Vermont approves same sex marriage

[Hamradioguy]

The Governor's veto was just overridden by the Vermont Legislature. Vermont was the first state to approve civil unions, and now is the fourth to approve same sex marriage.

What is of significance is that this is the first state to approve same sex marriage WITHOUT a court ruling. This was done entirely by the legislative process.

After the civil union law nine years ago there were predictions of Hellfire and Damnation. Didn't happen, and I suspect nothing much will happen now either....other than an uptick in tourism for gay couples wishing to be married.

 

[shemp]

At 3 p.m., God is going to destroy Vermont with hellfire and brimstone. I'm going down to the Connecticut River to watch the show.

 

[Hamradioguy]

I'll watch it from right from here-up close and personal.

 

[Tricky]

Interesting. In Iowa, judge overrides legislators. In Vermont, legislators override governor. Looks like this thing could be snowballing. And I hope so.

 

[Upchurch]

Interesting. In Iowa, judge overrides legislators. In Vermont, legislators override governor.

If governor could override judges, we'd have ourselves a game.

 

[Brainster]

This is the way gay marriage should be accomplished; legislatively.

 

[Upchurch]

This is the way gay marriage should be accomplished; legislatively.

Do you suppose Iowa was a failure of the courts or the legislature?

 

[Cleon]

Interesting. In Iowa, judge overrides legislators. In Vermont, legislators override governor.

Thank you, Yakov.

 

[Brainster]

Do you suppose Iowa was a failure of the courts or the legislature?

I am not any kind of expert on the Iowa State Constitution, or on the legislature there, so I can't say. I am just saying that if gay marriage comes about through the court system the battle will go on for decades (just look at abortion for example). If it is approved by the legislature, the issue will die down quickly.

 

[linusrichard]

I am not any kind of expert on the Iowa State Constitution, or on the legislature there, so I can't say. I am just saying that if gay marriage comes about through the court system the battle will go on for decades (just look at abortion for example). If it is approved by the legislature, the issue will die down quickly.

Miscegenation laws were overturned judicially at the national level, and I don't think that battle went on for decades. Not that public opinion turned quickly, but I don't think there was the same kind of fight you've seen with abortion. I think it's less about how it comes about, and more about what type of issue it is.

If gay or interracial marriages are performed, and the sky doesn't fall, I think that will tend to undermine opposition. You can't say that about abortion.

ETA: Which is not to say that I think you're wrong, strategically speaking. Sure, I think it will be more effective if this is done through the more democratic branches. But I have a very hard time (especially as a non-gay non-Iowan) saying, "Yes, you have rights guaranteed you by the Iowa Constitution, but rather than being able to exercise them today, it will be so much more effective if you just wait until the neanderthals in the state legislature become convinced of the wisdom of your position." Nobody asked me to change my wedding date in order to quell a political debate. I don't think we should ask any Iowan to either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am not any kind of expert on the Iowa State Constitution, or on the legislature there, so I can't say. I am just saying that if gay marriage comes about through the court system the battle will go on for decades (just look at abortion for example). If it is approved by the legislature, the issue will die down quickly.

So why look at abortion and not anti miscegination laws? Should they have been overruled by local votes or by the supreme court?

Was Loving V Virginia a bad decision or not?

 

[Brainster]

So why look at abortion and not anti miscegination laws? Should they have been overruled by local votes or by the supreme court?

Was Loving V Virginia a bad decision or not?

I don't have a clue. I am talking strategy here, not con law. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the clock is ticking and why should people have to wait for equal rights. But I guarantee you the Vermont vote is going to push that effort forward far more than the Iowa court did.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't have a clue. I am talking strategy here, not con law. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the clock is ticking and why should people have to wait for equal rights. But I guarantee you the Vermont vote is going to push that effort forward far more than the Iowa court did.

The problem is that it is the courts job to look out for abuses of peoples rights. Lawmakers can create rights, but the courts enforce them.

From a tactical point of view of how to get gay marriage legal you can talk about a lot of things, but this really is the courts acting as they are supposted to in checks and ballances.

 

[linusrichard]

I don't have a clue. I am talking strategy here, not con law. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the clock is ticking and why should people have to wait for equal rights. But I guarantee you the Vermont vote is going to push that effort forward far more than the Iowa court did.

But we shouldn't be comparing the Vermont vote to the Iowa decision. We should compare the Iowa decision to the Iowa vote. The Iowa decision will push the effort forward further faster than the Iowa vote, simply because the Iowa vote is still years away, while the Iowa decision is here now.

 

[Brainster]

But we shouldn't be comparing the Vermont vote to the Iowa decision. We should compare the Iowa decision to the Iowa vote. The Iowa decision will push the effort forward further faster than the Iowa vote, simply because the Iowa vote is still years away, while the Iowa decision is here now.

And if the voters of Iowa approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state, what then?

 

[linusrichard]

And if the voters of Iowa approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state, what then?

Iowa can't amend its constitution without both houses of the legislature -- two consecutive legislatures, actually. I guess the question is - where do you think the people and legislature of Iowa are on this issue, and when do you think they'll be somewhere else? If you think both houses of the Iowa legislature will approve a constitutional amendment, and you think that the people of Iowa will elect a legislature in 2010 that will approve that amendment again, and you think that the people of Iowa will approve that amendment in 2012, then I suppose, strategically, all you've gotten was four years of marriage equality followed by who-knows-how-many years of constitutionalized bigotry. Not so good, strategically, perhaps. On the other hand, (as I think I've already said) I think nothing will undermine popular support for a gay marriage ban as much as four years of legalized gay marriage.


ETA: Don't know how the thumbs-up got there... must have misclicked...

 

[Allen773]

States have no more right to discriminate against any citizens than the federal government.

 

[Neally]

States have no more right to discriminate against any citizens than the federal government.

Then how is it that many states have passed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments and those amendments have not been overturned?

 

[Brainster]

Andrew Sullivan notices the curious lack of outrage on the Right:

I'm struck by the stunned silence on the bloggy right to Vermont's momentous decision to pass marriage equality. The reason, I suspect, is that the anti-gay right has placed a lot of eggs in the judicial activism argument. They felt safest there, on procedural grounds, even if the logic of their position brought them into a very radical originalist jurisprudence that would largely eviscerate the social and cultural landscape of modern America (on race, particularly).

Or, you know, they may actually have believed in the principle that if 'twere done, 'twere best done legislatively. Rod Dreher at BeliefNet:

I am opposed, as you know, to gay marriage, but if states are going to have it, Vermont just got it the right way: democratically, through legislative action. Of course it didn't start that way in Vermont, but that's how it's ended. A social experiment as radical as same-sex marriage should not be attempted without democratic consensus. Vermont has that now, and even though I think they've done the wrong thing, at least the elected representatives of the people have done this.

And this part of Dreher's essay will no doubt draw some ire from the right and left:

It is increasingly obvious that the US Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this matter soon. It is an untenable situation for a same-sex couple to be married in Vermont and Massachusetts and Iowa, but not in Texas, Nevada and Montana. I believe SCOTUS will constitutionalize gay marriage, and that being the case, it might be better for my side if it gets done sooner rather than later. If done sooner, there might still be enough backlash left in the American people to get a constitutional amendment passed erecting a high barrier or protection around religious institutions. Thoughts?

Let's give up on this one so we can win something else? I don't think that's going to sit well with Robert Stacy McCain, who wrote yesterday that marriage was a hill to die on:

Yet if the defense of traditional marriage -- an ancient and honorable institution -- is not a "hill worth dying on," what is? In every ballot-box fight to date, voters have supported the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. As indicated by exit polls in California last fall, this is one issue where the conservative position is widely endorsed by black and Latino voters. Should such a potentially promising political development be abandoned?

Oddly, McCain is not basing his argument on morality, but on political expediency; it's hard to argue simultaneously that traditional marriage is a hill to die on while at the same time saying "Don't worry, we won't die!"

 

[Allen773]

Then how is it that many states have passed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments and those amendments have not been overturned?

Because bigotry is all too common, unfortunately.

Segregation was legal in many states for decades, did that make it Constitutional?