RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Lawmakers unveil gay marriage bill

Hundreds turn out to show support in Montpelier



Euan Bear of Bakersfield holds a sign during a gathering of gay marriage supporters in Montpelier on Friday. Vermont lawmakers introduced a bill that would allow gay marriage in the state that created civil unions for same-sex couples.

TOBY TALBOT / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: February 7, 2009

MONTPELIER – Surrounded by friends and colleagues at the Statehouse on Friday morning, Euan Bear proudly unfurled her banner.

It read: "If we're equal, would you trade your marriage for my civil union?"

"It's an amazing turnout today," said Bear, the former editor of the monthly Out in the Mountains newspaper. "It shows Vermont is ready for this."

Hundreds of gay rights supporters filled the hallways of Montpelier's Statehouse on Friday as lawmakers unveiled a bill that would legalize same sex marriage in Vermont. The bill, which has broad support in the Vermont House and Senate, comes eight years after the state passed its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

As activists gathered petition signatures and lobbied their lawmakers to support the bill, there was nary a sight of opposition that day at the Statehouse – a dramatic change from the rancorous debate over civil unions in that same building less than a decade ago.

"This is another step forward in a long journey that started eight years ago," Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, one of the bill's main supporters, to a room crammed full of hundreds of cheering supporters.

Larson said a similar gay marriage bill unveiled two years ago had 35 co-sponsors. This year's bill has nearly 60 in the Vermont House. He predicted tri-partisan support for the effort, noting that Vermonters realized that legalizing civil unions did not hurt the state.

He also praised the work of a legislative commission formed nearly two years ago by Democrats charged with studying the issue and gathering input from Vermonters. The commission found strong support among residents for same-sex marriage.

"We've still got a lot of work to do and we'll need your help," Larson told supporters.

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, an attorney and supporter of the bill, reflected on a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case argued by Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s after an interracial couple was jailed for being married.

He said just as society accepted marriage between mixed-race couples, it will accept marriage between same-sex couples.

"We didn't get it two years ago," Campbell said, referring to the previous gay marriage bill he sponsored. "But we'll get it done this time."

Late Friday morning, about 100 activists crowded into Gov. James Douglas' ceremonial office at the Statehouse for a private, 30-minute meeting with the Republican executive. Douglas does not support same sex marriage, but it is not clear what he would do if the bill makes it to his desk.

Organizers of the rally were mum on what was discussed during that meeting, but several people who attended said it was a polite and cordial discussion that centered mostly on gay and lesbian Vermonters telling their personal stories.

Douglas has said he believes Vermont's civil union law achieved equality for same-sex couples in the state. That bill was signed into law by the previous governor, Democrat Howard Dean.

Douglas spokesman Stephen Wark said Friday that the governor believes lawmakers should focus on the economy this year. Gay marriage supporters in the House said Friday that lawmakers can do that and push a civil rights agenda.

Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, one of the bill's supporters, said many conservative colleagues have told him privately they were reluctant to sign on as co-sponsors, but would gladly support the bill when it came up on the House floor.

"Some of them don't want to offend their constituents by signing onto the bill," Zuckerman said. "But they recognize this is a civil rights issue and that gay and lesbian Vermonters are their constituents, too."

Gay and lesbian Vermonters were joined by their straight supporters at the Statehouse rally Friday. Michel Kabay of Plainfield said he and his wife, Deborah Black, have marched in Burlington's annual gay pride demonstration every year since moving to Vermont from Canada in 1998.

He said everyone should have the right to marry the person they love.

"I understand that some people have religious objections to same-sex marriage, and I have no problem with that," Kabay said. "But I will not tolerate persecution of a person because of their gender identity."

Included in the same-sex marriage bill in the Vermont Legislature is a provision that allows religious leaders to refuse to perform a same-sex ceremony if it is in conflict with their beliefs.

A couple whose lawsuit led to the creation of civil unions say the bill is a step forward toward equality. Both recently retired, the two women are drawing on social security.

"If something happens to one or the other of us, we cannot, like a heterosexual couple, like a married couple, we cannot draw on each other," said Lois Farnum of Burlington.

And outside of Vermont, people don't necessarily understand what a civil union is, said her partner, Holly Puterbaugh, 62.

"It would be so much easier to say we're married, and they get it," she said. Gay marriage opponent Stephen Cable, of Rutland, spokesman for the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, said the legislation would not provide any more benefits to same-sex couples on the state level.

It would also create confusion over parenting laws, he said.

Cable's group sent a letter to legislators last week, saying it would "permanently weaken the connection between marriage, parenting and family structure and likely increase out-of-wedlock births and single parenting."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

daniel.barlow@rutland herald.com.








READER COMMENTS


Arnie, repeating misinformation does not make it true. Most of us have had this demonstrated to us ad nauseum courtesey of the Bush/Cheny gang during the whole 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq fiasco.
It holds true in terms of your maliciously misinformed posts as well.
By the way, how is it going with your dog? Has she (I assume it is a she) consented to marry you yet or are you still pining for her affections. Don't worry, if she wont have you, you can ask your sister again!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Feb 12, 2009, 10:10 pm EST

report this comment



This should be beneath me, but I've just got to say it...

I picture Arnie's house as the same type of setting in the original 'Carrie' movie. You know... old, run-down house with all the blinds drawn, and inside... religious icons and crucifixes everywhere with lots of mismatched candles.... a male (Arnie) version of the mother... moaning and screaming about the "SIN!!!" that the entire rest of the world were obviously succumbing to.... (I hope Arnie doesn't need a bucket of pig blood to complete his almost perfect caricature of the mother)

Everything he says just seems to fit that image to a T. :-)
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Thu, Feb 12, 2009, 6:45 pm EST

report this comment



"If you're truly longing to marry your sister or a cow, Arnie, take it up with the Supreme Court. If you want the rights, make the argument to the people in power, not us. We'll see how far you get."

Practice what you preach, Ernest. Seems if the gays can use the Herald for their March, I think it should be equal time for all other groups as well.



Gays and Pedophiles are very closely related.

They both do abnormal actions.

Both have a very high percentage of the other within their group

Both have a problem that neither want to investigate.

They both get they sexual pleasures from abnormal sex.

Both groups have a high percentage of being sexually molested when they were children.

Both groups are less than 2 % of the normal population.

As both groups grow ion numbers the result of both is a measure of the moral decay within the society that they occupy.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Thu, Feb 12, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment



tburd... the ******* sarcasm is entirely warranted. If you somehow haven't 'gotten it'... we don't want our marriages termed 'civil unions' anymore than heterosexuals would want theirs termed so.

Do you understand? Does it really need to be explicitly spelled out to you?? No one dreams of the day when they fall in love and say "I love you SO much honey, that I want to get 'civil-unioned' to you!!" It's not fair, equal, or acceptable. Just as heterosexuals would not want to give up the term 'marriage' in exchange for 'civil-union'... we do not want any term other than what it is as well....

It's 'marriage', plain and simple.

This is something so glaringly clear and simple that you shouldn't have to have someone explain it to you. When we want to get married... we want to get 'married'.. same as anyone else.
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 7:20 pm EST

report this comment



Aaron,
That does nothing to explain civil rights violations other than to say that people want a different name attached to the union. I am open to hearing actual civil rights violations. I don't believe a term is a violation of civil rights. ...and please, no ******** sarcasm, just an explaination. I'm not saying one way or the other is right or wrong. Civil unions didn't affect me, I didn't fight for or against it. Just as the term "marriage" for gays and lesbians won't affect me and I'm not fighting for or against it either.
Again, how does a term become a civil rights violation? Isn't everyone in Vermont entitled to the same "benefits"?
-- Posted by tburd on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 4:49 pm EST

report this comment



I find it odd that as soon as people bring up gay marriage that some people jump to the absolute extreme and start saying things about marrying their sisters and pet dogs and such. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere, and people should not be able to marry pets or close relatives, but two consenting unrelated adults? I am a straight married woman, and I have no fear that gay marriage will make my marriage feel any less real. And civil unions aren't the same as marriage. Yes, you get the rights, but it's not the same as being able to say you have a spouse.
-- Posted by Dear Jane on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 3:46 pm EST

report this comment



tburd... sure! Once all heterosexuals say they're just fine doing away with the term 'marriage' and forever more just calling their marriage a 'civil union'... then we're all just fine, dandy, and equal.... we'll be expecting you to be the first in line of course to joyfully give up the term since you believe it makes no difference. :-)
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 11:18 am EST

report this comment



If you're truly longing to marry your sister or a cow, Arnie, take it up with the Supreme Court. If you want the rights, make the argument to the people in power, not us. We'll see how far you get.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 9:34 am EST

report this comment



Gee Arnie, you lose credibility when you don't know the difference between a pedophile and a gay person. Pedophiles have sex with CHILDREN, gay men have sex with other gay MEN, not children. Hope this helps you out.
-- Posted by Lilly on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 8:35 am EST

report this comment



My sister and I have Civl Rights, so what is the problem for us to marry?

If two Men can marry each other, why can't brother and sister? 1st cousins? Mother and Son? Father and Daughter? Why not open marriage to everyone who wants to marry whether it be that Veins guy and the Holstein or a brother annd sister?
Seems fitting to me, that if the gays can defend that their lifestyle is acceptable enough to marry and be witnessed under the eyes of God, than all of God's creature should be entitled to the same benefit. Even the old man should be able to marry that pretty little girl.
We can save courts a lot of money by making all those altar boys pay back the churches, because Gay is normal and the Priest was just showing his LOVE for them.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 6:25 am EST

report this comment



Not that I really care if a new name is attached to "Civil Unions", because it isn't going to affect my life one way or the other. Instead of calling me ignorant and a moron, typical assertions in here, educate me on how anyone is being discriminated against when it comes to their rights other than the name of the union.
-- Posted by tburd on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 10:48 pm EST

report this comment



So, Arnie, the prospect of giving gay couples equal rights makes you want to marry your sister? Hmmm, some counseling may be in order. I love my sister, too, and my brother, but I've never thought of marrying either of them.

As for the state wide ballot idea, that's not how we handle civil rights in VT. So I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. Everyone has equal opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter to their legislators. This bill couldn't be simpler. I don't see any reason why it would take up much time in the legislature. It's one easy, positive thing they can do in a difficult year for everyone. And once the marriage equality bill is passed, the few loud objectors to it won't notice any difference in their lives or marriages whatsoever.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:49 pm EST

report this comment



tburd

It's foolish to let morons like you decide on civil rights for another segment of the population.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:08 pm EST

report this comment



Arnie,

If your sister will give you legal consent...go for it.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:06 pm EST

report this comment



By Arnie's logic, there was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel... so there must have been some serious incest going on there to populate the earth... go for it, Arnie! She's probably already used to your attentions. :-)
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:02 pm EST

report this comment



Why don't you go ask 'God' Arnie...
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment



I LOVE my sister, can I marry her?
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 6:46 pm EST

report this comment



tburd... case not closed. This cannot be allowed to be voted on by the populace anymore than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have been. You have too much ignorance on the subject, and do not understand the guarantees of equality given by constitutional law.
-- Posted by Aaron Lindahl on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 5:05 pm EST

report this comment



Let's stop the arguing, agree to disagree, stop wasting the time of our representatives in Montpelier (we are in a fiscal crisis) and put the issue on a state wide ballot. Let the people decide. Are both sides afraid of losing a state wide vote. Case closed!
-- Posted by tburd on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 4:45 pm EST

report this comment



This is THE shining achievement of the Vermont Legislature.

Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 3:49 pm EST

report this comment



Another bigot amoung us.

Just go away....just go away.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 3:19 pm EST

report this comment



Well Mike Guay (the u is silent... right?) I am a grade 'A' crack head... My head was intended for the crack in the front of a member of the opposite sex. How do the residents of N. Hero feel about this debate? Do you live in San Francisco
North or what???
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 10:58 am EST

report this comment



Atricle 16 is a number one class "A" crack head. Such paranoia. "Hit List?" Do you believe that blacks had a "Hit List" back in the days when they were struggling for their civil/human rights and equality? Let me guess...
Gay marriage/full equality IS coming folks. As is the death of don't ask, don't tell in the military. What will you tell your children & grandchildren 25-50 years from now when it is the law of the land? Will you be like those old clan members who used to lynch innocent blacks, burned their churches, and generally made their lives miserable due to your own backwards thinking bigotry? Or will you be able to say that you were on the RIGHT side of history, human rights & morality?
I know what I'm gonna be able to say with pride.
-- Posted by Mike Guay on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 9:41 am EST

report this comment



None None, Cable & Co., will never be satisfied. As for teaching sex ed to prevent unintentional (not accidental, as pregnent is what you are supposed to get when you have sex... it's an accident if you don't get pregnant!)pregnancies in school, they are dead against it. They are an "Abstinance only" group... which we saw how well that stance worked out for the Palins. lol
Cable, Sargent, Bleir and their ilk are a bunch of scared closeted/repressed little people with nothing better to do than dictate how others should live. They seem to know best in their dillusional little minds.
-- Posted by Mike Guay on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 9:35 am EST

report this comment



Mike Jones obviously can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

You are right though we shouldn't be talking about gay marriage right now...we should be talking about the economy......sooooooo I suggest/demand that you pass the gay marriage bill as soon as possible. Now we can get back to the economy.

Moron.
.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 7:06 am EST

report this comment



When people have been living together for years, unable to get married because of homophobic discrimination, there is no need for an extra job to get married. This comment betrays the writer's ignorance on the subject.

YES everyone needs a more flourishing economic environment. But that does not mean that we cannot address a burning human rights issue at the same time, especially one that may even have POSITIVE effects on our VT economy.
-- Posted by lizr None on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 6:58 am EST

report this comment



how about we fix the economy first and then we can debate gay marriage... the way i see it if these gay people or stright for that matter dont have jobs then they wont be able to afford to get married.. first thing is first fix the economy...remember as much VT lawmakers wanna put themselves on the map for passing this, there will be more people affected by a poor economy then a gay marriage bill
-- Posted by Mike Jones on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, 1:11 am EST

report this comment



A reasonable question. The folks I know who work for Marriage Equality (including me) are active in a number of issues, including civil rights, human rights, and vulnerable populations. Other volunteer work among my immediate friends & me: Food shelves & feeding the hungry; Sheltering the homeless and helping families keep their homes; Fostering children who need homes; Companion animal rescue & placement; Hospice care; School board service; Nonprofit board service; Environmental protection; and much more.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 7:08 pm EST

report this comment



It really boggles my mind how a society will accept 'heterosexual men and women' get marrried and not gays. It's should be 'equality for all' not a select few. I don't believe gays choose to be gay anymore than heterosexuals pick their orientation. Give gays their rights and lets move on to more important issues......like jobs and the economy. Like someone said, the gay issue is 'all smoke and mirrors'. If the GOP what something to ***** about why not complain about the heterosexual men and women in jail for abusing or molesting children. Let's get our priorities straight.
-- Posted by sharon conova on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 4:20 pm EST

report this comment



"So how many of you folks support the rest of our rights? Do you support gun rights, do you support human rights, do you even care about anything other than if you can marry your same sex significant other?
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 1:42 pm EST

Oh the drama! When I support gun rights, I generally do it in a forum that is discussing gun rights. Marriage equality is a human right. Some of us can post comments on an article in a small city paper and still manage to care about a few other things...
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 3:49 pm EST

report this comment



Elizabeth Pecor doesn't even LIVE in Vermont!!!!! She lives in New Hampshire!!!


Maybe because this is a virus and as soon as one state gets it the one right next to it is surely bound to be infected...



New Hampshire is next on your hit list isn't it?
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 1:44 pm EST

report this comment



So how many of you folks support the rest of our rights? Do you support gun rights, do you support human rights, do you even care about anything other than if you can marry your same sex significant other?
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Mon, Feb 9, 2009, 1:42 pm EST

report this comment



thanks to all our beautiful straight supporters.

Gay marriage is an idea whose time has come. No more separate but equal, cause we all know it is a lie.

We need the Fed benefits, we need security for our partners when something happens to us (death, hospitalization) we need all insurance and pension benefits.

Mean spirited people can no longer try to keep us from what we deserve.

And the good news is that VT stands an excellent chance of benefiting economically as well :) How nice that doing the right thing has its rewards.

Thank you Jesus!
-- Posted by lizr None on Sun, Feb 8, 2009, 11:57 pm EST

report this comment



"Gay marriage opponent Stephen Cable, of Rutland, spokesman for the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, said the legislation would not provide any more benefits to same-sex couples on the state level."

That is utter nonsense. Even if the bill passes he thinks he can keep the "gay community" from having equal civil rights? So he is straight up admitting he would deny rights to people if he can get away with it. I hope he gets voted out of office soon. I'm not gay but he obviously thinks he is above the law and constitution.

"It would also create confusion over parenting laws, he said."

Really? Parent = Parent. Guardian = Guardian. Just take the words mother and father out of equation. Which these should be taken out of the equation anyhow. If divorce/seperation or anything, the Parent/Guardian best suited to care for the child, without prejudice, should be rewarded custody. We are already seeing more fathers winning custody battles. It took a long time but both parents/guardians are being looked at equally without their gender in question. So what is the issue? Stop the excuses. You oppose this and will do anything in your power to prevent their happiness.

Now, we the people, know your true colors. We know that if you ever disagree with our way-of-living. You will deny us any rights you think you can get away with.

"Cable's group sent a letter to legislators last week, saying it would "permanently weaken the connection between marriage,

Really? Seriously? Marriage used to be a sacred bind of two people. Now there are people that get married one week and divorced the next. Again and again. These are heterosexuals. So gays will permanently weaken marriage? So, I assume he thinks Hollywood hasn't? LOL.. That argument is weak, pathetic, and easily fought. All the arguments on religion are weak and useless, also. (Seperation of church and state.)

If marriage were truly "binding". Then it would truly mean "til death do us part." Face the fact. Divorce is a way of life. For everyone. And always will be.

Everyone can relax. If your church doesn't support it. These proceedings will never take place in your church. I agree with that. If it is not the Church's belief to marry two of the same sex. Then don't do it. If the Pope decided many years later to allow it. Then things will change. The Church is always last to comply with all humanity anyhow. Throughout history they have always kicked, screamed, punished, and killed people for free thinking. It is not for many years later, when they can no longer deny the truth, that they finally break down and allow evidence and truth to compel them to do the right thing. Look at the true history of astronomy. If you don't believe.

"parenting and family structure and likely increase out-of-wedlock births and single parenting."

Huh? Really? Did this whole group of people forget these people are gay? Their "fornification" never will create a baby. They would have to "plan" to have a child.

If you want less out-of-wedlock births and single parenting. Put more education into the schools to help heterosexual young adults with that issue.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Feb 8, 2009, 10:33 am EST

report this comment



Elizabeth: can you walk and chew gum at the same time? I'm sure the legislature can, too. Marriage is between one man and one woman because some states and the federal government have defined it that way for the moment. Laws can, and will, be changed!

Vermontis: If Vermont passes legislation legalizing gay marriage, they will change the existing law to recognize marriages from other states. Passing this bill in VT will help get gay marriage recognized in other states. As some states start to recognize gay marriage, others will follow suit. When enough states recognize gay marriage, the feds will be forced to do so also.

Just for the record, in case you were wondering, I am a straight, happily married man who happens to believe that marriage (and all of its rights and responsibilities) is a basic human right that ALL citizens of this state are entitled to. This isn't just a gay rights issue, it is a human rights issue. It always has been and always will be. Anything else, any other argument, is just smoke and mirrors.
-- Posted by John McKenna on Sun, Feb 8, 2009, 9:43 am EST

report this comment



Elizabeth Pecor doesn't even LIVE in Vermont!!!!! She lives in New Hampshire!!!

Elizabeth why don't you concentrate on your own state and leave ours alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 6:53 pm EST

report this comment



Thanks, Vermontis: those are exactly the laws that will change with this bill.

Our fight is not with states that don't recognize gay marriage YET, since we have no marriages here to be recognized. Once we have full marriage, they will be recognized in MA, CT, and NY immediately. For many purposes they will also be recognized in other states and foreign countries. Sometime soon they will be recognized Federally.

Civil Unions provide much less hope.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment



I am grateful to live in Vermont, where the legislature is striving to recognize and protect ALL its citizens who live, work, and pay taxes here. If separate could really be equal, there would be no need for anything separate.

As a practical matter, Vermonters who qualify for spousal benefits from in-state or out-of-state companies CANNOT offer those benefits to their Civil Union partners -- whereas in Mass. & Conn. where there is full marriage equality, same-sex spouses CAN access those benefits.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 3:18 pm EST

report this comment



Title 15, Vermont Statues:

§ 1204. Benefits, protections and responsibilities of parties to a civil union

(a) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

Title 15, Chapter 5:

§ 5. Marriage entered into in another state

"If a person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state is prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state and such person goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state."

If VERMONT does not recognize marriages from another State deemed illegal in Vermont, what makes you think other States will recognize gay marriages from Vermont????

Your fight is with States that dont recognize gay marriage and the feds...passing gay marriage in Vermont will NOT give you the "rights" you seek.Saying they will is disengenous at best.

one final note from Title 15:

§ 8. Marriage definition

Marriage is the legally recognized union of one man and one woman. (Added 1999, No. 91 (Adj. Sess.), § 25.)

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=15&Chapter=001
-- Posted by Vermontis on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 2:35 pm EST

report this comment



I think this Bill is just as important then anything else. So hats off. Vermont takes another step forward congrats.
-- Posted by Tina Cobb on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 1:29 pm EST

report this comment



Elizabeth: stop screaming and take off the caps-lock. Chill.

The legislature is working on MANY other things, as was clear at the Statehouse yesterday. The difference with this legislation is that it can be done very easily. The research has been done, it doesn't involve crafting difficult legislation. It's easy and won't take much time unless the anti-marriage people want to play obstructionist.

Polls show that there are many more people for marriage now than there were for CUs in 2000. Of course there are still some who oppose it, but they are now the minority, which apparently requires them to scream.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 12:11 pm EST

report this comment



THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORK IN THE STATE HOUSE BESIDES GAY MARRIAGE BILL. THEY SHOULD BE WORING ON LOWERING TAXES, BRINGING JOBS TO VERMONT. REMEMBER MARRIAGE IS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!!! THIS WILL HURT THE PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR IT LIKE IT DID WITH CIVIL UNIONS.
-- Posted by Elizabeth Pecor on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 11:43 am EST

report this comment



If you can watch this video and not feel for the cause then you are a cold hearted person.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce
.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, 7:20 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout