RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Give majority a voice



Toolbox

Published: April 8, 2009

Isn't it interesting that when certain people realize that their argument doesn't hold water, they tell you to sit down and shut up? It sure seems that way in the current debate in Montpelier. When Sen. Kevin Mullin suggested a "let the people speak" referendum, it got shot down very quickly. How come?

The genderless marriage folks say that they are not afraid of a vote here in Vermont, claiming a substantial margin of support. But yet they say that an advisory referendum is a bad idea and not necessary. When an issue is of vital importance (as both sides agree this one is), our legislators have been wise enough in the past to put out a referendum.

A perfect example is the lottery. Vermonters spoke clearly on that one in the polling booth.

If we were to believe the ads, we'd think that the clergy, business people, lawyers, academics and social science folks area all in favor of genderless marriage. The arguments are well rehearsed, delivered by silver-tongued lawyers and heavily funded from out of state. But they are still a lie, dressed up in the borrowed glow of "civil rights." Sixty percent of African-Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Most Vermonters don't care for this genderless marriage either.

They want kids to have a mom and a dad. Most Vermonters see marriage working best as a one-man/one-woman union and don't particularly care to see Montpelier tinkering with a time-test institution.

We've got a good process here in our state when it takes its cues from the majority of Vermonters, not from special interest groups seeking, not just tolerance, but to turn the whole concept of marriage on its head.

MILTON R. WEBBER

Mount Holly








READER COMMENTS


If you are the only representation of what "change" is, I want no part of it or you.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 1:23 pm EST

report this comment


Equal Rights Dates and info......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

People keep referring to the BIBLE BELT in their comments.

They are usually years behind us. Or forced into change.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 1:07 pm EST

report this comment


Milton,

"A perfect example is the lottery. Vermonters spoke clearly on that one in the polling booth."

Huh? The Lottery is a perfect example? What?
Letting majority vote for miniorities is in no way similar to letting the majority vote for the lottery.

"Most Vermonters don't care for this genderless marriage either."

This line has been used by both sides. No one has the TRUE results. Why don't we all atleast agree on that. The only poll I'm aware of, was the Doyle poll. And that disagree's with your statement.

"Most Vermonters see marriage working best as a one-man/one-woman union and don't particularly care to see Montpelier tinkering with a time-test institution."

Really? 50% divore rate. Time-Test? Well as time goes on marriage has less and less meaning to people. Is that what you mean? Many people get married and divorced within 2-5 years. Did you know that? It doesn't seem to test time. Nor does time test it.

WHAT WHOLE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE?

Unfortunately marriage isn't held to a high standard anymore. Many movie/rock stars get married one week, and divorced the next. Wouldn't you think that is more of a problem? Truth is, the sanctity of marriage was ruined years ago.

Let's see. There was a time when MEN had the right to marry women. Women had no rights. So if a woman no longer wanted to be with a man. She was stuck with him unless she poisoned him or killed him. Right? Seriously, how could they get away? They were property. If their man was understanding and uncontrolling than sure. Maybe some men did the right thing. But how many did?

You can't look back any further than when women had the right to divorce. Because anything further back is useless. Women were the property of man. (Women had the right to divorce in the UK in 1857.)

Some people say the "idea" of marriage has been going on for about 5000 years. So, women have had the right to divorce in 1 country for the past 152 years. I have no idea when other countries allowed it. But obviously only in the past 100-150 years have women had the opportunity to be ALMOST the 2nd half of a relationship. Let's see when they had equal rights as man.

New England allowed a woman to vote in 1756. (Wow, we are good at making history.) Women earned the right to vote in 1920(USA). They earned the right to vote in a federal election in 1973(Got this from another source).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

Vatican City - No suffrage for women, while most men in the Holy, all persons with suffrage in Papal conclaves.

time-test institution? You can't be serious! Today, Vatican City doesn't accept any women's rights.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment


Seems everyone finished breakfast. Now Kevin, a little apple/orange comparison going on there. You portray the Doyle polls as a matter of fact, they are not, neither are polls that portray opposite results. You may think him/poll godly, I do not. To use the poll as you do is spin because you do not show opposing views/polls. It is not as clear as your election comparison, but spin none the less. And your right about calling out someones on numbers, I probably would do the same. My refering to you as a spin master was a general observation and not based on the one single post. That was a compliment believe it or not as I believe you are good at it, the other part was a SAC.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 10:12 am EST

report this comment


Don can't answer because there was no statewide vote.

NN1: spin? Where? Somebody makes up a vote out of pure cloth and I call him on it, that's spin? So if somebody says McCain won in 2008 and I point out that Obama won, that's spin?
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 9:35 am EST

report this comment


Don D: What vote are you talking about?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 9:06 am EST

report this comment


Moss, you are indeed a master at the spin. You should sit on it first.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 8:16 pm EST

report this comment


"I can remember when this issue was in fact put in front of the people and the people did vote it down."

Ummm... I guess you have a good imagination, because there was never such a vote. There have been Doyle polls, but that's it. And the latest Doyle poll showed 55% favor marriage equality.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 7:25 pm EST

report this comment


I can remember when this issue was in fact put in front of the people and the people did vote it down. Then the legislators voted for it anyway, because they "knew" better then the people. The next election came and low and behold a majority if not all of the representatives that voted for this were quickly voted out. I really just don't care who does what. What I do care about is if a majority truly doesn't want this. Then it is the representatives responsibility to represent. Marriage is a religious rite anyway. If you look at the legal paperwork you get from the town hall. That is the actual union.
-- Posted by Don D on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 6:56 pm EST

report this comment


The majority spoke LAST November.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 1:33 pm EST

report this comment


Right again ex-Vtr, Sandy forgot to say the majority were ultra liberal and sponsored by gay activists. Get rid of the liberals and problem solved, vote them back in and continue with this crud. Its all settled in 2010 and they know it.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 12:49 pm EST

report this comment


Sandy, during the run for the last elections how many representatives announced they were going to push through a bill to allow gay marriage? We all know the answer, none. The majority will be heard at the next election, we will see how the majority feels in less then a year. The legislators are banking on the people have a short memory. The representatives have their head in the sand and think they know what's best for the people, even in a little state like Vermont the power goes to their head.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 12:24 pm EST

report this comment


The majority DID already have a voice. Don't forget. The majority is who elected our legislators, who just voted for this amazing civil rights triumph. I have a very good friend who is gay and who is also a devoted Christian. He says the rosary during his commute. If you were to meet him at church, you would "never know" he's gay. I think most people who fear gays are those who think they've never met one. Don't waste your God-given energy in judging and restricting others. Live your life, pray for those whom you think need the prayers and let it be. You will be a much happier person.
-- Posted by Sandy D on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 12:10 pm EST

report this comment


I read where the Gay coalition states their job is not done until all the legislators who voted for gay marriage are re-elected. After all the bluster and BS that single statement reveals the truth, that they too know the reality of the situation, that the majority of Vermonts disagree and will be heard at the elections when many of these legislators are tossed out on their butts. vermont has been on the wrong track for too long, liberal laws that drive away business, #1 state in taxes which are being raised at a unsustainable rate. Vermont will bust like the housing boom, time to clean house in Montpelier while there is something left to safe.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 9:06 am EST

report this comment


Get over yourself kevin, the reason you won is because of the gay activists and the tons on money they funneled into VT. Lets see what happens in 2010. Thats why you keep harping on the subject instead of making marriage plans (for your genderless marriage), because you are one of those activists, live, breath, work, everything gay. Mr phd in homesexuality.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 7:45 am EST

report this comment


"Genderless marriage" is a term that will take its place in the dustbin of history.

"The arguments are well rehearsed, delivered by silver-tongued lawyers and heavily funded from out of state" -- that describes the anti-marriage side to a T, except maybe not so silver-tongued and not lawyers. A Ripton delegate said he got tons of mail: out of state mail mostly anti-marriage that repeated things orchestrated by national groups, and in-state mail from his constituents with real stories about real people, some of whom he knew.

We won this because it's right, and we won in spite of all the out of state lobbying on the anti-gay side. We won it by a super-majority of legislators who know their constituents better than in most states.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 7:46 pm EST

report this comment


Merideths insinuation that anyone opposed to homosexuals was a closeted one sparked my first response to her. I will respond to false accusations werever I see fit. If you don't like my response, don't respond to it, it's that simple. I will push back with equal or more pressure to insinuations that are not true in my opinion. Definately not gay or closeted.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 4:55 pm EST

report this comment


Okay, so I am going to leave this conversation now. I have spent too much of my valuable time on this board, trying to defrend myself, and I realized I don't need to be defended. I know I am a good person. One who loves unconditionally and takes care of her family. One who is a well respected member of my town and work communities. One who cannot change my orientation any easier than you can change the color of your skin. It doesn't really matter to me if you disagree with me, it won't change the facts.

I apologize for stooping to the level of some bigoted people here by name calling, etc. That is not who I am as a person. Sometimes, when you are bullied for something you cannot control, you get defensive in ugly ways. For that I am sorry.

I wish everyone - gay, straight, trans, bi, whatever - the best in their lives. Please just remember that no matter how our orientations differ, we are really all the same - humans.

Take care and good luck to all of you.
-- Posted by Meredith Fletcher on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 4:24 pm EST

report this comment


You just proved my point, as you basically called me a drug addict before. So if name-calling is no inherently "gay" then you must be.
-- Posted by Meredith Fletcher on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 4:12 pm EST

report this comment


Even more name calling, not to gay huh. Now thats a miracle conception.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment


And you get more ignorant the more you post. Thank you very much, I will (and do) have a nice life. In fact, I have a great life with my soon to be WIFE and our son.

Go enjoy yourself in your fantasy world where everyone is straight, white and male.
-- Posted by Meredith Fletcher on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 3:36 pm EST

report this comment


Merideth, you get funnier every time you post. Have a lice life.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment


Actually NoneNone One, if you really knew me, you would number one, never know I was gay, and two, think I was about the most normal and non-loony person you know.

I am sure you would be shocked to know that you probably know a lot of gay people (yourself included, since you are so against it), and they are everyday citizens, doing jobs and paying taxes just like you.

So no, I am not on medication, but thank you for saying that as it just makes you look even more insane.
-- Posted by Meredith Fletcher on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 2:08 pm EST

report this comment


Meredith is using an illegal substance or over medicated to get those thoughts. Hope things work out for you lady.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment


Anyone who is so violently against gay marriage are just in the closet themselves. I mean seriously, if you feel so strongly about it, it must be because you cannot come to terms with your own feelings. I have seen it thousands of times before.

Take the relogion issue out of it. It's not about religion! It's about equality! Doesn't our pledge say "Liberty and Justice for All"???? Why does all only mean straight white men?
-- Posted by Meredith Fletcher on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 11:46 am EST

report this comment


Let the majority vote on miniorities rights, fruits, and rewards? Seriously? Are you mental? Do you not understand the idea of AMERICA?

I was born and raised in Vermont, too. Doesn't mean we all think so one-sidedly. Some of us actually Love people like God intended. We don't judge people like many faiths do. Isn't judging people against God/Christ? But you do it anyhow? Why? I believe there is more data in the bible about NOT JUDGING people and forgiveness. Than there is against the Gay Communities. I may be wrong but judging others is definitely against his teachings.

Maybe we should take away the marriage rights of people that judge others? If we really want to follow the bible to the T!

I swear some people live in the dark ages. Their minds are broken and twisted. Unfortunately, some people are home-schooled. They never get the FULL information. Many people don't hear about the TRUTH. They just grow up thinking Religion is Great and is never evil. They get one view, their parents view, on history, events, and what is moral. This can cause someone to be racist, filled with hatred, resentment, and possibly filled with lies and confusion. Misguided education can be evil and corrupt.

On what basis is something considered deviant?

Religious? (Which all documentation was written and translated by man, NOT GOD! Many of mans insecurities made it into the Bible. To think that is not the truth. Is to believe these men NEVER sinned. Which is B.S. Everyone does! Even the very Institutions of Religion has sinned.
Institution of Religions Leaders are guilty of being Political, Greedy (Money/Power), Murderous (Mass Killings/War), Controlling, Sex Crimes (Against Children and Adults), and etc. But some people cannot fathom the idea of them mistranslating something? Or adding their own ideas? ... They just blame man for these treachories and escape responsibility. Such B.S. What kind of God, with his words, would protect an Evil institution operating under his name? A moral God? NO! Man definitely added something because no moral God would welcome their tyranny.

Nature? (Many animals show dominance in this fashion. Perhaps even we did millions of years ago. We know there is evidence of Homosexuality at the beginning of written history.)

If you mean "Liberal" as people who stood up and fought for someones liberties. Isn't that what AMERICA is about? Is that supposed to be a "Bad Label"? Really?

LOL.. JB... True... If everywhere in America accepts Same-Sex Marriage. VT and other states will lose the benefit of being the miniority in that sense. Thus, losing more and more money from this venture as more states accept it. But we can recieve the fruits and rewards from this before it becomes Nationally/Federally recognized. So it makes sense to do this SOONER rather than LATER.

In these bad economic times. Anything that helps seems like a good idea. Remember the G.Bush tiny stimulus? It helped a little. It didn't fix the problem. And no one said this would FIX the problem.

Personally, I never actually used the economic influx, that can come from this being legalized, as an offensive/defensive stance. For me, I think all people should be equal in this nation. That is what AMERICA stands for. Marriage is LEGALLY controlled in this country. Since this is true. I don't think religious beliefs play any role to it's LEGALITY in this country. America is a land of many religions and beliefs.

But to turn the table. What about the naysayers B.S. about the "Time & Importance Debate"?

What about the time spent on this subject. Many people think it was a waste of time. And now they want to fight to make it CU again? Or possibly take away any right for them to commit their relationship?

What about the TIME issue JB? What about the more important tasks these legislators should be working on? What about all of that B.S. that people said?

Many people here used the "Time & Importance Debate", the governor used the 'Time & Importance Debate", Stephen Cable used the 'Time & Importance Debate". And now many of them want to fight back and take this away from the Gay Community.

Atleast the Governor says.. "Ok, let's move forward now." But lots of people on here and Steven Cable cannot. Steven Cable is by far the worst. He thinks this is the most important issue. He wants his revenge. And he's willing to continue to waste legislature's time. He obviously only cares about what he wants. Time was never a real issue with these people. They were just hoping they could slow this down, and sweep it under the carpet, for another century.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 10:56 am EST

report this comment


The majority can and will be heard in 2010! Let's not forget how our Rep's folded to the pressure from a few special interest groups and let us down! Continue to support Gov. Douglas and let's "clean House" in 2010, the WE will be heard.....
-- Posted by tim johnson on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 8:29 am EST

report this comment


kevins marriage will not be genderless, just ganderless. "I found my thrill on broke back hill".....da da, da da.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:11 pm EST

report this comment


Cheers to all of the newly engaged couples!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:06 pm EST

report this comment


a. paulled, would that make us a democratic republic?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 7:33 pm EST

report this comment


Never going to give up you left wing nut job. It will still be deviant. And its not over untill after 2010. And claiming that you are normal because you can get a license is the misnomer.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment


My marriage will not be "genderless" -- that's a misnomer thought up by the wingnuts. And it didn't work, did it?
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:48 pm EST

report this comment


Give up guys.
It's over in Vermont.
Same sex couples will be marrying in September.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment


It is true, marriage is not a religous right, it is a contract between two individuals and the state turning over all your rights for a free life to a divorce judge if either party decides to void the marriage. Why should straight people be the only ones to have to endure the traumatic and life altering experience of the Vermont divorce courts. Welcome to the club gay people, I'm sure as time passes more and more will regret the right bestowed on them.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 4:59 pm EST

report this comment


Maybe he ment they gave it to us in the back door.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 3:00 pm EST

report this comment


Dwayne: The legislative process can not really be called "back door". It was about the most public process I've ever seen.
-- Posted by SC Boy on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 2:54 pm EST

report this comment


quezzy: noun; short for the word "question".
Ex.: "I gotta quick quezzy for ya, mah nizzle..."
(Urban dictionary)
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 2:30 pm EST

report this comment


Why can't we vote if we want it or not? Are they afraid of the out come? Why do they always back door everything so we the people can't vote on it?
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 11:54 am EST

report this comment


Lets see haw many of the 100 super majority survive in 2010. How much of that out of state support (money) is going to hang around untill 2010? Dictionary didn't change yet either, last check on mother nature said no dice their too. That vote didn't change nothing but what you get to call each other in this and three other states. Deviant behavior is still deviant. Legislate that.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 11:12 am EST

report this comment


Actually Comfy, the United Stated is a Republic. But whatever, who cares right?

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
-- Posted by A paulled on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 10:06 am EST

report this comment


Vermonters DID vote in November.
They elected their legislators by a majority vote.
Those legislators, in BOTH houses, passed marriage equality by a SUPER-MAJORITY!!
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 10:02 am EST

report this comment


Respect, not going to happen. Tolerance is more applicable, as in we tolerate that you are the way you are. Respect is never going to happen. They can't legislate that. And speaking of legislation, three of them changed their former NAY vote to Yea in the final vote, they are;

1. Evans of Essex
2. South of St Johnsbury
3. Young of St Albans City.

And Audette of S. Burlington who was a former NAY voter and decided to not show because he was mad at the Gov.

Take it to the voting booth in 2010, the majority will at that time be aforded their right to vote. It's your call.
-- Posted by NoneNone One on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 10:00 am EST

report this comment


Majority rules. That is why gay marriage supporters are very afraid of putting this dumb a**ed issue to a vote. They know that they have been lying to the public making idiotic claims that the majority is in favor of gay marriage. I'll just bet that if this time wasting issue is brought up for public vote, that it will be defeated by no less than 85% of the public vote. We have wasted enough time on the issue.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 9:45 am EST

report this comment


I will try to make this simple. The United States of America is a DEMOCRACY. That means that we have a system of checks and balances to avoid any one group getting too much power over the others. This is why Gov. Douglas was able to veto the bill in spite of it being voted for by the majority of our representatives.Our nation is founded on the belief that ALL are created equal....not all white straight, christian men, just all.
If we lived in a mobocracy (also known as ochlocracy) we would vote and the majority would rule on every little issue. Of course women wouldn't be allowed to vote since they didn't have the right before so they would not have any say and there wouldn't have been any court to rule otherwise. Oh, and we would still have slavery because the slaves wouldn't be allowed to vote (even if they could, there weren't enough of them to over rule the mob) on their own rights. We would also have a very unstable society since mobs don't tend to behave rationally or do what is right.
This is why the majority is not given the privelige of voting on what rights the minority should have.
Marriage is far from being an exclusively christian institution and we do not live in a nation that is ruled by one religion.
Even our President stated in no uncertain terms that we are not a christian nation, nor are we a jewish nation or a muslim nation. We are a nation that believes in freedom of choice, including choice of religious beliefs and values.
It is very sad to see all of the vitriol spewed in this forum under the guise of religious values. God created gay people just as surely as he created straight people and if you call yourself a christian or a jew or a muslim, you have no business questioning his work. What you do have is an obligation to basic respect for all of his creatures as god loves them all.
You don't get to decide that god's work is wrong. You don't get to judge. That is god's job, not yours. Not being god, you are not qualified to judge.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:42 am EST

report this comment


John Mc: Everyone pees in the same bathroom in my house. Are we all going to hell?

And we also like trees. Man, are we are screwed up or what?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:33 am EST

report this comment


"Genderless marriage" is that like "genderless restrooms", where everyone pees together? Now all Vermonters have allowed the states elected body to Pee on the Institution of Christian Marriage! I was born and raised in Vermont, and (was) proud to say so, not any more. You go treelovers, among other things! If you truly are against it people, step up and vote it down next November!
-- Posted by John McCutcheon Jr. on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:03 am EST

report this comment


If it don't look and feel right none none, then it probably is not right! Two guy's making out make's me real quezzy!
-- Posted by jeff leonard on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 7:49 am EST

report this comment


Really though . . . what is it to you? Why do you CARE so much? How are you REALLY being affected by gay marriage? And who are you to say how a responsible adult should live their life? Why is it so important?

I just can't understand why so many naysayers have such strong feelings against something that will never have any effect of their own existence.

The world will still be spinning tomorrow.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 7:40 am EST

report this comment


So this whole "the majority of Vermonters didn't get a say and don't support gay marriage" is a load of crap.

It's over. Move on.

Much as YOU would have "moved on" None None, had for example the veto NOT been over turned? "Democracy in action", right? The voice of the people as spoken at the polls last election?

As long as things are going in your favor, it is so easy to sit there and spout "democracy in action". When things don't go your way, even with that same "democracy in action" it's a different story isn't it?
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 7:07 am EST

report this comment


There's no good reason to deny marriage rights to same sex couples. Until someone proves the existence of god, that argument is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if there was a referendum. If it were shown the majority of Vermonters favored gay marriage there'd be another reason for the naysayers to say no.
-- Posted by noozereeder on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:53 am EST

report this comment


I remember when the civil union law was put to a "non-binding" public referendum and it was shot down by 85% of Vermonters. The legislature and Howard Dean saw fit to pass that law by a wide margin and cram up our rears.( No pun intended. )I bet the majority of NATIVE Vermonters have that same exact same feeling once again. I know most of my friends do.
-- Posted by Malcolm Jensen on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:44 am EST

report this comment


Technically, this "majority" you speak of had a chance to voice itself at the last election. The state's representatives are doing exactly what they were elected to do - keep power in the hands of the people and not just one person (Douglas). It's democracy in action. So this whole "the majority of Vermonters didn't get a say and don't support gay marriage" is a load of crap.

It's over. Move on.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 6:27 am EST

report this comment


Who invented the phrase "genderless marriage"? What does that mean? Doesn't everyone have a gender? Am I missing something here?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 5:33 am EST

report this comment

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

Logout