Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Vermont now allows gay marriage.
Gameloading
Member UncommonPosts: 14,182
Another step in the right direction
http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=79812
Vermont Allows Gay Marriage
Lawmakers in Vermont have voted to override the governor's veto of legislation that allows same-sex couples to marry.
While federal law still only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, the Vermont legislation is significant for employers because of the host of benefits and tax breaks for married couples governed by state law.
Vermont becomes the second state in a week to legalize gay marriage. Late last week, the Supreme Court of Iowa upheld a ruling that found a state law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
Vermont and Iowa join Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing gay marriage. In May 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled that state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional, but voters approved a ballot measure in November that banned gay marriage once again.
The legislation allowing gay marriage in Vermont becomes effective September 1, 2009.
Comments
It is a step in the right direction.
We really have to encourage Americans do not amend their own state Constitutions to take-away their rights.
Why not have a movement to expand rights - why take-away your own rights? Besides, the people should not have the power to take-away their own rights through intiative or referenda. The ballot box should not be used to write laws, and certianly should not be used to take-away rights of property, contract, marriage, inter alia.
Agreed. good for you Vermont. If that is what your citizens want then so be it. Do not allow the federal government to come in and force its will on you.
**Me personaly, I take the latest in some of Californias approach and remove marriage from the government altogether and have it replaced with gender unbias civil unions and leave the "marriage" title to religions. You know, seperating church and state
That is very true. Even if you are not gay, once a "fashion" of balloting rights away starts, who can be safe for his rights been taken away because it suits some group? It is all too easy to roll the drums of fear against anything, so taking away rights with ballot boxes surely is a dangerous tool.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The "sticky" part of this problem is the actual term "Marriage".
Most states offer "civil unions" but regard the term "marriage" religous. That shouldn't be though, as religion shouldn't play into civil justice.
Also, for people with religous beliefs the government telling them to change ancient laws older than any civilaztion on earth is kinda not a smart idea eigther, it'll cause unrest and eventual over turning of power (through elections and whatnot) and start a possible domino effect of negitive results.
Which is why I'm for giving everyone civil unions and make marriage an optional religous thing for those who practice it. Basicly seperating the law of the land and peoples personal (religous) beliefs. You can't force them to change their beliefs, that will not happen and is the work of a tyrant.
Good deal. I lived in Plattsburgh NY just across Champy Territory from Vermont and made quite a few trips there when I was younger. Best state in the Union in my opinion. Awesome maple "farms" and Ben and Jerry's factory was just too cool. Surrounded by green fields of cows, while the inside was all chrome and white.
Bravo Bravo
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I look forward to the day that a church gets sued by a gay couple when the pastor refuses to marry them on the basis of his religious convictions.
You're a moron if you don't see this coming.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well I am against gay marraige, or more appropriately, I am against redefining marraige from its intended form. However, in this case I would have no choice but to respect it because it was passed in the way laws are supposed to, through the legislature. This makes it the first legitimate gay marraige law in the country. In the other three states where it is legal, the decision was imposed on its citizens by the courts. A perfect example of legislating from the bench. Democracy, give it a try America, it's been known to work.
On the contrary, the Judiciary was fulling its role, which is emphatically to say (interpret) what the law is. The citizens of this great country have a legal right to contractually marry, protected by the Constitution.
Yes. You can amend the Constitution to take-away your own right, or your kids', or your neighbors' right to marry. It is not wise to do so, and I strongly suggest that if you want to exercise that power, you ought to give yourselves more rights -- do not use your power of the masses to take-away your rights, or other people's rights. Shame if you do. Shame on the tradition, legacy, and destiny of a great nation.
The courts are not legislating from the bench, and you might be surprised that many judges might personally disagree with the concept of marriage . . . but people's rights are still, under the Constitution, protected.
On the contrary, the Judiciary was fulling its role, which is emphatically to say (interpret) what the law is. The citizens of this great country have a legal right to contractually marry, protected by the Constitution.
Yes. You can amend the Constitution to take-away your own right, or your kids', or your neighbors' right to marry. It is not wise to do so, and I strongly suggest that if you want to exercise that power, you ought to give yourselves more rights -- do not use your power of the masses to take-away your rights, or other people's rights. Shame if you do. Shame on the tradition, legacy, and destiny of a great nation.
The courts are not legislating from the bench, and you might be surprised that many judges might personally disagree with the concept of marriage . . . but people's rights are still, under the Constitution, protected.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that not only must the state recognize gay marraige, but its citizens CAN NOT vote to overturn their ruling. Not even by amending their constitution. In other words, they cannot practice democracy. Now you tell me who is taking away rights?
On the contrary, the Judiciary was fulling its role, which is emphatically to say (interpret) what the law is. The citizens of this great country have a legal right to contractually marry, protected by the Constitution.
Yes. You can amend the Constitution to take-away your own right, or your kids', or your neighbors' right to marry. It is not wise to do so, and I strongly suggest that if you want to exercise that power, you ought to give yourselves more rights -- do not use your power of the masses to take-away your rights, or other people's rights. Shame if you do. Shame on the tradition, legacy, and destiny of a great nation.
The courts are not legislating from the bench, and you might be surprised that many judges might personally disagree with the concept of marriage . . . but people's rights are still, under the Constitution, protected.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state must recognize gay marraige and that its citizens CAN NOT vote to overturn their ruling. Not even to amend their constitution. Just as the California Supreme Court is now considering whether its citizens vote to AMEND their constitution should be invalidated. In other words, the court is co-opting the citizens right to practice democracy. Now you tell me who is taking away rights?
Edit: Sorry for the double posting. I thought the site crashed after the first time I hit "post message". I've been having problems with my internet connection lately. I wonder if the Chinese hacked into my grid.
i dont know whether gay couples need such identity from society, but i consider it as a progress that the societ is becoming human. want to attend a wedding of gay couple, i will also pay Warm hearted wishes for them.
Are churches in the US allowed to refuse marriage based on skin colour and race?
Are churches in the US allowed to refuse marriage based on skin colour and race?
Yes
A pastor can deny a couple a marriage for any reason that he chooses...he doesn't HAVE to marry any couple, regardless of their skin color, race, age, or hair color....it's at HIS discretion. I personally know a couple of pastors who have refused to marry a couple simply because the pastor didn't feel that they were ready for marriage. The difference is that the homosexual agenda in this country has reached militant status...anyone who denies this is completely delusional. That said...it is inevitable that once this gets legalized, that some homosexual couple will be denied a ceremony by a pastor somewhere and subsequently sue that pastor for discrimination.
This is why I have to say that the slippery slope argument when it comes to this IS in fact a valid argument...because of the militant nature of the homosexual rights activists in this country.
You can go ahead and call me a homophobe and say that I'm just being a dramatic bible thumper..I'll go ahead and bookmark this thread so that I can say "I told you so" in a few years.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
its a good news for the third sex. this is one step for them to accept this kind of people im really happy about this
Are churches in the US allowed to refuse marriage based on skin colour and race?
Yes
A pastor can deny a couple a marriage for any reason that he chooses...he doesn't HAVE to marry any couple, regardless of their skin color, race, age, or hair color....it's at HIS discretion. I personally know a couple of pastors who have refused to marry a couple simply because the pastor didn't feel that they were ready for marriage. The difference is that the homosexual agenda in this country has reached militant status...anyone who denies this is completely delusional. That said...it is inevitable that once this gets legalized, that some homosexual couple will be denied a ceremony by a pastor somewhere and subsequently sue that pastor for discrimination.
This is why I have to say that the slippery slope argument when it comes to this IS in fact a valid argument...because of the militant nature of the homosexual rights activists in this country.
You can go ahead and call me a homophobe and say that I'm just being a dramatic bible thumper..I'll go ahead and bookmark this thread so that I can say "I told you so" in a few years.
Then screw that pastor that doesn't. There are plenty around that will do it. Even if you can't find one, just go get a civil marriage. As far as your "slippery slope" argument goes, it's totally bugus. People were saying the same thing back in the 50's and 60's about mixed race marriages and they happens all the time now without a blink of an eye with out anyone getting sued or civilization falling. The same will happen with gay marriage in time. As long as it's legal who cares what any church says.
I just simply agree with Chris Rock. Gay people should be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us lol.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.