Vermont Legislators Override Governor's Gay Marriage Veto

The Vermont legislature today overrode the Governor's veto of the law allowing same-sex marriage.

Vermont is now the first state in the U.S. to allow same-sex marriages through legislation.

The New York Times has more here.

< MN-Sen: Franken Winning Margin Expands To 312 | Judge: DOJ Improperly Withheld Evidence of Witness' Mental Illness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am reminded of the Mothers of Invention (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    "It cant happen heeeeeere"

    Woo hoo! (none / 0) (#1)
    by ericinatl on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    Yay for the gays!

    Fantastic news (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    And momentum (which I fear will likely be sapped by California).

    California (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    Can you believe that California is who is driving us down on this?  No more go West young man...the land of opportunity.

    next is Iowa I guess (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    it really cant happen there.  or can it?

    I know a few people who hail from Iowa (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    and the wife left the husband for another wife.  I could happen :)  

    Google says Iowa Gay Marriages start April 24th (none / 0) (#12)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    Are you gay? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    I mean I hear what you saying but California, for as progressive as it often swings, seems to me to have been able to put a double ding into this fight simply for that reason.  I'm not gay so I can't help it if I don't the nitty gritty of this daily fight.....but the venom of the CA rally against gay marriage has shocked me.  I mean CA is not Alabama when it comes to past acceptance of its gay population.

    it really depends on where you are. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    as far as the acceptance thing goes.  in the cities yes.  in the inland farmland and up north, not so much.

    I dunno how much Vermont (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    contributes to momentum, I have to say.  We're considered a nutty hippy-dippy left-wing paradise by pretty much one and all these days.  Don't forget we're the only state in the union little Georgie Bush never dared try to set foot in.

    But people should meet my state sen., a Dem. but a fairly conservative older gentleman, a retired farmer whose family goes back generations in the state, who was positively giddy about having passed the bill.  When I sent him an email thanking him for his vote, I got back a response full of exclamation marks and pride and joy.  (I suspect he'd been celebrating with a few brewskis, but still...)

    I'm so pleased I could spit!!


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    But this on top of the Iowa vote is still momentum.  Especially considering the conversation surrounding it.  When MA did it, there was a national backlash.  This time, crickets...  That's got to be seen as positive.  And while VT is a hippy state in N.E. - Iowa sure isn't.  The VT one is special because the courts didn't force it.  But it's one more nail in the coffin and no one seems to be screaming.

    Compared to... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    ...Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas and Missouri, Iowa is pretty much a state full of wacky liebrals.  

    Thank goodness we have Minnesota and Illinois to make us look less like a bunch of hippies.


    I'm with Jimi... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    "I'm gonna let my freak flag fly!"

    The squares are the real freaks anyway...:)


    Don't even get me started... (none / 0) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    ...on the squares!  

    Let that freak flag fly proudly, I always say.


    But (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    compared to those states I'd say a lot of the country falls into the "wacky liberals" category (maybe not Missouri).  Iowa may be the hippy state of the midwest, but it's still the midwest.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    this latest development from Iowa should serve as a reminder that Midwestern common sense is underrated.

    Just what... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    ...are you trying to say about the loyal sons and duaghters of the Heartland, CST?  :)

    just (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    that they eat red meat instead of granola, nothing wrong with that :)

    Ah ha! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    Typical East Coast bias, I tells ya'!

    Not that I don't enjoy a nice juicy piece of red meat.  Or bacon...

    ...mmmmmmm, bacon.


    Viva Vermont! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by daring grace on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    Now that all our neighbors to the east have (one way or another) dropped the prohibitions against gay marriage, it's past due time for my hidebound so called oh so liberal Empire State to follow suit.

    Given the moribund nature of the legislative process in New York, I am not holding my breath.

    But we have come so close, so maybe somehow...


    I posted this elsewhere (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    But the DC City Council has also voted to recognize other states' gay marriages by a vote of 12-0.

    An overturn of which (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    is coming to a motion to recommit in the House of Representatives near you!

    Ah (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    But do you think Congress really wants this fight?  Oh, the R's do, but do you think Nancy wants this to be dragged out?

    The Motion to Recommit (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    is how the Republicans get their final say on legislation. I'm sure they'd love to get into it. (I would welcome the fight, but not expect to win in Congress yet).

    Big Surprise (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    Wonder if NY figured in because it only recognizes Marriage from other states not civil unions.

    Anyway this is really great, and what is Vermont doing with a GOP governor anyway.

    Part leftover from (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    the state's not too distant rock-ribbed but old-fashioned Republican past, part like Massachusetts so often, a sense of wanting to "balance" the overwhelmingly Dem. legislature, and partly last year, at least, the inability of Dems. and Progs. (we have both parties) to get behind a single candidate, and the failure of the Dems. to put up a good one last time.

    Anyway, it happens.  But the whole state is heartily sick of Douglas.  Exhibit A for that being the fact that the override got more votes in the House than the bill itself did.  So a half dozen folks who voted against marriage equality voted to override the veto.

    It just strikes most Vermonters that "separate but equal" is lame, and that the governor ought not veto something that passed so overwhelmingly unless there's a compelling reason, and he had none.

    We are very proud puppies here in VT today!!


    Yes Congratulations (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    Sounds like the system of representation has worked.

    Hurray (none / 0) (#13)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    for equal rights under the law!

    Another blow to traditional. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    Biblically sanctioned divorce.

    The right to pursue happiness... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    supposedly inalienable, but often alienated, is a little less alienable today.

    May we one day really, truly have the inalienable right to pursue happiness, from sea to shining sea.

    cheers! (none / 0) (#21)
    by bocajeff on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    Wow! (none / 0) (#18)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    What is happening to this country?  Could it be civil rights for all?

    nice of Vermont, but... (none / 0) (#24)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:26:41 PM EST
     this is all crap: gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the nation; any law that says so is unconstitutional. The constitution is clear as bell that discrimination is not legal. Any legal rights conferred by any government of the United States can not be denied to gay couples - end of story.

    Homosexuals should be settling this in the courts. Waiting for benevolence from Neanderthals in state governments or the ignorant masses is foolhardy. This should be shoved down the bigots' throats. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. This Constitution for me, but not for thee stuff is a load of crap.

    Well, (none / 0) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    there is plenty of discrimination in the country in which most people approve of such as age limitations, intra-family relationships and property rights. While I agree with the concept of freedom - there is still a bunch of discrimination allowed

    of course thats true (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    but AAs and women found they had a long a bitter battle.
    so will we.  sadly.

    Except (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    You're forgetting DOMA - which says the government CAN deny gays the right to be recognized for federal purposes and states do not have to honor gay marriages performed in other states. Now, DOMA has never been constitutionally challenged, and it should be, but it hasn't been so far.

    The constitution is clear as bell that discrimination is not legal

    As a side note, and it's picky, but this statement is just not true, and  unfortunately, people misuse it all the time. "Discrimination" is not illegal or unconstitutional -   People discriminate all the time - when you go for a job, employers discriminate and choose who they feel is the best candidate.  Sports teams draft players they feel will best help their organization.  When people shop, they look for the best value for the product you want to buy - in other words, they discriminate.

    Unconstitutional discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class (a "protected class").  So far, homosexuals have not been granted "protected class" status. But I agree that gays should not be denied the right to marry other gays.  


    You miss the critical point (none / 0) (#38)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 10:14:12 PM EST
    'any government of the United States can not discriminate'. Legal rights associated with marriage are conferred by the government. The government can not deny rights to anyone - find me any case law that supports that nugget. The government is not a sports team.

    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    The government can discriminate and can allow discrimination against a particular group of citizens, as long as there is a compelling reason to do so.