« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »



by Jeremy Hooper

VTBy a promising 8-2 vote, the Vermont House Judiciary Committee has advanced marriage legislation to the full House:

Committee votes 8-2 for gay-marriage [Burlington Free Press]

Annoyingly and unnecessarily, the committee inserted an amendment designed to give religious institutions just a little bit more assurance that this really is about civil marriage, not churches and steeples. This means that after its almost certain passage in the House, the measure, because of this new addition, will have go through even more negotiating (either back to the state Senate or to conference committee made up of reps from both chambers) before it heads to Gov. Jim Douglas. Then once it hits Jim-Doug's desk, our primary hope rests in the very reasonable possibility that his veto-itchy hands will be tied because of a veto-proof majority.

So keep the faith, everyone. With any luck, Vermont will soon remove one side's faith views out of their civil marriage system.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

i dont have much against gay people, i just think they are taking it too far when they want to get married inside a church. There are limits to the sins and atrocities people should commit

Posted by: African Weight loss diva | Mar 31, 2009 5:25:04 PM

Does anyone know: if it passes with a veto proof majority number of votes, does that mean the Gov will be unable to veto it? Or will he still be able to veto it, and then it will go back to both chambers where they will have to give it a veto proof majority (again) to override the veto?

Posted by: Tom | Mar 31, 2009 5:52:43 PM

It bypasses the governors office and goes straight into law. It only goes back if there is less than 2/3 majority.

Posted by: adam kautz | Mar 31, 2009 7:24:07 PM

Well, African Diva, I agree with you. But, I don't think that any of us want to get married in any churches that don't want us their either. And, to be clear, marriage is a civil contract that doesn't require any religious involvement. County Clerks can perform marriages without any religious officiator whatsoever. But there are also hundreds of churches that will happily perform same-sex marriages.

In fact, there are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Atheists all of whom get married every day, and (with the possible exception of the Atheists) you would probably have a problem with your church performing any of those other "sacrilegious" ceremonies as well.

And, no one is forcing your church to perform any marriages against your will now, and no one ever will. So, don't get your panties in such a bunch.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 31, 2009 10:02:33 PM

Atrocities? Dafur and the Holocaust are atrocities. Marrying someone of the same sex isn't.

Posted by: KZ | Mar 31, 2009 10:22:41 PM

"I don't have much against gay people."
So, what, you meant "atrocities" in the nicest way possible?
Sigh. Do homophobes ever HEAR themselves?

Posted by: Bill S | Apr 1, 2009 7:46:33 AM

I think the majority of gay and lesbian people that want to get married in a church would get married in a church that welcomes them.

As far as 'There are limits to the sins and atrocities people should commit' should discrimination and ignorance go unchecked? Who will set these limits, oh weight loss African diva?

Posted by: John Ozed | Apr 1, 2009 9:18:53 AM

A couple of links to Mark at Slap Upside the Head, who's said this better than I can:

"Ah, yes. Ever since I was a wee lad, I always imagined my special wedding day being held in a church that thinks I’m a horrible, horrible sinner—priest nervously presiding over us at gunpoint… government agents standing cross-armed by the newly kicked-in cathedral door. But that’s not terrifically likely."



Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Apr 1, 2009 2:23:13 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails