Vermont legalizes gay marriage

[riddler 0]

And the Vermont Legislature did it by overriding the Governor's veto. For all you California Prop 8 supporters: nyah-nyah

Quote

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Gawain 0]

I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[riddler 0]

Quote

What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

Equality?

Why don't we bus black kids to different schools? Don't they get the same education?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,400]

>I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

Here are a few:


1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

i always thought they were the same, but if that's the case, there seems to be an aweful lot of energy expended over semantics. kind of reminds me of the judean people's front hating the peoples' front of judea. anyway, i still don't understand why people even care who gets married.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[riddler 0]

Quote

Here are a few:

I have another question. If a gay marriage is legal in some states, but not others, how do those rights translate between states?

Exempli gratia, two citizens of California fly to Vermont and get married, then return to California to reside. They have a legal and valid marriage license from the state of Vermont.

1. If one goes to the hospital, does the other one automatically get next-of-kin status (assuming they come in with marriage license as proof)?

2. Are they allowed to renew a California driver's license to share the same last name? I mean without having to legally change names again in California?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Here are a few:

I have another question. If a gay marriage is legal in some states, but not others, how do those rights translate between states?

I believe that's an issue that has yet to be litigated.

There are a number of state licenses/permits/etc that need to have their status cleared up under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Marriage certificates issued to gay couples are only a small part of them.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the NRA joining forces with BGLAD on this one.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If a gay marriage is legal in some states, but not others, how do those rights translate between states?

No other state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage (or even a civil union, I believe) from another state.

The Defense of Marriage Act covers this.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Here are a few:

I have another question. If a gay marriage is legal in some states, but not others, how do those rights translate between states?

Exempli gratia, two citizens of California fly to Vermont and get married, then return to California to reside. They have a legal and valid marriage license from the state of Vermont.

1. If one goes to the hospital, does the other one automatically get next-of-kin status (assuming they come in with marriage license as proof)?

2. Are they allowed to renew a California driver's license to share the same last name? I mean without having to legally change names again in California?

I expect to see passed state constitution amendments challenged in federal court on the grounds that they are a violation of Article IV Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

and paragraph 1 of Amendment 14:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/indent

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

Equality?

Why don't we bus black kids to different schools? Don't they get the same education?

I'd never thought about it like that. Poignant and powerful argument.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

Here are a few:


1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Would you please cite the source for this? Some of this stuff makes me want to yell out shenanigans...but I'm willing to read up on it first...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

It varies by state, but I don't think that either one entitles a same-sex couple to any federal rights/benefits regarding marriage.

I think, as riddler said, equality is one of the main things. And it's good that we now have four states that recognize same-sex marriage, but I don't think it will really be "equal" until it is recognized at the federal level.

[billvon 2,400]

>two citizens of California fly to Vermont and get married, then return to
>California to reside. They have a legal and valid marriage license from the state
>of Vermont.

This may be decided in coming weeks in the California Supreme Court. If they validate that marriages performed when they were legal in California are valid, then that would seem to indicate that marriages performed _elsewhere_ where they are legal are also valid.

[nerdgirl 0]

Didn't Iowa do the same? Or the Supreme Court of Iowa did? Before Vermont?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[tigra 0]

Quote

I have a question: What does "gay marriage" provide that a "civil union" cannot?

Probably not much if people continue to label it as "gay marriage" instead of "marriage." If you meant "marriage", then Bill Von's post pretty much covers it.

[lewmonst 0]

Yeah for equal rights!!!

I hope the CA Prop 8 Supporters will someday realize that their bigotry is antiquated.

http://www.exitshot.com

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Yeah for equal rights!!!

I hope the CA Prop 8 Supporters will someday realize that their bigotry is antiquated.

Nah I doubt it.. the bigots will ALWAYS need someone to hate and TRY to feel superior to... its the only way they know.

[jdfreefly 1]

Does your response mean that if it were proved to you that these gaps existed you would be fore either:

Supporting marriages between same sex couples
OR
Expanding the definition of civil unions to cover the gaps between it and marriage?

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Does your response mean that if it were proved to you that these gaps existed you would be fore either:

Supporting marriages between same sex couples
OR
Expanding the definition of civil unions to cover the gaps between it and marriage?

I don't know for certain. I did say that I would like to learn more about it. However, I do think that list was a bit gratuitous, and I'm still awaiting the source for it, as I've not been able to find it (although, I done only a cursory "google" search).

I do know that the classical definition of marriage, as it has been for how ever many thousands of years should not be force fed new definitions of some new "normalcy" to satisfy any agenda. Marriage is more about a "legal arrangement" to most folks. I do know that every time it's been left to a ballot, every "gay-marriage" proposal has failed. Now, in the face of that, a lot has been done to advance the agenda, but perhaps it's too fast.

Marriage is not just a legal issue, it's also a religious issue.

It seems to me that if a gay or lesbian couple could achieve a social-economic "equality" in the eyes of the state, without stepping into the bounds of religious freedoms

As it is, in many states, the law prevents men from marrying men, and women from marrying women, and that affects everyone. I have no more rights than anyone else in the matter.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Marriage is not just a legal issue, it's also a religious issue.

It seems to me that if a gay or lesbian couple could achieve a social-economic "equality" in the eyes of the state, without stepping into the bounds of religious freedoms

It's a religious issue for some people. I am married, but it has nothing to do with religion for me. And I don't think that allowing same-sex couples to marry steps into the bounds of religious freedoms, as long as no church is required to perform these marriages.

And as far as how marriage has always been defined, I think it's been defined in different ways by different cultures and at different times throughout history. I think the general idea of it usually has something to do with a basic family unit, and perhaps it has most often been defined as between a man and a woman, but I see no reason why that should keep us from allowing same-sex marriage today. I think most of the dictionaries have already changed their definitions for marriage anyway.

[billvon 2,400]

>I do know that the classical definition of marriage, as it has been for
>how ever many thousands of years should not be force fed new
>definitions of some new "normalcy" to satisfy any agenda.

The Supreme Court did that about 50 years ago to allow blacks to marry whites, even though many considered it a perversion and redefinition of marriage. Indeed, they overrode the desire of the people in the US; most people were staunchly opposed to interracial marriage, and considered it an abomination of nature and God.

Do you object to their decision?

>As it is, in many states, the law prevents men from marrying men, and
>women from marrying women, and that affects everyone. I have no more
>rights than anyone else in the matter.

Again, there is no difference between that and banning interracial marriage. You would still have exactly the same rights as everyone else has; the right to marry someone within your own race.

I am still glad the ban was overturned.

>It seems to me that if a gay or lesbian couple could achieve a social-
>economic "equality" in the eyes of the state, without stepping into the
>bounds of religious freedoms

It seems to me that the state should not legislate religion through their laws on marriage.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I do know that the classical definition of marriage, as it has been for
>how ever many thousands of years should not be force fed new
>definitions of some new "normalcy" to satisfy any agenda.

The Supreme Court did that about 50 years ago to allow blacks to marry whites, even though many considered it a perversion and redefinition of marriage. Indeed, they overrode the desire of the people in the US; most people were staunchly opposed to interracial marriage, and considered it an abomination of nature and God.

Do you object to their decision?

>As it is, in many states, the law prevents men from marrying men, and
>women from marrying women, and that affects everyone. I have no more
>rights than anyone else in the matter.

Again, there is no difference between that and banning interracial marriage. You would still have exactly the same rights as everyone else has; the right to marry someone within your own race.

I am still glad the ban was overturned.

>It seems to me that if a gay or lesbian couple could achieve a social-
>economic "equality" in the eyes of the state, without stepping into the
>bounds of religious freedoms

It seems to me that the state should not legislate religion through their laws on marriage.

This is nothing like the civil rights movement. Not even close. Nice try though.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Marriage is not just a legal issue, it's also a religious issue.

It seems to me that if a gay or lesbian couple could achieve a social-economic "equality" in the eyes of the state, without stepping into the bounds of religious freedoms

It's a religious issue for some people. I am married, but it has nothing to do with religion for me. And I don't think that allowing same-sex couples to marry steps into the bounds of religious freedoms, as long as no church is required to perform these marriages.

And as far as how marriage has always been defined, I think it's been defined in different ways by different cultures and at different times throughout history. I think the general idea of it usually has something to do with a basic family unit, and perhaps it has most often been defined as between a man and a woman, but I see no reason why that should keep us from allowing same-sex marriage today. I think most of the dictionaries have already changed their definitions for marriage anyway.

There is more to that definition than what you cite, especially when it comes to bearing children, and I'm aware of no ancient culture that considered marriage anything other than man and woman for purposes of having a family, having children, etc. Add in the religious considerations over the past several thousand years in some cultures...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>Would you please cite the source for this?

It was excerpted from a 1997 report by the GAO listing rights that married couples have that (at the time) civil unions did not.

Since then, if you leave the state you were 'unioned' in, the list is still 100% valid. The US government does not recognize civil unions, and you have no federal protections that are extended to married couples.

Some states have since expanded the rights of people in civil unions as long as they remain in-state. In California, for example, they have some of the same rights as married couples. They differ in the following ways:

-Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

-Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

-California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

-Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

-There is no equivalent of the "Putative Spouse Doctrine" for domestic partnerships. (i.e. the rights of someone who married someone else in good faith but the marriage was not legal, or was a sham.)

[billvon 2,400]

>This is nothing like the civil rights movement.

Dude - it IS a civil rights movement. By definition. And we are hearing all the same arguments against it that we heard back in the 1950's.