It’s Over

Took long enough, but Vermont has decided to cast its lot on the side of common sense and toe make gay marriage legal. This is INFINITELY more significant than the MA decision. No whining from the right about legislating from the bench and overturning the will of the people.

I’m thrilled. I’m not a big fan of Obama, but seeing so many white folks whose parents who would been aghast at the thought of electing a black man to the Presidency voting for him spoke so well of our country–imagine this happening in Britain, Ireland, Italy, or France? (Actually, lotsa props to GWB for really opening that door with several of his appointments–for all his faults, I felt he was among the most color-blind leaders we’ve ever had). Now this.

We can take some degree of pride here in MA. A few years following the legalization of bay marriage, and nothing changed. The republic didn’t collapse as a result. My own marriage remained just as sancrosanct, and I truly hope that none of you felt that yours was in any cheapened; if you’d attended some of the gay marriages I did, I can guarantee you would not have.

Congratulations to the people of Vermont–and to DC as well. The war is pretty much over; it’s going to be a mop-up operation now.  


About nosuppertonight

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    that any two people can enter?  It is just another relationship between two people.  Marriage was once sacred because it was a relationship between members of opposite sexes.  Now that anyone can get married the whole concept of a sacred relationship is bullsh*t.  No more special relationships because anybody can claim to have it.

    As for the republic collapsing – we have yet to see.  I can’t imagine we will see the long term effects for a few years when younger people realize that no relationship is ever special.  Why bother getting married if anyone can do it?  They will discover that marriage is futile and never bother to marry.  Just have kids and let the state bare the burden.  But hey, the gay folks got what they wanted and the hell with values and long standing traditions.  

    Nice to see the racist slant about “so many white folks whose parents who would been aghast at the thought of electing a black man to the Presidency”.  All whites are racists…..

  • MerrimackMan

    Perhaps 1) you are right that history is on your side and one by one the US States will legalize Homosexual Marriage, and 2) and nothing will become of it. I certainly hope that if Legalized Homosexual Marriage is the future, that nothing else will change.

    However, I doubt both of your suggestions.

    On the first assertion, just because it was legalized in two states this week, doesn’t mean more will follow. 29 states now have Constitutional Amendments against Homosexual Marriage, and I don’t imagine they will be tumbling down anytime soon. In fact, we could see one of these states, Iowa, doing as California did and banning Homosexual Marriage in the immediate future by Referendum. Additionally, there are signifigant movements in a number of the remaining states to ban Homosexual Marriage by Constitutional amendments, including Socially Conservative states like Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia.

    On the second assertion, My suspicion is however, while Homosexual Marriage itself may have a small impact on social breakdown, its just “another brick in the wall” as Western Civilization continues its descent to the ground. We shouldn’t celebrate that no changes in daily life occured as yet because just five years have passed.

    I’m sure that many in the Bourgeoisie of Europe thought that society was in tip top shape five years after the Publishing of the Communist Manifesto (oweing to the fact that the initial commotion in 1848 seemed to died out). Little did they know that it would take another 138 years until Communism was no longer have an effect on EVERY DAY life, without even considering the fact that Communism has affected and changed the world we hold today and for centuries to come.  

  • It was passed in the house & senate but fails to get to get enough support to override the promised veto of Gov. Douglas. So thankgod Vermont still has SOME sense.

    And until the PEOPLE in Massachusetts are allowed to vote on the issue of “gay marriage”, I do not see a gay marriage lawful.  

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    Long ago I floated an idea that I still think has great merit.  Gay marriage is legal, but I still think there is something distinct and sacred about the marriage of two people of the opposite sex and ceremoniously completed by a Minister or Pastor of a church.  I would like to see someone present legislation that created a special classification of marriage called a ‘Christian marriage’ or ‘church marriage’ and have it be distinct from ordinary ‘civil marriage’.

    Maybe this is something done by churches.  If the goal of the GLBT community was to have marriage like everyone else – and they got it –  then why can’t churches move the goal line and create a new kind of marriage.

    This way gay couples can be married and traditional couples can be married, but traditional couples can still have a marriage distinct from gay couples.  Kind of a ‘pro-choice’ kind of thing.  Gay couples want to have their relationship recognized by the state as a ‘marriage’ and I can understand that.  But, if the wedding is performed by a church leader then why can’t a new class of ‘Christian’ marriage be created?  

    I really want to hear some responses to this idea because I have thought of presenting this to some church leaders in the future.

  • We can take some degree of pride here in MA.

    No, we cannot.  Homosexual marriage came about in MA through the usurpation of executive and legislative powers, as given by the People to duly elected representatives of the People…by the unelected and unaccountable judicial branch.

    There is nothing but shame in allowing the civic process to be usurped……no matter the ends.

  • “The legislative process in MA was usurped…..GET OVER IT!!”

  • ceases to amaze me that people will accept the usurpation of legislative and executive powers by a judiciary because they like the end result.

    Yes, I’m talking about the willing acceptance of this atrocious abuse of power and attempts to justify the means to the favorable end.

    I applaud Vermont for doing this the way it should be done……through elected representatives that are held accountable to the People.  Vermont wants to elect people that are pro-homosexual-marriage and then not unelect them when they create homosexual marriage….so be it.  

  • schulteraffe

    …ceases to amaze me that people will refuse to accept that the judiciary is one third of our constitutional government because they don’t like the end result.

    Yes, I’m talking about the willing refusal to accept judicial authority, characterizing an exercise of such authority as an atrocious abuse of power in an attempt to justify dissatisfaction with what is considered an unfavorable end.

    I applaud Vermont for doing this the way it was done, but recognize that the legislature is but 1/3 of the government and that citizens have the right to petition all branches of government, which includes the judiciary as well as elected representatives.  I also recognized that Vermont arrived at this juncture only because of its supreme court’s decision in Baker v. Vermont which led to Vermont being the first state to grant civil unions.  

  • Ignorant fool would claim that the judiciary is 1/3 of our government.

    They are one BRANCH, nothing more.  Not an “equal” branch…just a branch.   Not with equal powers, just different powers.

    Their job was to rule the law Constitutional or not….not to redefine what the law means.  If they determine the law was unConstitutional, they strike it down, not translate provisions to fit their agenda.

    You want to mention Loving?  Well, the Loving ruling did not change what “marriage” is……it merely struck down a law deemed unConstitutional…ending the law.  “Marriage” was still one man one woman.

    You want to mention Brown?  Well, the Brown ruling struck down a law…..ending the law.

    …and I bet you LOVE the Baker v Nelson ruling…..or do rulings not matter when the ends justify the means?

    The ONLY affect of Goodridge SHOULD have been to strike down Massachusetts marriage law, not to redefine what the term “marriage” is under the law.  Iknow the dodge of “they didn’t change the law” but it’s a bogus charge as they do so nonetheless.  They usurped legislative and executive powers to determine what the State would recognize as “marriage”….as marriage is a State right to determine as the State sees fit.

    …but the ends justify the means, so you go along with it.

  • A fool would claim that I have a right to petition the judiciary.

  • only a fool would claim that a “veteran”, as used,  is merely someone with long service in an organization.

    Yep…a veteran criminalien dishwasher can now go get their healthcare at the Veterans’ Administration Hospital.

    Yep, when asked if you’re a “veteran”… can now say “yes” if you’ve been with the Ptown Glee Club for decades.

    Incidently, if you only served in the military for 2 years, that’s not long enough to get veteran status because you don’t have long service.

    Want that veteran license plate… just have to have years and years of service in ANY organization.

    …but by niggling over this asinine notion, the point went ignored.

  • schulteraffe

    …a fool has to incessantly toss around the word “fool” in order to make their point more “intelligent”.