" provision of the state/federal Constitution.

I'm sure you agree with me that the Constitution is the floor and not the ceiling, I think our disagreement is that I would prefer the Legislature build towards the ceiling and not the courts. Courts are free to strike down, and should, any law that has its aim below the floor, either facially or as applied.

Um, am I counting this right? That's now FOUR states of the US with gay marriage? Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont? Incredible. It would be a nice even 5 if California didn't a step backward.

Peace,
Mike