RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Welch supports repeal of marriage act



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: September 17, 2009

MONTPELIER – U.S. Rep. Peter Welch is one of 90 House Democrats supporting a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a mid-1990s law that defines the union as between one man and one woman.

The Democrats unveiled the Respect for Marriage Act at a Washington, D.C., press conference Tuesday, a bill that would repeal a law that blocks same-sex couples from receiving numerous federal benefits.

"It's a matter of fairness," Welch said during a phone interview Wednesday afternoon. "Vermonters have decided that gay and lesbians in the state have the right to get married. There are 1,800 couples in Vermont with civil unions and they deserve the full rights that other couples have."

DOMA, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, creates a federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. It also allows individual states to not recognize a same-sex marriage that was conducted in another state.

The main sponsor of DOMA, U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Georgia, has since left the Republican Party and become a Libertarian. He said last year that he regrets DOMA, saying it violates state's rights.

Welch also said the issue comes down to state's rights. Before DOMA was passed, this issue of marriage was left up to individual states to decide, he said. With the introduction of the act, the federal government interfered with that historic right for states to decide, he said.

"Repealing DOMA will put us back on the track that we were on for hundreds of years," he said.

At the time that the bill passed, many observers expected some states to begin legalizing same-sex unions. Four years later, Vermont became the first state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions; now four states, including Vermont, allow same-sex couples to get married and a fifth, New Hampshire, will begin allowing them in 2010.

Several lawsuits seeking to repeal DOMA have been filed, most notably the state of Massachusetts – the first in the country to legalize same-sex marriage – which sued the federal government over the law earlier this summer.

Beth Robinson, the Vermont attorney who argued the court case leading to civil unions in 2000 and who lobbied lawmakers to pass the same-sex marriage bill this year, said repealing DOMA would open up a host of rights for same-sex couples that they are now being denied.

These rights include receiving spousal survivor benefits under Social Security, taking unpaid sick time for a job to care for a same-sex spouse, and the tax benefits of filing jointly as a couple, she said.

"These are protections that have been denied same-sex couples … protections that heterosexual couples have enjoyed," Robinson said.

Vermont's U.S. senators also support the repeal of DOMA.

U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent, voted against DOMA when a member of the House and continues to support its repeal. U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, voted for DOMA 16 years ago, said earlier this year that he regrets the vote.

"We don't need it now because we demonstrated the states can make up their own mind," Leahy said. "California voted no. Vermont voted yes."

Robinson said she is hopeful that the DOMA repeal will find support in Congress, but she says the priority for gay and lesbian activists at the moment is passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would make it illegal to discriminate against employees who are gay, lesbian or transgender (the bill includes an exemption for religious organizations).

Welch is also a supporter of that bill in the U.S. House.

"We expect hearings to begin in the next few weeks," Robinson said. "That's a bill that we think can be passed this year."

daniel.barlow@rutland herald.com








READER COMMENTS


Well, Comfy, I fail to see what that has to do with the issue of same-sex marriage or repeal of DOMA or any of the other topics raised in this thread, but I'll answer your question anyway.

This is the only account I have created with Rutland Herald. I have no other login names; I am "just me."

Now, what are you going to do with this information? And since you brought it up, how many other names are you posting under?
-- Posted by Just Me on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 6:04 pm EST

report this comment



JM, I am curious, how many different names are you posting under?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 11:53 am EST

report this comment



Ernest, thank you again for writing such a dignified and thoughtful post. While we disagree, I admit that I respect your taking a stand for what you believe in and doing so maturely and respectfully.

I hate to see people becoming snarky and insulting with those whose views are different and I wish it were more common for people to discuss these controversial issues without becoming hateful. I don't believe that either side of the debate is (necessarily) evil; we're all just standing for what we believe is right, and that's a good thing. I'd rather see people in this forum share ideas than insults.
-- Posted by Just Me on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 1:16 am EST

report this comment



Really, Comfy? I have never, ever heard a woman express a desire to be called a man. (With the possible exception of a transgendered woman, who wanted to actually BE a man.)

If you refer to such language issues as, e.g., saying "police officers" instead of "policemen" (which you know full well is a diversion from my point), this is simply a matter of accuracy: not all police officers are men, so it would be inaccurate to say "policemen" when not specifically referring to male officers.

If women wanted to change the language in the manner of the genderless marriage advocates, they would WANT to be called, e.g., "policemen." And they would redefine the word to make that descriptor accurate, rather than advocating for using different words that are already accurate without being changed.

Capisce?

But if you weren't trying to derail my point, then I must say I'm amazed that you've encountered women who wish to be called men. I certainly never have. Tell me, do you support that cause?
-- Posted by Just Me on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 1:10 am EST

report this comment



LWNJs and RWNJ?!?! huh? anyways... apparently eric has very little ability at reading comprehension. no where did i say women should be called men. But your use of "Them" in conjunction with "gays" clearly tries to draw very strong seperation. When we do this in our culture, or any culture, it creates an "us vs. them" and that never leads to a good place. ever.
as for the baseline, you did not answer. you still have not come up with one. And the fact that i put out some of the worst, it was an effort (and very successfuly i might add) your assertion that a straight couple will always be better at raising children than a gay couple. Proof in the pudding as they say.
You wonderful assertion that i am gay is wrong. you see, that is your problem. Anyone thinks other than you, they are the enemy. My WIFE (yes an woman) and I have been together for the better part of 10 years, before that, i was US army, with my ex-wife. sorry man, just because i supports someones rights, does not make me gay.
I was also showing that just because they are gay, does not make them better, or worse parents. This is an idiotic argument at best. comparing such a wide ranging group against another with absolutely no baseline... wow. Trying to make a scientific argument with nothing but shoddy proof all around, is idiotic. take a case by case, compare against various others on individual basis, and you will still get varying results. you see, there is NO average to compare to. your single argument does not hold up at all.
as for making CUs equil to marriage is an impossability. b/c the law grants privliges and rights to marriages, it is easier to change CUs to marriages than the law to incorperate CUs. now, if your willing to actually help out, and work to get the law changed, GREAT! glad to have you help. i for one am all for it either way. as long as the same rights and protections are granted to both groups.
now, one last thing. you said gay couples will never be equil to a straight couple based soley on the fact that they cannot conceive. so, this makes marriages where one parent is infertile lesser? how about an older couple? or one that chooses to not have children? My wife and i have chosen to not have children for a while longer, does this make our marriage lesser? does this make us not family? i am not trying to be condencending, but i am asking for your honest opinion.
-- Posted by firedog on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 12:30 am EST

report this comment



Excuse me, but would the LWNJ's stop referring to the RWNJ's as RWNJ's. We obviously disagree wholeheartedly, but try to clean up the immaturity. Jeeze.
-- Posted by Handy Andy on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 10:52 pm EST

report this comment



Just me, women have seen a need for changes in language and some of them have occurred.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 9:52 pm EST

report this comment



I imagine the debate over civil marriage (people often forget the civil part, which is important) vs. civil unions will continue for years to come--beyond VT's borders--amid the progress and setbacks. If every gay couple in the US today who chose to legalize their union could have a CU with the same rights and benefits as marriage, I would certainly support that progress even though I think the separate categories are unnecessary. (Canada is a perfect example of how civil marriage for all--and religious marriage in individual churches--works fine.) As happy as I am that lesbians in VT with young children or ones who have been together for 40 years (a bit more consequential than "going steady" with its high school connotations) can marry here, my bigger concern is for all the gay couples in the US who basically have no protections whatsoever. CUs were and are a compromise, but they are not a bad compromise, so perhaps we can agree on that much. Federal CUs for all are better than nothing for those in states less progressive than VT.

BTW, Eric, I don't consider myself a victim at all. I consider myself lucky to have a good partner, a good family, and a good life in the state I was born in. And I'm sure in a year I won't feel completely "normal," but that has nothing to do with my sexuality! What's normal to one person is abnormal to another. Being normal is not a big personal concern of mine, nor is marriage. I simply believe that all committed couples who wish to marry should be able to marry whether they are straight or gay. It really isn't about me. And I wish you and everyone else--straight or gay--good luck with their romantic relationships. Good relationships are hard to find, my single gay and straight friends can testify to that. Everyone should have the chance to be happy, whether I agree with them or not.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 8:11 pm EST

report this comment



Just to reiterate: some gay rights supporters have advocated preserving civil unions and not trying to change the definition of marriage. Of course, if civil unions are inadequate, then that should be changed, but it needn't by done by terminology (and can't be, at least as long as DOMA is in place).

It seems to me that the deep emotions over the name of the union, be it civil union or marriage, are misplaced. "Civil union" was never intended to be insulting or to denote inferiority; it was merely intended to be a distinct label for a distinct entity. It was fairly inconceivable that two of the same sex could get married, because marriage by definition did not accommodate that; so, recognizing a same sex union required a new name. If we are to say that a different name is necessarily inferior, we open a horrible Pandora's box in which anything different is somehow lesser.

We will never make same-sex unions identical to hetero unions no matter what language we use, and if we assume that different is inferior, we actually create a sense of inferiority where one doesn't have to exist. If different is inferior, then gays are inferior... and while language may mask that, it won't change the fundamental inferiority. If different can be equally good -- as an apple is to an orange -- then there's nothing wrong with a different label. That's how it is with men and women, blacks and whites, young and old, etc. etc. etc.

This is why I think the battle over CUs v. marriage is frivolous at best and actually counter-productive at worst. Nobody here has presented any argument to persuade me otherwise.

(I also happen to think that children need both mothers and fathers, but that's a separate issue since gay couples have been rearing children without marriage for some time now. And I also apply the same standard when it comes to heterosexuals who have children without being married.)
-- Posted by Just Me on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 7:23 pm EST

report this comment



"If you don't like gay marriage or it bothers you in some way....

TOUGH CRAP...suck it up and get over it! It's now the law!"

You could say the same sort of thing to anyone in the remaining 46 states that don't recognize same-sex marriage: If you don't like not having gay marriage or it bothers you in some way, tough crap, suck it up and get over it! It's NOT the law!

I would have thought advocates for gay marriage, of all people, wouldn't base on argument on whether something is existing law. If you do, you lose. Just look at DOMA and the other 46 states!
-- Posted by Just Me on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 7:06 pm EST

report this comment



Well okay, Firedog, you have a point. But there's a difference between natural, gradual change and forced gutting. I think the analogy to the idea of calling women "men" is very apt -- nobody's campaigning for that, but it's the exact same principle. So why isn't it an issue? Why is it that women don't need to change the language in order to feel equal, but gays do? Interesting....

Did you notice how, in one of my posts to Eric, I started to speak of married women and then had to specify that I mean married to men? Already the usurpation of the word marriage has eroded the clarity and meaning that the word used to have. I happen to think that this is an unnecessary step backward. Whatever good may have been achieved by granting "marriage" to homosexual couples could as easily have been achieved through other means under the civil union label, without destroying the clarity and meaning that always existed before.
-- Posted by Just Me on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 7:01 pm EST

report this comment



Eric, I wonder if you have read a book called, "Mother Tongue Father Time". If not, you would probably enjoy it.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 2:20 pm EST

report this comment



that guy...are you trying to insult me by inferring that i am gay?
why would it be an insult?
you bigot! (sorry..couldnt resisist it)

BTW...my prior response didnt post and I wanted to truly wish those that I debated with a long and loving relationship.

It is the use of language to subtly change thought that I object to more than the marriage issue...
and the fighting to be in the "club" (called traditional marriage) only to change the defintion (no longer about families) to accomodate yourselves, thereby ruining the whole purpose for the club to begin with..
why not start your own "club"!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 1:03 pm EST

report this comment



BTW...its less about marriage than the word hocus-pocus..
I hate subtle mind control by language...

and taking over something (classic marriage) only to change it into somthing it never was to begin with...is to join the club to kill the very purpose for the club...

and thats what this is...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 12:00 pm EST

report this comment



That guy...
if you claim you fully understand women you are either dumb or a liar...

Ernest, you've changed the name...you've changed the definition to accomodate that, and now you are automatically equal regardless of the fact that this marriage is nothing more than a more expensive "going steady" (Since DOMA was the basis of the article it still seems fair to use CU...check the DOma deffintition!)

as for projections...in a year...you will have won your war of words...but you cannot take the family out of marriage! I suspect that checking back in a year...you will have all the rights, but still not feel normal...so you will continue to play the victim role...

Fifteen years from now...you will see that the dedication of gays in these relationships will have waned (in the same ratio as heterosexuals)....but without the natural family unit...what is the point of the marriage? You will have turned it fully into "going steady" instead of the root building block of families and therefore of society..

all debate aside, thank you for the compliment, and all the best luck for love and longevity with your relationship! They aint easy no matter who you are!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 11:54 am EST

report this comment



"The reason I focus on men with a daughter is that I know darn well (partly from my relationship with my mother) that I dont fully "get" women..."

Uh-oh... seems we may have hit on a reason why "Eric" is so obsessed with this particular issue!

Don't worry about it, big guy. Your feelings may SEEM unnatural or evil or immoral or completely and totally unacceptable to you, but I think that, given time, a new wardrobe, a better haircut, and dozens of hours in the gym and the spa, you'll finally accept who you really are and fit right in with your new friends.

Just remember, Eric: you are beautiful, no matter what they say. Words can't bring you down!
-- Posted by That Guy on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 11:45 am EST

report this comment



Well, you get points for perseverance, Eric! Who knew straight men could be so endlessly fascinated by the topic of same-sex marriage?

I suspect if I return here a year from now you'll still be questioning CUs vs. perfect straight marriages, whether gay people are good parents or should be parents at all, whether CUs should evolve into something else . . . I've lost track of what exactly you're questioning or attempting to say.

Meanwhile, CUs have already evolved into civil marriage equality in VT. CUs are no longer being offered here, so any question of their equality or lack thereof is no longer pertinent. Gay couples--like straight couples--will go on being parents, just as they have for years (since before CUs even!), the difference is that now their families have the same protections as straight VT families, as they should. Life will go on in VT, and marriage equality will be the norm whether everyone approves or not.

While you are needlessly questioning what's already happened in VT, those of us who believe in civil marriage for all and believe in the words of Mildred Loving (everyone should read them and take note) will work to help others have the same civil rights we enjoy in VT and will work--along with our Congressional delegation--to overturn DOMA. All the blahblahblah of discussion forums is temporary; equality--what we have achieved in VT, finally--is lasting.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 10:31 am EST

report this comment



firedog...
so white should mean black and white and man shoul dmean woman and man...so there is equality...
an apple shoul dbe an orange...so they are equal...

I'll lay it out in simple logic...
is 1 apple the same as 1 orange? answer clearly no..
then is 1 apple and 1 orange the same as two apples....

downplaying the benefits of exposure in upbringing to both sexes is short sighted...(alas no study produced yet) and flaunting that it is the law only makes the point, by law we have the same name so we are equal...

and firedog...the baseline is (all other things being equal) which in an effort to avoid the entire litany of bashing on heterosexuals to show that great CU's are better than bad marriages I cast as perfect Cu v. perfect marriage)
but dont worry...your insistence on making the comparison only to *********** heteros answers the questions...

and if language eveolves over time...and we just invented CU, why not let it evolve into something of equality?

1/2 the posters argue that its already the law and theres nothing we can do, while the victimization game continues in claims of bigotry...

also, please note that me and "just me" appear to be advocates for CU's having every legal right as a married couple...but its not enough...why...you want to feel normalized...well fine you are normal...just not the same....
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 8:53 am EST

report this comment



If you don't like gay marriage or it bothers you in some way....



TOUGH CRAP...suck it up and get over it! It's now the law!
.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 7:08 am EST

report this comment



The argument of a gay couple being equil or not to a straight couple is idiotic at best. what is the base line? I know many straight couples that have screwed up their children beyond belief. look at the parents putting their 6 yr old daughters into beauty pagents. these people are the role models? really? how about the ones where both parents work, focusing on nothing but their jobs. leaving the kids to nannys... these are role models? really? how about foreign countries? you would argue that american society is how all parents should raise their children? you see, in a perfect world, maybe you could argue, maybe. but it is not perfect. When parents love their children, and focus on them and guide them, then that is all that could be asked for. it does not matter who the parent is, what color, sexual preference or even how many, as long as the child comes first. my brother has 2 daughters, mom left when the youngest was a baby. the oldest is now a special needs teacher focusing on young children, the other is going for her masters degree. you see, one MAN raising 2 daughters. are they perfect? far from it. but i would highly doubt any of you are either.
many of you have asked why dont the "gays" ask for CUs to be equil, why do "they" have to usurp the word marriage. you see, by seperating "them" from "us" you immedietly create room for bigotry. any time an argument becomes us vs them, historicly, it gets ugly. but you may have seen my previous post, where i showed a few places CUs are not equil to marriage. Why not make marriage equil to CU? oh, because you were here first right? the US grants protections and special rights to married couples, not CUs. basicially, a CU couple can NEVER have equil rights and protections as a married couple, no matter if they are straight or gay. as for the familes themselves being equil, they are. There is not one family i have seen, no matter how perfect they appear, that is not completely messed up. as i said, as long as the parents love their children, and those children are the focus of the marriage, then does it matter what the make up of the family is? really?? remember, Jeffry Dhamer, Charles Manson, the unabomber and timothy mcveigh all came from 2 parent homes, both parents of opposite sexes. if this is the baseline from which you have your opinion, then i for one, am very worried.
-- Posted by firedog on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 12:48 am EST

report this comment



Just me... just a small thought. you argue that allowing gays to marry "It is essentially tinkering with our language; changing words to suit our feelings as if words aren't about... well, meaning what they mean. Which is meaningless if meanings can so easily change" isnt this what we did with the word "Gay"? how about "C o c k" another word that has had its meaning changed over time, to suit our feelings. you see, language evolves. either willingly or accidently, it evolves. words meanings change, become broader, or sometimes more refined. the point is, this argument is weak.
-- Posted by firedog on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 12:17 am EST

report this comment



Eric, I applaud your posts and your wisdom!
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 10:13 pm EST

report this comment



Oh, I missed this one:
"Probably three would be even better, or four. But it makes NO DIFFERENCE what gender or sex those parents are. Children need parents. It's harder for one person to care for a child (if he or she is also working) than for two. Or more."

So, you would support legalized polygamy. Interesting. But what's more interesting is where we end up when we head down that road. Being a parent is no longer about how children come into the world; rather, it's more like extended co-ownership, as of a pet. Anyone who wants to be a parent can claim a child, regardless of where that child came from or whose DNA it carries, and can share parenthood with any number of others.

Let's follow your reasoning as far as we can: two parents are better than one, three or four are better than two... six billion are better than any lesser number. How about if every living adult is considered the parent of every child? Won't that be best for the kids? Obviously!!!

Since the actual origin of the child is irrelevant, how about this: all children, at birth, are put into a system in much the way money goes into a bank. It's all fungible. Those who want to be parents withdraw children from the system. Since genes don't matter -- which seems to be a crucial point in the arguments here from Kevin and his side -- then why the heck not? That way the kids will all be wanted and chosen.

And there's no drawback since, of course, biology and origins don't matter. Right?
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 10:11 pm EST

report this comment



Just me...
it appears we wholly agree...

I find it funny that Kevin is flaunting the very issue we are discussing...

he is telling us, since the name is now the same... we are the same, so we are equal and there is nothing we can do about it! He now goes further to tell us marriage has nothing to do with familes and children! Then what the heck is it...goin steady?

Thanks Kevin a perfect demonstration of the fear of mind play by word play I am expressing...now that you have to be included, the definition has to change to accomodate you! if I am for Cu's having every legal advantage...how is that discrimination...just witholding the name? are you discriminating because black folks cant call themselves white? and the kicker of you leaning on the civil rights movement...you ought to be ashamed...(...EVERY psychologist says same sex is better...even you can't believe that...oh and Kev produce your "study"...I promise I'll read it cover to cover...or...what gay rights site would I find it at?)

The reason I focus on men with a daughter is that I know darn well (partly from my relationship with my mother) that I dont fully "get" women and dont feel I could instill the female nature into a daughter without a woman's help...could a gay couple get a "stand in"? sure, and thats what most of my friends have done...but a stand in...is less than ideal...for adoption, fine...for insemination...well..thats selfish...

I also absolutely agree with "just me" that the role of a father and of a man has been completly understated...honor passed off as dumb male pride...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:50 pm EST

report this comment



You are right about one thing Ernest, Gays are not equal and wil lnever be. You can only ever amount to no more than HALF of a NATURAL parent. Your deviant, immoral life style will always fall short of being a full relationship where children can be created, carried, delivered and reared by the Gay couple, your relationship will always relie on a donor or a carrier in order for you have children. So EQUAL? Never. You don't serve any marriage rights whatsoever for that primary reason. You can not create offspring and do not serve the protection nor the beneifts enacted to insure the family unit. You will always never have mre than a mere relationship and an immoral one at that.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:41 pm EST

report this comment



"Yes, because if they're equal, there's no reason to call them anything else."

I take it then that you would advocate calling women "men." Not to support such a cause is clearly misogynistic.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:34 pm EST

report this comment



You are right about one thing Ernest, Gays are not equal and wil lnever be. You can only ever amount to no more than HALF of a NATURAL parent. Your deviant, immoral life style will always fall short of being a full relationship where children can be created, carried, delivered and reared by the Gay couple, your relationship will always relie on a donor or a carrier in order for you have children. So EQUAL? Never. You don't serve any marriage rights whatsoever for that primary reason. You can not create offspring and do not serve the protection nor the beneifts enacted to insure the family unit. You will always never have mre than a mere relationship and an immoral one at that.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:32 pm EST

report this comment



""gay-based families are necessarily "broken families." [clear and logical explanation omitted]"

Bigoted nonsense."

I explained my reasoning. You didn't. You have no response at all other than to play the bigot card... the last resort of those with no logical argument.

That says it all. Thank you for the validation!
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:32 pm EST

report this comment



"Yes, only because the right wing brings it up in their arguments..."

"Are you saying you decide what's reasonable based on what matters to the right wing?"

When they give me the opportunity to hang them on their own arguments I take it.

As to the children being happy, I have now had MANY students who are kids of same sex couples, and they are fabulous students. Anecdotal, but true.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:32 pm EST

report this comment



"you didn't fight to make CUs equal. You fought to eliminate them."

Yes, because if they're equal, there's no reason to call them anything else. Courts in CA and CT and IA found that the very fact of calling them by another name constituted discrimination.

The VT legislators came to the same conclusion.

They were right. We now have marriage. Equal. Ergo called by the same name because it's the same thing.

And with the repeal of DOMA we can begin to be recognized at the Federal level.
Bravo to our congressional delegation for understanding this.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:30 pm EST

report this comment



"Yes, only because the right wing brings it up in their arguments..."

Are you saying you decide what's reasonable based on what matters to the right wing?

"Time will tell if the statistics will get anywhere near those abandoned by straight couples or straight unmarried parents."

Indeed, time will tell how children of gay couples turn out. My money is on mostly happy and productive, but with some deep internal longings and a sense of lack, and some difficulties with relationships, especially with whichever sex wasn't represented in their guardians.

I bet they don't, since you have to work to have a child if you're gay. If you're straight, you just have to get drunk and stupid."
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:29 pm EST

report this comment



Let's take child abuse statistics.

There are now MANY same sex families with kids.

I'll pit the statistics for them on child abuse against those for kids abused in heterosexual families any day. Have there been any? Yes, one or two. Straight abuse cases? thousands or tens of thousands per year, and statistically MUCH higher than for families run by same sex couples.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:27 pm EST

report this comment



"gay-based families are necessarily "broken families.""

Bigoted nonsense.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:24 pm EST

report this comment



"Do you seriously believe that's a reasonable comparison?"

Yes, only because the right wing brings it up in their arguments, without realizing the absurdity of applying it to same sex couples. There are not a whole lot of children abandoned by same sex couples.

Time will tell if the statistics will get anywhere near those abandoned by straight couples or straight unmarried parents. I bet they don't, since you have to work to have a child if you're gay. If you're straight, you just have to get drunk and stupid.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:23 pm EST

report this comment



Kevin, if you'd like to be taken seriously, don't be disingenuous. You know full well you didn't fight to make CUs equal. You fought to eliminate them.

I must say, you're not making your kind look very good when you won't even offer serious and honest comments! Fortunately I know some wonderful gay people and I won't judge them based on you... but others might, sadly. You're not doing gay people any favors.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:23 pm EST

report this comment



"missing a parent you're supposed to have is indeed less than ideal"

Anti-gay folks are fond of quoting studies that show that two parents are good for a child.

Probably three would be even better, or four. But it makes NO DIFFERENCE what gender or sex those parents are. Children need parents. It's harder for one person to care for a child (if he or she is also working) than for two. Or more.

That proves NOTHING about same sex couples. It's even an argument FOR marriage equality.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:20 pm EST

report this comment



"Check the prisons. Many criminals come from broken families, as the family-values people love to point out. What they don't point out is that they all come from straight parents. Just try to find a child of gay parents in the prison system."

Oh come on now, Kevin, really. How long have gay couples been raising children? And how many? Do you seriously believe that's a reasonable comparison? It would be just as fair to compare the absolute numbers of happy, well adjusted children raised by straight couples to the absolute numbers of those raised by gays.

Not to mention that gay-based families are necessarily "broken families." Break away the mother and replace her with a second man, or break away the father and replace him with another woman... it's impossible to form a family around a same-sex nucleus without a lot of breaking going on.

You would seem less in denial if you'd acknowledge the obvious: there's something rather artificial about gay couples' having children. True, straight couples sometimes do it artificially too -- but it's a much closer approximation of nature.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:19 pm EST

report this comment



"If CUs truly aren't equal to marriage, then fight to make them equal"

We did that. We now have marriage equality in Vermont. CUs are no longer available.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:17 pm EST

report this comment



Eric:

"'And yes, gay people in the US can have artificial insemination.' I know they CAN...i asked if they SHOULD!"

My opinion: Nobody but married women (married to men -- pity I have to clarify that, now) should have artificial insemination. Not lesbians, and not single women either. I know that's not the politically correct viewpoint, but that's my opinion. Children need fathers.

I'm actually not sure even married couples should have artificial insemination (or ovum donation). It is, in effect, using a human being for genetic material and then discarding that biological parent. As if the child won't care where it came from! As if it won't want and need to know its roots!

It just seems kind of wrong to me. The process would be more defensible if there weren't so many unwanted children needing adoption... anyone who wants to be a parent can find a child that needs parents.

I know my opinion is unpopular, but I think you can see it's not about homophobia!
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 9:09 pm EST

report this comment



"Bringing a child into a same-sex couple is not 'less than ideal.'"

Speaking as someone who did not have both a mother and a father, I can vouch for the fact that missing a parent you're supposed to have is indeed less than ideal.

"Many children are born by accident, unwanted, to heterosexual couples."

That is true and unfortunate (not to mention obvious). However, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some non-idealities occur doesn't mean we should go about creating more. And, as you say, those occur by ACCIDENT. Those parents may be careless and foolish, but they're not willfully creating a family unit that runs counter to the clear intent of mother nature.

"Children brought into a same sex couple are always wanted and loved."

Well, not always. I seem to recall a very disturbing account of abuse of a child by his adoptive gay fathers....

"It's BETTER than straight couples."

That's nothing more than your opinion, with which most people disagree.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 8:59 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest, I appreciate your post being well thought-out, but I respectfully disagree on a few points.

In Brown, the conclusion was that separate couldn't be equal. But that was about school systems. "Separate" in this case refers to separate terminology. But, as with "men" and "women," a mere difference in words need not be unequal. There are no different buildings to attend and inferior teachers to work with.

Loving also was a very distinct case. Striking down anti-miscegenation laws did not change the definition of marriage. I doubt that if you looked in any 1950s dictionary, it would define marriage as "a union of a man and a woman of the same race." No, it was just "a union of a man and a woman." Creating same-sex marriage fundamentally alters the very definition of marriage. It is essentially tinkering with our language; changing words to suit our feelings as if words aren't about... well, meaning what they mean. Which is meaningless if meanings can so easily change!

I've heard an advocate for gay rights recommend that the gay community embrace civil unions as their own unique thing, rather than trying to be the same as heterosexuals with the same words and traditions. I thought he made a very good point.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 8:51 pm EST

report this comment



If CUs truly aren't equal to marriage, then fight to make them equal. No need to gut marriage and change its very identity.

Comfy: "The main reason that so many people of color voted for proposition 8 is that they were deliberately innundated with misinformation right before the vote."

Are you saying that people of color can't think for themselves? How else to explain why blacks disproportionately supported Prop 8? Was that "misinformation" not directed at all voters regardless of ethnicity?

If you ask most people of color, I think you will find that they are quite understanding of the plight of homosexuals in america.

Go for it! Please do ask them, and let us know what they think. From what I've seen, they seem to disagree with the attempts to draw analogies between the civil rights struggle and the current matter of gay "marriage." And it's not hard to see why.

"Racism and oppression are about more than where you sit on the bus and anyone who has been subject to it knows that."

You're right, of course, and nobody ever said it was merely where you sit on the bus... although those who were forced to the back understood the indignity which you now seem to downplay. But yes, there was slavery, too. I'm sure you have some reason up your sleeve why civil unions instead of genderless marriage are as dehumanizing as slavery... but please, spare me. I don't need to vomit right now.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 8:39 pm EST

report this comment



Eric, OK, once again:

Infertility and older couples as an argument has WON for gay couples every time it's been used in court cases. Judges laugh when you tell them that marriage is ONLY for procreation. Read a book about it or, as I said, do some research rather than pulling arguments out of your posterior. Judges do NOT find the argument weak, they find it convincing.

DOMA has nothing to do with courts and everything to do with politics. It is only now being challenged in the courts.

I don't know why you insist on talking about CU couples, when we now have MARRIAGE in Vermont, Iowa, Mass., and CT. Soon NH. If you mean same sex married couples, then say so. That's what they are. Married.

And yes, people in same sex couples SHOULD be able to get artificial insemination. Don't like it? Move to Russia. I think they forbid it there. In the US even single people can get it. Perhaps not from all agencies, but it's not forbidden. Just as it's not against the law to have a child if you're a single mom and get knocked up.

Are there bad breakups among gay couples? Yes.
My point is that there are no unwanted children BROUGHT INTO gay couples. Unlike in straight couples, where children happen by accident all the time.

Check the prisons. Many criminals come from broken families, as the family-values people love to point out. What they don't point out is that they all come from straight parents. Just try to find a child of gay parents in the prison system.

I'll wait for your answer.

I have no idea what "perfect CU versus perfect marriage" means, so it's hard to answer that question.

You talk about "bringing a child into a less than ideal situation."

That is your opinion of same sex couples / families, and it is wrong according to every psychologist, social services, child services specialist out there. You are free to believe any nonsense you like, but people who KNOW disagree with you. Same sex families are no more and no less ideal than opposite sex families.

That opinion, by the way, which discriminates against same sex couples, is precisely what I mean by "bigot." You discriminate against a class of people, namely gay people.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 7:22 pm EST

report this comment



"Eric: do your own research, please."

it was you who tried to dispute my definition of bigot...turns out you were wrong, huh?

"Your questions have all been answered."
You answered none of the questions...again the silence says it all...

"In the US, every court has rejected the idea that marriage is only about reproduction. EVERY ONE. So that argument is not "weak.""

I said the infertitlity of hetero-couples argument is weak...and EVERY court...if that were true...how is there DOMA? Mariage to those that hold the term dear IS about the building block of FAMILIES!

"And yes, gay people in the US can have artificial insemination."

I know they CAN...i asked if they SHOULD!

"Bringing a child into a same-sex couple is not "less than ideal."Many children are born by accident, unwanted, to heterosexual couples.Children brought into a same sex couple are always wanted and loved.It's BETTER than straight couples. "

Sounds like comparing drunk unloving hetero's to perfect loving CU's...who would think this comparison would happen???? Its truly getting old..compare a perfect loving CU to a perfect loving marriage please...

And come on "children brought into same sex couples are ALWAYS loved" ALWAYS!!! I have seen with my own eyes a CU "divorce" that was horrible on the child who was clearly a pawn (and a HUGE issue over the non-biological parent's rights indicating another LEGAL difference betwen the two)

lets not try to pretend that CU's are perfect when in all likelihood they will become statistically similar to marriages...if they didnt...my argument would be a slam dunk that they are not the same!

(BTW...patent means race is written all over your face, its obvious, so easily knowable, and un-hidable, sexual orientation is usually not...)

now try to attack me because your "arguments have nothing (i can see it comming with the I gotta job quotes) but I warn you against that...)

so...is anyone going to answer the perfect CU v. perfect marriage question?
didnt think so...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 2:42 pm EST

report this comment



Eric: do your own research, please. Your questions have all been answered.

In the US, every court has rejected the idea that marriage is only about reproduction. EVERY ONE. So that argument is not "weak."

And yes, gay people in the US can have artificial insemination.

Next question?

Bringing a child into a same-sex couple is not "less than ideal."
Many children are born by accident, unwanted, to heterosexual couples.
Children brought into a same sex couple are always wanted and loved.
It's BETTER than straight couples.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 2:00 pm EST

report this comment



"race is patent"?
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 1:56 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest,

nope there is little similarity... ...(a major difference with race and this is that race is patent...)you have an overblown sense of victimization...(the plus to me in all this is that if you get your way, this must cease)

if you would, or anyone would, answer the question about the name, you would be forced to admit that CU's are not the same and that if they are different they should have a different name...again the fact that the rights granted could be identical, you still want the name...why? Because it one ups CU's to be "equal" by some claim of inherent equality when the CU family unit is missing the impact of both sexes...

the fact that there is no way possible to child rear means that you are not equal by definition, and spare me the infertile argument, it is weak...

understand that i have friends that are CU and they are great people that should have all the rights as traditional couples, but why this push to be the SAME and claim EQUALITY in the face of basic logic saying there is a deficiency within CU's by definition...

which brings me to the next real question...should CU's be allowed to artificially inseminate? What rights should the non-biological parent have? Isnt it selfish to choose to bring a child into a less than ideal situation?

I doubt that question will be answered either, the silence speaks volumes!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 12:10 pm EST

report this comment



CUs are an example of separate not being equal. That was the conclusion of the VT legislature, not just me. To draw that comparison does not equate the gay struggle for civil rights with the African American struggle for civil rights. There are distinct differences between the two struggles. Growing up white and middle-class was a privilege I didn't earn but was given at birth.

But, there are distinct parallels between the arguments against same-sex marriage and the arguments against mixed-race marriage that led to Loving v. Virginia. The discussion has become repetitive on this thread--and distracted from the original subject, the discrimination inherent in DOMA. But Mildred Loving's own words bear repeating. In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving, a black woman, made a rare public statement on the subject of same-sex marriage:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

No one could say it better, or with more authority, than Mildred Loving. We've achieved equality within VT. Our work here is done. Now, those of us in VT who believe in equality for all must work to help those who aren't there yet and that includes overturning DOMA, which is supported by all of VT's members of Congress.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment



Kevin and Ernie and Comfy and all other Gays.

I have NOT gone off the deep end, I pointed out facts, and you deny.

Gay Marriage can not produce children, never will be able to produce children and regardless of Kevin tooting of his own horns, they are not equal. Your Civil Unions should have been suffice if you only wanted benefits, but your arrogant argument for Gay Marriage is an insult to all Heterosexuals and we will rebound in 2010.

No one cares about your queer lectures Kevin, get over it, that doesn't change the stats that I have found against Gays, it only states you are one.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 6:45 am EST

report this comment



The main reason that so many people of color voted for proposition 8 is that they were deliberately innundated with misinformation right before the vote.
If you ask most people of color, I think you will find that they are quite understanding of the plight of homosexuals in america. Racism and oppression are about more than where you sit on the bus and anyone who has been subject to it knows that.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 6:17 am EST

report this comment



if marriage is only about children, then why does the government offer special benefits to a "married" couple? why do the offer these same benefits to a couple that has been proven to be infertile? why do they get these benefits if they choose not to have children? anyone? cmon, i know you can find a good answer.
as to CU and marriage being equal under law, they are not. CU gives NO federal protections, no end of life protections, if one person in a CU dies, the other partner does not necessarily inherit the dead persons wealth, unless their is a will, and that has even been challenged.
you see, they are not equal. when the government grants special protections to one group, and refuses another, that has done nothing legally wrong, that is descrimination. period. incest=illegal. polygamy=illegal. bestiality=illegal. Felons do not get the right to vote or carry a firearm. they did something illegal, this removes that right. the above three examples that the right love to yell about are all illegal, meaning they do NOT get any protections, in fact, they usually get jail time. Being Gay is not illegal. therefore, there is no reason to deny any rights.
-- Posted by firedog on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 12:58 am EST

report this comment



Ernie, why don't you try being forced to attend inferior schools, drink from different water fountains, sit at the back of the bus and in the balcony at theatres and then tell us how gays are victims of "separate but equal." Your attempt to draw on the civil rights issues that blacks had to fight is insulting. Your different TERMINOLOGY can't hold a candle to physical exclusion. No wonder blacks in California overwhlemingly supported Prop 8. They're probably sick unto death of having their history minimized and commandeered for a stunt that's about nothing more than forcing public approval of what most people find disgusting.
-- Posted by Just Me on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:21 pm EST

report this comment



Oh, I see, Kevin. Nobody's allowed to say anything that isn't a completely novel idea. In that case, you have nothing to say.

If you're so sure that the fundamental reason for society recognizing marriage is NOT about children, kindly tell us what it is.

Clearly we allow old people to marry because it's none of our business whether or not they are postmenopausal. Whereas gender is a matter of public record.

And for your information, sex itself is about children. Gay couples don't even have sex at all; they cannot consummate their so-called "marriages."
-- Posted by Just Me on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:17 pm EST

report this comment



1. i believe i coverred both common definitions of bigot...race and hate...you look it up!
2. i would love for you to produce the study that claims that same sex couples are BETTER parents than heterocouples...but even if you could, you know I could produce a study claiming same sex upbringing was terribly disruptive...a "study" for my side...a "study" for your side (if produced) and you can stuff the study in your ear...BUT, it does seem rather obvious that your mother greatly defines your relationships with women and your father with men...i thought that was elementary...so...if your missing one??????
3. repeating again that I do not disagree with civil unions having all the rights of marriage, but its not the same thing why not call woman a man for the same reason?
4. I honestly believe the hidden agenda of backpacking on racial civil rights and the hint that there is a similarity ("separate but equal" and the like) is disgusting and completely undue...get over yourselves...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 9:04 pm EST

report this comment



And if I don't answer every question posed by random commenters here, it could be because I actually have a full time job.

Tomorrow I have a talk at Middlebury on Queering Ethnicity in Gay Films from Former Yugoslavia.

http://cat.middlebury.edu/events/index.php?yy=2009&mm=09&dd=23
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 8:25 pm EST

report this comment



Yes, Eric, do look up bigot.

I love that you admit that it's only a problem for you if "people try to take over MY thing."

So basically you think you own marriage.
You don't.
Other people get married.
Even same sex couples.
Get used to it.

I also love that you prefer personal observation to studies by professionals.

Guess you still think the earth is flat and the sun goes around it every day?
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 8:21 pm EST

report this comment



Comfy: Off the subject for a moment. If we didn't know none none by his posts, these threads wouldn't be as interesting. I don't always agree with him, but enjoy his posts just the same. Same goes for everyone else.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 5:19 pm EST

report this comment



P.S. Actually, Eric, your use of "bigot" is misplaced. There is certainly racially-based bigotry, but bigotry is not only related to race. Look it up.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 5:02 pm EST

report this comment



Eric's 2 central questions:

Why the need for the same name? History shows that separate is not equal. If they are indeed the same, why the need for a different name?

(I have no problem if civil marriages are renamed civil unions, as long as the name change applies to both straight and gay couples to ensure full equality.)

Is 1man-1woman significantly different from 1woman-1woman or 1man-1man? A subjective question, obviously. It seems to me that civil marriage can accommodate all of the above, the uniting factor being human beings in deep romantic love and an interest in protecting all committed families. If one sees the natural ability to procreate as a prerequisite for marriage, a more inclusive civil marriage might conflict with your personal beliefs. (It also calls into question the suitability of childless straight couples for marriage.)

VT has answered both questions. As have other states and countries, including our neighbor to the north, Canada. Canadians have adapted quickly to civil marriage equality, and it's not even an issue there after a few short years.

Clearly, while it's not an open legal question in VT, it is in the US as a whole. I believe that, eventually, the natural ability of a couple to procreate will not be viewed by either the courts or the people as a reason to exclude committed couples from marriage. And I think it's heterosexuals who have already changed the definition of marriage so that it isn't exclusively about procreation since many straight couples adopt, choose not to have children, cannot have children, and still value marriage. (Though, obviously, protecting children is important in straight and gay families alike.)

As other states and countries adopt civil marriage equality, and as the views of the next generations (who already support the idea of gay couples marrying) predominate, I think the trajectory towards federal civil marriage equality will be inevitable. How long that takes remains to be seen.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 4:56 pm EST

report this comment



Kevin Moss

You're DIFFERENT...
embrace it...

also...your use of bigot is misplaced.
First...a bigot is race related...dont try to play a card you dont have...
second bigotry requires hate...I dont hate..or even care what anyone else does except when they try to take over MY thing...
calling a civil Union a marriage is like letting girls into the boy scouts...
what do you call it now?

and you wont answer the question my question(s)...why?
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 4:33 pm EST

report this comment



Just me: Do you think you're being original bringing up the children?

No court has found that argument convincing, otherwise we would
a) not allow old people to marry and
b) annul marriages that don't produce children.

So forget it.

None none has gone even farther off the deep end, amazingly.

Gonzo and NN: Keep plucking that chicken! Or something that sounds like that.

Vermont has marriage equality, and eventually so will the whole US, like many developed countries, in spite of the squawking of bigots like you guys.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 4:01 pm EST

report this comment



Oh Noooooo. Not again!!! Ahhhhhhhhhh!
Well, I see the pro-homo council is back in action. Kevie, Ernie, and all the rest of the gay males that first names ends with "ie". I guess we can add Petie Welch to the council too now eh?
You may have been able to push your freaky agenda through the legislature in this teeny liberal state. But, I think your gonna have a much harder time in Washington.
Think of all those southern state reps that would rather see you lynched than married. Comforting isnt it.
I wont go into everything I have ever said before. Most of you know where I stand. Gay is wrong. Most people know this.
The majority know this.
Good luck in Washington pervies.
I think the homo's are the bigots in this forum.
Ok, stamp your feet and call me names now.......
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 1:11 pm EST

report this comment



just so you know...the REAL state's rights issue should be over healthcare...the welfare of its citizens is the province of the states...but the libs dont like that issue in that context...

Marriage is still linked to child rearing by Supreme Court's analysis of fundamental rights of child rearing and education of one's child...read the decisions...i have...

so far no answer to the two central questions...
1. if civil unions are given the same rights as marages...why the need for the same name?
2. isnt a civil union relationship different from marriage relationship (based upn the idea that if a man and woman are different...than 1 man and 1 woman is different than 2 men...)

the refusal to answer these two questions indicates that everyone knows the answer...

its so nit-wits that choose to blindly believe studies over any personal observations in life that show that familiar contact with both sexes creates healthier kids can stand there and straighfaced tell me that two pole cues is the exact same as a pole cue and a pocket...

why doesnt someone post one of the "studies"? or one that says that its actually lighter at night...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 12:41 pm EST

report this comment



I see None None is projecting his pathos onto others again. Oh well, we wouldn't know him if he didn't, I suppose.
Marriage was originally constructed to establish a man's ownership of his wife and children, to ensure paternity so that a man did not inadvertently leave his property to another man's offspring. If we must insist on sticking to the original definition of marriage, with no allowances for human social evolution and growth, then the changes in society (women are no longer considered property) and the development of paternity tests, have long since rendered the institution of marriage obsolete.
Now we are free to invalidate every single existing marriage which is great since it will save tons of money on all of the benefits that are currently being paid out to those free loading married couples who think that they should be entitled to special priveleges just because they are married.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:57 am EST

report this comment



As Bob Barr (formerly a conservative Republican, now a Libertarian) points out, DOMA is being contested because it violates state's rights. States, such as VT and MA, have determined that gay couples are equal under state law. However, since gay couples in states where they are legally married are still denied federal benefits because of DOMA, states are forced to discriminate against their will. The point of overturning DOMA, as Senator Leahy says, is to honor state's rights not to take them away. DOMA tramples on civil rights not the other way around.

The inadequacy of CUs has already been determined in VT, so there is no need to "fight to change them" here. That discussion moves to other states and to the national level, but it's settled here.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 11:20 am EST

report this comment



NN: With due respect, these are my opinions not necessarily fact. They are food for thought and the basis of the beginnings for many scientific studies. I am a past student os statistics where I learned that anything can be proven statistically.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 9:29 am EST

report this comment



By the Constitution of the United States if the Feds are going to make an Amendment it will have to be Ratified and passed by 75% of the states. That is impossible when there are about 32 states seeking or already have an Amendment to their constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

It seems that if Vermont wants to change the Constitution of the state of Vermont, they will need 75% of the towns to pass it,otherwise it is a law that can be unchanged by the next general assembly and make all Vermont Gay Marriages VOID. 2010 and 2012 will see
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 9:06 am EST

report this comment



There is no such thing as Separation of Church from state. That is a pereived notion taken from the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights where it clearly says the Government will NOT favor any ONE religion nor will it shun the practice of religion.

Please show the link as to where you are getting your information that Marriage is about "for the orderly distribution of property to one's heirs."Also tell me how are Gays going to have heirs?

When you also say many families are dysfunctional, how many is many and where is the link to reference that claim?

I think you are making stuff up and trying to pass it on as fact. That is what Kevin and Ernie and Comfy do as well as Notta, Mr Chien and nonenone none.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment



The only reason that government recognizes marriage is for the orderly distribution of property to one's heirs. Society may recognize marriage as being for the children, but not the government as in separation of church and state. Maybe we could have avoided this entire argument if everyone was granted a civil union by the government and a marriage according to our moral beliefs.
As far as family goes, once again who are we to judge? There are many families that are dysfunctional and until recently by law these families are all heterosexual. What more is there to say?
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 12:15 am EST

report this comment



The vast majority of U.S. states do not recognize same-sex marriage. Many even have constitutional amendments preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Every single state -- every one, without exception -- in which the public has voted on the issue has voted in favor of the tried-and-true definition of marriage that humanity has known for millennia.

This is why DOMA was enacted, and why it remains necessary to this day: so that the vast majority of America will not be forced to change its view of marriage. DOMA protects other states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the small minority of states that permit it. DOMA is already threatened by constitutional challenges under the "full faith and credit" clause; without DOMA, most states will be in even greater danger of having their will, their morals, their public policy trampled by the disapproving minority which refuses to respect those states' wishes.

Hopefully, the congressional delegations from those states that constitute the overwhelming majority will do their job of representing their constituents, and will preserve DOMA.

If same-sex marriage must eventually come to pass, it should be installed willingly by the remaining states that do not yet recognize it, in their own time and their own way, rather than by force. There will only be resentment and resistance if is forced on them.

DOMA should be preserved to respect the rights of the majority and to allow a peaceful resolution of the matter.

If civil unions truly are inadequate, then fight to change them and create federal recognition of them -- not to redefine or commandeer marriage.
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 10:37 pm EST

report this comment



When it comes to such an enormously controversial and emotional topic, which this clearly is, it's worth getting at the root of the issue. Which is:

Why does the government recognize marriages in the first place? Why does it grant benefits to married couples? Why not stay out of it altogether and be completely disinterested? Well, because society has an interest in marriage.

Why does society have an interest in promoting and protecting marriage?

It boils down to society's interest in raising the next generation to be well-adjusted and productive. In short: it's about children. Which only heterosexual coupling can produce.

Without the factor of children, we might as well grant those same benefits that gay couples are fighting so hard for... to singles. Why can't I, as a single person, designate my best friend as my next of kin and have all the same benefits of a married couple? Hmmm? It's bigotry, plain and simple, of course!
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 10:03 pm EST

report this comment



Eric said: "are men and women the same? why not call them both 'men'?"

Bingo! That's the very crux of the matter. Gay couples were granted civil unions, which were deliberately and explicitly intended to confer the same rights as marriage with the sole difference being the name. But now they clamor for the word "marriage," arguing that a different name is "separate but equal" and comes with a stigma of being something less than marriage. But it's not necessarily less; it's a distinct and unique thing. Why not embrace it and make it their own?

Same sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships. A different name for a different thing should not be a problem; if anything, it promotes clarity. Men and women fall under different terminology, similarly, because men and women are different. You don't hear a lot of women complain and rally for the right to be called men. We women know that we are not inferior just because there's a different word for us, and men aren't inferior either. Different does not mean unequal. (And invoking "separate but equal" is insulting -- that involved physical separation -- hardly the same thing as a different name!)

Comfy said: "if you need someone to explain the differences between male and female to you, you need far more help than I can give you."

Similarly, Comfy, do you need someone to explain to you the difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships?
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 9:55 pm EST

report this comment



Vermont was the first state to allow co-parent adoption in the courts.
1993
It was then written into law by the legislature in 1995 that same sex couples could adopt.
That was part of the argument for allowing CUs in 1999-2000.
Water under the bridge.
Done deal.

So the issue is now moot.

BUT every study, and there have been MANY, has shown that same sex couples are just as good as opposite sex couples at raising children. Sometimes BETTER. Yes, you heard right: sometimes BETTER.

I still applaud Welch and all our delegation for supporting equal rights, even for bigots who don't really know anything.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 8:05 pm EST

report this comment



Eric, if you need someone to explain the differences between male and female to you, you need far more help than I can give you.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 7:17 pm EST

report this comment



Comfy...
heres the question for you...are men and women the same? why not call them both "men"?

will you answer that one?

That Guy...you didnt answer the question...the fact you refuse makes the point...and no...i didn't read past the first line...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 4:58 pm EST

report this comment



Well of COURSE you're gonna read past the start of this post whether or not it answers your misguided question, Eric. Don't fool yourself.

MY point is that your entire line of questioning is faulty. You cannot judge a marriage's inherent legal or societal worthiness based upon its likely ability to raise children, through natural or adoptive means.

Let me say that again:

You CANNOT judge a marriage's inherent legal or societal worthiness based upon its likely ability to raise children, through natural or adoptive means.

Now about the actual point of the article:

DOMA was a bill that sought to exert Federal control over an issue that, supporters feared, states might resolve on their own... maybe (gasp!) in a way they didn't like. It was a usurpation of states' rights, pushed by the very same folks who are now (in the Age of Obama) screaming about -- you got it -- the need to protect and preserve states rights.

(As always, it depends on where you are on the side of an issue. If the Big Bad Jackbooted Federal Thugs are -- surprise! -- actually going to stop the gays from married, well, then, a little Big Brother-style overreaching isn't always THAT bad, eh?)

And please -- please! -- spare me the "slippery slope" argument; that if we let the gays marry and adopt, what's next... men marrying toasters? Women marrying poodles? Children marrying elephants? Eric Stansons marrying Juliet Chiens?

The problem with civil unions vs. marriages in Vermont -- other than the inherent evil in a so-called "separate but equal" status, which didn't work for blacks and didn't work for gays, either -- is that one DIDN'T grant the same exact legal rights as the other. So your premise is already flawed.

And honestly, Eric, if you really do think that people will be "blinded by the title" and consider a gay married couple the same exact thing as a straight married couple, well... I don't know whether to congratulate you for your surprisingly left-wing progressive Utopian view of the future, or condemn you for being a shallow, paralyzed-with-lack-of-understanding idiot who's completely clueless when it comes to millennia of human nature.
-- Posted by That Guy on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 3:58 pm EST

report this comment



geez...i just wrote a long answer to that guy...and it didn't post...

in essense I ask THAT GUY to answer the question i have posted a few times now...

all other things being equal, is it preferable to have both sexes as opposed to only one sex when raising a child?

if one is more advantageous than another than they are different and so should have a different name...so yes, I think there should be a different name...something like...civil union...

are my fears reasonable....check the post below about how many people (including you) already claim that legally THEY ARE THE SAME THING! even though the point of this article is that under federal law (sounds legal like) THEY ARE NOT!

I dont think anyone needs my approval to do what they want...

I also think they civil unions should be allowed to pass wealth and have insurance and tax advantages...and if that is all true, why this insistence on having the same name...
you know why...so that eventually everyone will stop looking at the situation and believe they are the same!

Yes, single folks and civil unions should be encouraged to adopt, but the best scenario possible should be sought, and a hetero couple is in that sense, more ideal...

LAstly, what about polygamists? Should they be considered a married couple too or are they too low on that guy's list? What about an intelligent animal that displays true consenting love for a human? too low on your list that guy? but they are loving consenting adults...who are we to decide...its a slippery slope on both sides but a line has to be drawn somwhere...

so...that guy...are you going to answer the question?
all other things being equal, is it preferable to have both sexes as opposed to only one sex when raising a child?
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 3:33 pm EST

report this comment



E.S., I am not "That Guy" but I can easily answer your question. The answer is no.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 3:00 pm EST

report this comment



that guy...

can you answer my question first...all other things being equal... would the presence of both sexes be more advantageous as compared to a one sex couple when raising a child?

If you re-read the article...you will discover the "point" of the article which is that legaly (ie under FEDERAL LAW) civil unions are not the same as a married couple...

Now lets play the other side of your slippery slope...
should marriage be only for couples? You must think polygamy should be given the same status...(loving consenting adults)or is this too low on your list to be considered "marriage"...and dolphins are intelligent animals, what if one wanted to marry a dolphin and we could see the dolphin was fully consenting...or would this fall too low on your list? Theres gotta be a line somewhere...

I made clear that adoption was just to point out the difference between the two and that a loving home is all that should be required...but as you seem to infer, single people are currently out...and that is not right...

Heres my last question...if i agree that civil unions should have all the wealth passing rights and tax and insurance advantages that married folks get...why this insistance on being called married...why do you need the same name?
so that at some point...people will be blinded by the title and consider them the same thing? answer: YES!

I honestly will not read past the begining of your next post if it does not start with an answer to my still unanswered question...all other things being equal... would the presence of both sexes be more advantageous as compared to a one sex couple when raising a child?

Your answer that guy?
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment



What part of equal in VT don't you understand, None None? Equality means not having to waste time refuting bogus anti-gay statistics and propaganda. Your statistics bear no resemblance to my life or to the lives of any gay VTers I know. You might as well be talking about kangaroos in Australia for all the difference it makes. Refuting anything you say would be a pointless exercise. You--and the other anti-equality folks in this forum--don't have to see gay people as equal. The state of VT already does; that's what counts. Feel free to exercise your bigtory, but it's powerless here.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 2:55 pm EST

report this comment



Eric... to paraphrase on old TV commercial: thinking is fundamental.

Unless I'm mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- what you're trying to say is this: on average, a man and woman will always do a better job raising a child than a man and a man... or a woman and a woman. Period. Is that accurate?

So what exactly does that MEAN? Forget everything else you've written... are you saying that, if (in your estimation) a same-sex couple cannot raise a child "as well as" or "better than" a heterosexual couple... then, what, exactly? They shouldn't be allowed to be "married"? We simply shouldn't CALL them "married"? Because people may eventually be fooled into thinking that same-sex married couples are actually heterosexual couples? Because adoption agencies may -- God forbid -- start treating them the same?

If all you're really concerned about is how "advantageous" a possible adoption scenario may be -- and the inherent societal danger in calling two dudes or two chicks "married" -- then how do we handle single men? Single women? Interracial couples? Couples with large age differences? Young couples? Old couples? Couples where one or both of the spouses involved have been married before?

What's YOUR Grand Preference List for whoever gets the cream of the adoption crop -- from the "Really, Truly, Legitimately, God-Fearin' Married" couples all the way down to "Only Married 'Cuz O' Them Libs In Montpelier" couples? If a couple falls low enough on Eric Stanson's list, do we get to stop calling them "married" and politely escort them out of the adoption office? Do we shrug our shoulders and say that only the "best" couples get the kids? In a world with thousands -- millions -- of children desperate for better circumstances and a better life, is it Adam and Eve or nothing?

Oh, and one last thing -- you'd mentioned that calling "them" -- presumably, gay couples -- "the same name is just the last step before they ARE the same thing". First of all, Eric, they already ARE the same thing; legally, anyway. But I don't think that's exactly what you meant. I think you were expressing your own fear that society may actually start TREATING "them" the same way.

Yes, indeed: I'll bet that's what scares you, most of all.
-- Posted by That Guy on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 2:14 pm EST

report this comment



oops...my comments were directed at THAT GUY...

thanks for the backing Just me...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 1:15 pm EST

report this comment



Just me...ok...i'll try again...

my "point" is that civil unions and married couples are not the same thing
my "fact pattern" in the adoption context is only a factual tool to show that if one admits that a hetero couple offers the benefits of both sexes while gay couples do not...and that there is an advantage there...shows that civil unions and marriages are NOT the same thing (how can they be the SAME if one has an advantage the other does not)...
so its not to say that in general one is better than the other... my "point" is that they are different...so calling them the same name is to call an apple an orange...

however, growing up in the world, i realize that when you control language you control thought...so calling them the same name is just the last step before they ARE the same thing...even though i think if we were all honest we would admit that they are different...

my last point absolutely occurred here on this very board...which was that any time my point is raised, the debate becomes deciding between loving comitted civil unions versus trash married folks...resort to this argument only proves the pointthat you need to degrade the straight couple to compare

anyone ready to argue that the influences of both sexes on a child is not preferable?

Anyone who believes a study that says that same sex is preferable prolly believes the study that cigarettes actually cure cancer (look it up.. its out there!)
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 1:10 pm EST

report this comment



Thankl you for clarifying that, Notta. I mean Juliet.
-- Posted by Mr. Moderate on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 12:46 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest

You state "It's ironic and amusing, NN, that you're accusing others of forcing their opinions on you." and yet it is you and others like you who seem that you can change society's morals at your leisure and anytime that someone speaks up against your movement, we are FORCING our opinions on you? ROFLMAO I think you have it bass ackwards.

You site that my references are old and tired and unworthy and yet you offer no counter reference to defend your whining. You try and discharge my references to research as what was it you said? "debunked anti-gay propaganda sites' and yet you show no reference to who or what debunked them. LOL Please present your non gay references that seem to believe that the references I offer are unworthy. Of course it is fully understandable that a gay would want to discredit any opposition to allow their views to seem to be the only fitting ones.
I have known gays and I have watched in disgust as they act out their parts. Whether you want to believe the facts about gays and their short term relationships, dozens to hundreds of partners or their other immoral and deviant acts, the gays that are referred to are all part of the same 1 to 2% of the population that you try to defend as being such nice and loving people. I do not buy it. Overall I do not want to trust children with any part of that group.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment



Arnie, to cite "facts" counter to yours would basically amount to quoting every peer-reviewed journal and book written since about 1975. Go to the library and pick up something on homosexuality. Anything. Something from the last 10 years. Read it.

Your quotes are all from NARTH, which has its own journal to publish its own lies in without having to be, say, scientifically proven. There is no there there, and they are laughed at by serious academics. They have done no new studies.

Twice as many lesbians as gay men got CUs and get marriages. But they aren't scary, so the haters always quote imaginary statistics about gay men.

Marriage equality is a fact in MA, CT, IA, VT, and soon NH and perhaps ME. More states will come. Our congressional delegates rightly realize that DOMA means the Federal govt is discriminating against Vermonters, so they all oppose it.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 10:31 am EST

report this comment



It's ironic and amusing, NN, that you're accusing others of forcing their opinions on you. As soon as heterosexual couples have civil marriage licenses granted or denied based on their sexual and relationship histories and their parenting skills, then we can talk. (I suspect some heterosexuals might resist this scrutiny.) Till then, your personal obsession with homosexuality, statistics, and the lives of others is just that: your personal obsession.

If you want to know what gay couples in VT are really like, step away from the computer propaganda and meet real gay VTers. (Not that I'd want to inflict your bigotry on gay couples.) I'm afraid you'll be disappointed to discover that we're nothing like your wild fantasies and more like your boring neighbors. Whether you accept my or anyone else's "lifestyle" is no more important than whether I accept your lifestyle, whatever that is. Your approval is not required for VT law, fortunately, so you're free to disapprove of gay couples all over VT. It doesn't matter. (Whatever happens in the 2010 and 2012 elections, marriage equality is not going away in VT, however much you wish it would.)

What does matter is that VT law does not reflect your personal biases but rather reflects the equality of all citizens in VT, gay and straight. And our lawmakers in Washington, who support overturning the discrimination inherent in DOMA, reflect the future of gay rights in the US.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 10:26 am EST

report this comment



TV, Perhaps you should take your own advice and change your moniker so that the rest of us don't have to be embarrassed by you.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 8:27 am EST

report this comment



Good try That Guy, i am none of those as you said.I vote, I think you should change your name to That Girl, it would fit you better, ok! As far as Montpelier,the cause of all our problems is the gold dome, like the tin on your head! Hows that!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 7:44 am EST

report this comment



Even your hero Bush no longer seems to agree with you.. time to move on, grow, shift with the times. Liberty and equal rights for all!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/20/bush-in-2008-im-not-going_n_292876.html

Bush In 2008: "I'm Not Going To Tell Some Gay Kid In The Audience That He Can't Get Married"
-- Posted by lizr None on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 6:43 am EST

report this comment



Thank you Peter Welch for standing up for equal rights for all people!

In a few years gay marriage will be the norm and no one will remember why we were so excited about all this...

Oh yeah, that's right... turning people against each other and playing to the lowest common denominator is the only program that Republicans have anymore, and Fox news' way of getting viewers.

How pitiful. Can't we start to grow up as a people and deal with the very real problems, like nuclear proliferation and climate change, that threaten to destroy our home? Must we act like little kids and keep fighting against each other so that these big corporations can continue to reap their huge profits?

Let's wise up, people!
-- Posted by lizr None on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 6:32 am EST

report this comment



NN: I am not saying that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. That would be a physical impossibility. All I am saying is that who are we to judge? And I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that there are as many responsible homosexuals as there are heterosexuals. You have also pointed out studies to the contrary, but the samples for these studies are corrupt in that the only people studied were those willing to admit their homosexuality in the face of extreme social pressures not to.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 6:22 am EST

report this comment



"Even before that, Loving v Virginia called it a 'vital personal right' and 'one of the basic civil rights of man.'"

The Lovings were persecuted as criminals. Yes, that's right. This wasn't about inheritance rights, hospital visitation and public approval. They were arrested as CRIMINALS.

No state or federal government is bringing criminal charges against homosexual couples that live together and call themselves married. Rather, the government is simply refusing to recognize their "marriage," to sanction their relationship and bestow it with benefits.

Huge difference there. Huge. I'm hard-pressed to find any analogy at all to Loving.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 10:44 pm EST

report this comment



Also Ernest, there have been 2000 Civil Unions in Vermont or there abouts and compared to the population and considering most came from out of state, it doesn't speak very highly of Gay Commited Relationships.
To judge all Gays on your 20 year relationship with Kevin is totally absurd. You are not the pattern, you maybe very well the exception, for once again maybe the hunting isn't all that good in Vermont.
You commitment to each other, by far does not convince me that the Gay Lifestyle should be accepted, I do not accept the Gay lifestyle and yet if you want to live with each other, that is YOUR business. I also do not believe that you should be taking your Gay Opinions and ramming them down my throat as something I should accept, I do not and I do not believe that you are worthy with your lifestyles to raise innocent children. Your lifestyle is not about children, it NEVER could be. It is solely about each other and benefits, whereas my marriage is about Family and sacrifice for blood offspring. That is where the basis of Real Marriage is at and not in some Gay interuptation of what Marriage should be in order to accept deviant and immoral behavior.

Until Society accepts Incest where the love is far greater for each other than in any Gay relationships, you argument for the acceptance of gay marriage based on love alone is not adequate.

We will see in 2010 and again in 2012, just how the majority of this state and this country truly feel. Until then the debate is far from settled and there is the majority that is far from convinced.

The ONLY accurate Poll is the Election Poll.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 10:31 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest

They are not tired and old, they are rather current and they are facts taken from multiple researches. I even included some from the extremely Gay Tolerant Netherlands. I doubt they would show bias in their studies. So when you and your mate, Kevin decide to produce some facts on the contrary, then maybe I'll listen to your empty claims, until then...

Shy

You are right, Gay Marriages haven't been around long enough to judge but Gay habits have been. My point was to provide a counter claim to yours. How can you possibly claim they will make better Parents if in fact you are telling me there is no data to prove your claim?
When you look at the data I provided, it will clearly show that they are extremely deviant as compared to heterosexuals. 100s of partners and yet they consist of only 1 to 2% of the population. Their relationships are short lived and I guess grow boring. When you look at the stats provided from JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, you will note that the claims about 50% of the heterosexual marriages are failing is false. I provided two surveys with two results but close enough in results to be able to average that over 55% make it to 20 years. More than what can be said for Gay relations. That was the point, was it not?

I have the results from several more studies and they are fairly recent and I can provide them as well, but wouldn't want to bore Ernest or Kevin with bona fide facts when they make claims with no reference or substance. Their points may sound good, because they have been rehearsed enough times, but are still empty claims.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 10:17 pm EST

report this comment



Eric, your question is totally valid and worthy of an honest answer. The answer is yes. All else being equal, it is far better for a child --whether male or female-- to be raised by a mother and a father than by two men or two women. The male-female union is balanced and complete, and both sons and daughters need a parent of each sex in order to develop normally and learn to relate to both sexes normally.

There seems to be a common thought in this thread that two fathers cannot raise a daughter, and I agree, but I'd like to point out that two mothers are also inadequate. A girl needs a mother, yes, but she needs a father too. Fathers are extremely important. Similarly, sons need mothers and fathers alike.

I wouldn't say that children of single parents or same-sex couples cannot grow up to be happy and well adjusted; they can. But that situation is not ideal. There is likely to be a longing there, even if it is only subconscious, for the missing parent. (And for children raised by gay couples, there is by intentional design at least one parent missing, a parent used by the other solely for genetic material and then discarded as unworthy for keeping around.) I speak from experience and I don't need any biased "studies" to confirm or deny what I know from my experience.

Eric, it's a shame your question was answered with such contempt; I suspect you hit a nerve because those who advocate same-sex marriage really know, deep down, that it's not the real deal for the very reason you are getting at.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 10:12 pm EST

report this comment



More comments: I have known at least 3 homosexual males as friends (and please not lovers) Two of them had heterosexual marriages with children. Both of them stayed with their wives until the children were raised. Then divorced and pursued homosexual relationships. My point is that they did not abandon their families. They acted responsibly. Since married homosexuals can have families whose to say that having a family will not produce the same results as in heterosexual families?,
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 8:50 pm EST

report this comment



NN: We have no way to know how long marriages of homosexuals last, because it wasn't legal until now. So your study is apples to oranges. But I will gladly take back what I have said if a study of homosexual marriages shows a greater instability that heterosexual marriages.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 8:19 pm EST

report this comment



Please, None None, your tired old "statistics"--lifted from debunked anti-gay propaganda sites--have about as much relationship to the realities of life in VT as palm trees and coconuts. I know countless gay couples in VT who have been together for decades. (Many of them together during a time when there was huge societal pressure against forming lasting gay relationships.) The majority of gay couples in VT who are joined in legal unions are, in fact, lesbians. (Anti-gay groups conveniently leave lesbians out of their "data" on homosexuality.) I've been in a committed relationship with a man for almost 20 years. That's what's typical in VT, not your fantasies. People who have 1000s of sexual partners--as if that would even be possible in VT haha--aren't the ones getting married. They're too busy landing imaginary conquests to get hitched!

So trot out--again, and I'm sure you will--your inaccurate nonsense but it won't change the fact that committed gay couples in VT will and are getting married or that discriminatory laws like DOMA will eventually fall because discrimination and bigotry always lose in the end.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment



"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners."
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 3:40 pm EST

report this comment



"A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

"In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years."

Still not enough time to raise a child in a Homo relationship or lack of relationship.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 3:22 pm EST

report this comment



Shy

The half of Heterosexual marriages that you refer to in one breath and then in the next imply it is all heterosexual marriages whom have siblings, is a wild implication in itself. Now talk about how many heterosexual marriages are failing that actually have children.

Now one you get that info out of the way, how many homosexual relationships fail? are you ready?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

"Relationship Duration
Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Married Couples

A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years."

Please present your source where the Heterosexual is less than the homosexual. It seems the MAJORITY of homo relations don't last long enough to give that child the loving upbringing that you seem so ready to refer to. ROFLMAO
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 3:13 pm EST

report this comment



For any who don't realize it yet That Guy AKA Juliet Chien posts under several names to make it appear there are more people who share his/her/it's point of view. ...by exVTER none.
Juliet is just one voice. I don't know who Notta or That Guy or anyone is else is for that matter. Your problem is that you can't stand the fact that there are so many of us who don't share your viewpoint that you have created a delusion for yourself as a coping mechanism. Get over it...
-- Posted by Juliet Chien on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 2:44 pm EST

report this comment



David: I would never claim there was no out-of-state participation during the marriage debate. But, compared to the outside meddling--from both sides--that surrounds any ballot initiatives, it was a drop in the bucket, believe me. National anti-gay organizations like NOM and the Mormon Church would have been ALL over VT if they thought their influence would have mattered here--i.e. if we had ballot initiatives or a less progressive legislature. (Not that they were completely absent; the robo-calls before the vote, for instance. But nothing like what the Mormons poured into CA over Prop 8.) On the equality side, there was funding from inside and outside VT. (Which was openly reported and debated in these forums, as you probably remember.) The myth is that the equality activists on the ground in VT these past 10 years were somehow out-of-staters. They were not.

The hard grassroots work that allowed the marriage bill to pass this year came from amazingly effective people, many unpaid volunteers, within VT. The idea put forth by some that our legislators were puppets of some super-influential national gay rights group is ludicrous fantasy. (I wish national gay rights groups had that kind of magical power, but they definitely don't.) I talked to legislators. Frankly, they weren't interested in what out-of-staters had to say; they were interested in what their constituents had to say. Some opponents will never believe this, but it's true. Marriage equality was inevitable in VT; a ballot initiative process would simply have dragged it out for months or years more. So those who believe it wasted legislators' time this winter should be the most thankful we don't have referendums!

As far as DOMA is concerned (the subject of the original article); our congressional delegation is not going to gain anything politically by supporting its repeal. It's, at best, a political wash for them in VT. They support overturning DOMA because it discriminates against VTers and it's wrong.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 11:38 am EST

report this comment



If all of us heterosexuals were so good at marriage, why so much divorce? With half the heterosexual marriages failing, are we doing such a good job of parenting? Forget your studies which can be manipulated to prove anything. Just apply some common sense. Who are we to say that homosexuals would be worse parents? Get real.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Sep 20, 2009, 4:00 am EST

report this comment



Marriage equality is up for popular vote in Maine. I oppose putting civil rights up for popular vote, but Maine has a ballot initiative process--that includes a host of issues, not just marriage--so it makes sense that their marriage bill would go before the voters. VT has no such process because VTers don't want it. (For good reason, they invite ugly out-of-state meddling.)


You must have had a brain fart when you wrote that last line Ernie. Out-of-state meddling? Can you honestly say with a straight face that there was no "out-of-state" meddling in Montpelier during the gay marriage debate?
-- Posted by David Randall on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 10:40 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest Thanks for your Civil Answer. Unlike some Kool-Aid Drinking FOOLS. Once Their Parents find out they are playing on the Computer agian are going be in soooo much
trouble....
-- Posted by angelo None on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 8:47 pm EST

report this comment



More idiocy:

Angelo... while I know I shouldn't pick on slow kids wearing headgear for whom English is clearly NOT a primary language, I'll do it to you anyway: EVERYONE had a chance to vote on the issus through Town Meeting Day... and guess what? They did!

Other than that, each town's individual agenda is up to themselves, not Montpelier. You DO understand how the whole "Town Meeting in Vermont" thing works, right?

Eric: the problem here is that you don't really HAVE a point. Who's talking about gay adoption versus heterosexual adoption? YOU are -- and no one else, really. Who's saying that stable gay couples should be "favored" over stable heterosexual couples? Or is your entire so-called "point" that calling a union between two men or two women a "marriage" is dangerous because it means that gay couples will now somehow gain an advantage in the adoption competition and agencies will start steering kids away from Adam and Eve to Adam and Steve?

And, again... what on God's green Earth does this have to do with anything?

Ex-Vermonter... desperately grasping at straws, this sad old man has now invented a new story: that everyone who disagrees with him in in fact -- can you believe it? -- THE SAME PERSON. Good one, Ex-V. I won't dare insult any of the other Unemployed Right-Wingnut Regulars by telling them that they are, in fact, YOU. (The rest of your post is typical gibberish, of course, but that one claim was pretty entertaining, I'll admit.)
-- Posted by That Guy on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 7:46 pm EST

report this comment



In Vermont, civil marriage is civil marriage, period. That doesn't mean that every couple is identical. It simply means that our state does not see gay people as second-class citizens. And individual churches remain free to define religious marriage as they see fit, so any religious arguments are beside the point.

Marriage equality is up for popular vote in Maine. I oppose putting civil rights up for popular vote, but Maine has a ballot initiative process--that includes a host of issues, not just marriage--so it makes sense that their marriage bill would go before the voters. VT has no such process because VTers don't want it. (For good reason, they invite ugly out-of-state meddling.) Polls in Maine indicate that the people of Maine are about evenly split on the issue. What happens on election day will depend greatly on who shows up at the polls. VT is, in general, a more progressive state than Maine (we had pro-gay civil rights laws here long before they did in Maine), so what happens there is not necessarily indicative of public opinion in VT.

Angelo, everyone in VT--as you know--had almost a decade to share their opinions on marriage. It was no secret that CUs were a compromise that was unacceptable to equality supporters. If people chose not to share their views with their elected representatives, that's their fault. But a 2/3 majority vote reflects the will of the state much more decisively than the rantings of a tiny, disgruntled minority who can't accept a bill that has no impact on their lives.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 4:40 pm EST

report this comment



For any who don't realize it yet That Guy AKA Juliet Chien posts under several names to make it appear there are more people who share his/her/it's point of view. For the gays the issue was never about equal rights, it was all about being able to claim they were married like hetroxexuals, just one more step in validating their life style. They talk about the population voting for gay marriage through the representatives they voted into office, I ask one question, how many of those representatives stated they were going vote for gay marriage while they were campaigning? Maine also passed a gay marriage bill with putting it to a popular vote but the people went out and got enough signatures to have the issue put on the ballot this fall, we will get to see a good example of what the popular opinion is. I think the mentality of people in Maine closely matches that of Vermonters, although little Vermont has a greater liberal/socialist population of exc-New Yorkers and west coasters types.
-- Posted by ex-vermonter None on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 3:52 pm EST

report this comment



That Guy...
Adoption of a child...all other statistics and values are identical...is not the balance of the two sexes advantageous? Yes, it is...so a same sex couple or family is not the same as a traditional marriage, there is an advantage (albeit even a slight advantage)...but when you call them the same name, they soon become the same...and they are not...
for whoever cares what i believe, anyone should have tax advantages for their relationship, everyone should pass on wealth to loved ones...but dont tell me the two are the same thing...so they shouldnt have the same name...in other words...civil unions should have all the money rights marriage has...but not the same in the adoption context etc...a traditional couple should be preferable...however, i dont think anyone (including single people) should be excluded from adopting...I am sure there are many variables that would make a civil union couple or a single person a great adoptive parent......(now feel free to continue to ignore my point and compare a perfect rich loving gay couple to hetereosexual ***********...)
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 2:19 pm EST

report this comment



Read the words slowly None None.

It's YOUR right to live YOUR life by YOUR moral code. But not to force others to live, nor judge others, by YOUR code.

Does that help?

I think it's funny how you totally jumped over the Sodomy points by saying.. "I don't care."

Point is... Religion, and conservative man, has tried to dictate how people should live. Those life styles were OUTLAWED even in the USA. Some states still carry those laws.

Do you honestly believe everyone abides by them?

Why do gay people in these states end up in prison for sodomy?

If conservative man is allowed to change their MORALS. Why can't homosexuals be allowed their belief and MORALS?

What makes you "ABOVE THE LAW", "ABOVE MORALS" where you don't have to follow your own code?

Plain and Simple truth.

No one follows the Bible anymore. Everyone picks and chooses what they believe and don't believe. Because it is contradictive to it's own teachings. Conservative man has changed the bible so many times they were not smart enough to realize the bible was contradicting itself. Or they simply didn't care. They probably figured, THE MAJORITY, would never be smart enough to pick up on it.

Why is religion, conservatism, GOP, and Republicans slowly but always losing power?

Education!
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 1:40 pm EST

report this comment



That Guy,,,,your PROOF would have been if it went to
Referendum,, So the People could have voted,,that didnot
happen,,The way this happenend right after Town Meeting Day
Stinks !!! It should have been brought up at Town Meeting
to see how EVERYONE in Vermont felt about the issue..
Now I have a question for you,,do you Sip your KOOL-AID
WARM or KOOL ???
-- Posted by angelo None on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 12:51 pm EST

report this comment



Finally, David Randall: you want a "referendum" on minority rights? Here's your referendum: put down your cows next fall and go vote out every single person who voted for the bill, on either side of the aisle. It's called representative democracy.

That's true, the only way to "prove" that last years legislative actions were not "representative democracy" is by in fact voting all the Yea voters out. The problem is that too many people won't get their butts off their couches...they will rant on online forums, shout at their TV's, and cry outrage in their circle of friends...but it ends there. The Democrats and Progressives are counting on it. I do think there should have been a referendum...but don't sit there and try and cram down our throats that it is what the majority of Vermonters want when there is no way that you can prove that, anymore than someone can prove that they don't. And for God's sake...I'M NOT THE FARMER DAVE RANDALL....if you are that interested in who I am...look in the phone book or use white pages and call me...I live in Castleton. I'm not afraid to use my real name and find no need to hide behind a screen name.


We were the first state in the country whose elected representatives passed a gay marriage bill without a court order. You're angry that the majority of state legislators, elected by the majority of Vermonters, want something that you and your fellow minority-dwellers DIDN'T want. Fine. I understand that. And I also understand that the cries for a referendum are a last-ditch, "Jeez I hope this works" attempt by the minority to have a vote and gather as much out-of-state money, media and influence as possible to defeat gay marriage -- yes, the same exact thing y'all were whining about when used against you.

You're the team that loses a game and then attacks the refs. The you file a complaint with the league. Then you appeal the complaint when it's denied. Finally, out of options, you mutter and whine on the sidelines until everyone else gets tired of you and the issue finally dries up and goes away.

And in the meanwhile.... I'M STILL WAITING FOR THAT PROOF that the "majority" of Vermonters don't support this bill. Anyone? Anyone?


Fact is..it's over...and I'm glad. Do I agree with gay marriage?...no. Does it affect my life...not really. I'm not looking to defeat anything, but just lying down and not speaking up when something you don't agree with happens in politics is not how this country was designed. The true crime in this matter will be in the next two years when this state will be scrambling to find ways to fix the budget shortfalls because they spent so much time on a symbolic gesture.

Ernest...I can see the logic behind the name change as far as DOMA is concerned...but when this issue was before the state legislature I never once heard you or other advocates mention that you believed for one second that DOMA could be repealed...I still don't believe it will. My biggest objection was the timing and the manipulation.
-- Posted by David Randall on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 12:30 pm EST

report this comment



David is right. Whether a majority or minority of VTers support marriage equality is moot at this point. (For the record, multiple polls showed a majority in favor, but there is no way to know for certain.) The bill passed as any bill passes in VT, by our elected representatives, and it passed my an overwhelming majority. Other bills are not put up for public vote in VT; this one was no different. Its passage was a decade in the making. So call it masterfully played politics or call it 10 years of hard work by dedicated equality supporters--in any case, it passed. We have the bill. It's not going away.

Those who believe that "marriage" is no different than "CUs" have not read the article. When DOMA is overturned--either via the courts or the federal legislative process--the federal recognition it is preventing will apply to couples who are MARRIED. Not couples who have CUs or some other second-class form of domestic partnership. So, in fact, words do matter--in a very practical legal sense as well is in a deeper symbolic sense.

As for parenting--studies have indeed shown that children thrive as much with two gay parents as with two straight parents. But, again, such comparisons (if it is children you are worried about rather than politics) are irrelevant in VT because under VT law gay married parents are recognized as such. (And gay people were allowed to adopt children in VT long before the current marriage bill.) Children are best served by loving parents--whether those parents are straight or gay--and by families that stay together. So those who believe in strong family units should be speaking out in favor of a bill that recognizes the importance of married parents.

Since the worth of gay families has already been decided in VT--they are equal to straight families--the only question is whether DOMA benefits or harms VT families, and it is clear that it harms them. For those who still oppose marriage equality, the good news is that no one is requiring you to participate in this process. The work within the state is done, so there's nothing preventing you from moving on to issues of more personal importance to you.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 11:23 am EST

report this comment



So much stupidity, so little time to respond.

Eric Stanson: at the risk of changing your "fact pattern" -- whatever the hell THAT means -- what does child-rearing have to do with any of this? Children aren't going to be taken away from heterosexual couples -- even the miserable, good-for-nothing drunken welfare-abusing thrice-divorced ones -- so what exactly are you trying to say? IF every heterosexual couple was loving, stable and supportive, gay couples shouldn't be allowed anywhere near kids?

True Vermonter: while Juliet's already called you on your truly moronic contention that the Doyle Poll didn't ask YOU for your opinion (guess you're too fat, lazy, dumb or just plain bored to attend Town Meetings or, you know, VOTE, huh?); I have to ask one question: what does "living in Montpelier" have to do with anything? Or did you simply sick up on your keyboard again?

None None: "Marriage' is defined by neither love nor children. It's a legal term defined by the state... period. The state -- government, if you will -- does not legally permit familial incest. Got it?

Angelo: while your contention that people are "known" to take 5-7 poll sheets at a time is just plain adorable (and completely unprovable, but hey, that goes without saying -- at least you've got True Vermonter on your side), there's just one thing to point out: of COURSE it's a "do-nothing" poll. ALL polls are "do-nothing" by their very nature. All a poll does is ask your opinion. If it DID something, it would be called "legislation".

Finally, David Randall: you want a "referendum" on minority rights? Here's your referendum: put down your cows next fall and go vote out every single person who voted for the bill, on either side of the aisle. It's called representative democracy.

We were the first state in the country whose elected representatives passed a gay marriage bill without a court order. You're angry that the majority of state legislators, elected by the majority of Vermonters, want something that you and your fellow minority-dwellers DIDN'T want. Fine. I understand that. And I also understand that the cries for a referendum are a last-ditch, "Jeez I hope this works" attempt by the minority to have a vote and gather as much out-of-state money, media and influence as possible to defeat gay marriage -- yes, the same exact thing y'all were whining about when used against you.

You're the team that loses a game and then attacks the refs. The you file a complaint with the league. Then you appeal the complaint when it's denied. Finally, out of options, you mutter and whine on the sidelines until everyone else gets tired of you and the issue finally dries up and goes away.

And in the meanwhile.... I'M STILL WAITING FOR THAT PROOF that the "majority" of Vermonters don't support this bill. Anyone? Anyone?
-- Posted by That Guy on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment



I keep hearing from our Unemployed Right-Wingnut Regulars here on this forum that the majority of Vermonters DIDN'T want gay marriage.

Well, here's your chance to back up your own words: post your proof here. Someone? Anyone?

Time to put up or shut up. PROVE to all of us that a majority of Vermonters didn't want gay marriage in our state. Cite polls. Research. Surveys. Anything.

I went looking for proof myself, and all I could find was the every-year-since-Jesus-was-a-teenager Bill Doyle Poll, which provided the following results at Town Meeting Day this past March:

55% support gay marriage
38% oppose gay marriage
7% are undecided

So, clearly, THAT ain't it. Gosh, I must be missing something.

Jerry Coleman? "True" Vermonter? Back Nine? One of the seventeen different "None None"s who post here? C'mon, wingnuts... ONE of you must be able to back up your own words, right?

We'll all be anxiously awaiting your replies.

-- Posted by That Guy on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 1:38 pm EST



As much as I hate to beat a dead horse...there is no true way to find out what the majority of Vermonters feel on this issue other than a referendum. Any other claim about majority or minority is moot, and is merely speculation. We tend to hang out with like-minded people so we believe that we are in the majority. The way the gay marriage thing was handled, from the biased "commission", to the fact it was back-burnered for a year because it was an election year, and the overall manipulation to satisfy this special interest, leads me to believe that it ISN'T the majority...but we'll never know. I think there are small elements on each side with strong feelings and the majority of people just don't care either way.

It was really masterfully played politics at its best....in the meantime we have to figure out how to solve a 200 million dollar budget shortfall over the next two years....but that's only secondary to a symbolic gesture that doesn't grant anything substantive....riiiiggggghhhhhttttttt.
-- Posted by David Randall on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 8:07 am EST

report this comment



Exactly angelo none,they stuff the ballot box so it makes them look ok, like i said, its bs!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 7:45 am EST

report this comment



The Doyle Poll is not Scientific,,people at Town Meeting
have been known to take 5-7 at a time..Also the Doyle Poll
is a Feel Good Do Nothing Poll...
-- Posted by angelo None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 10:02 pm EST

report this comment



Kevin, could you give an example of the SCIENTIFIC studies that show gay parents are "sometimes even better" than a hetero duo? Other than the example Eric cited "(comparing alcoholic married folks to loving civil unions...assume all other things being equal)". I don't believe his question has been answered several times, as you state. No one has met his qualifier. So, about these SCIENTIFIC studies you cite.......
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 9:49 pm EST

report this comment



Many marriages take place without children. Marriage is not defined by children like None None would like to believe. -- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 10:58 pm EST

It is illegal to marry your daughter because of the high likelihood of genetic defects that come from inbreeding, not exactly a risk for same sex couples. -- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 9:46 am EST

Wow, seems like two of our more liberal posters disagree. CF believes marriage is not defined by children. Comfy believes relatives can't marry due to inbreeding. Well, who's to say the relatives will have children. By that logic, brothers/sisters, fathers/daughters have just as much of a right to marry as gays. So which is it guys? Is marriage defined by children or love? You're arguing both sides of the coin here...
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 9:43 pm EST

report this comment



Eric: your question was answered, several times.
And in fact, MANY actual SCIENTIFIC studies have shown that two moms or two dads are every bit as good as a mom and a dad -- sometimes even better.
This is why all psychological and social services and child services organizations back gay marriage.

And for the last time, marriage is a right. It is a right now shared by all Vermonters.

Even before that, Loving v Virginia called it a "vital personal right" and "one of the basic civil rights of man."
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 8:38 pm EST

report this comment



The Doyle Poll you moron, is handed out at every town meeting in Vermont. That means that people who behave like citizens instead of just shooting their mouths off by hour on this blog while the rest of us are working have expressed their opinions in a very large poll....
You...on the other hand belong at the end of a "pole!"
-- Posted by Juliet Chien on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 6:51 pm EST

report this comment



Hey That Guy, The pole is BS, unless you live in Montpelier! I wish we really could vote to shut you all up once and for all! The doyle pole didnt ask me or any one i know!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment



see that.. take a honest question about whether a man and women are better parents (even slightly) than a same sex couple and the other side changes the facts to argue a great same sex couple is better than a bad hetero couple...
(who would guess...oh me when i asked that you dont make this comparison)

does anyone dispute that it would be more difficult for two moms to raise a son than for for a hetero couple with a dad? (AGAIN...all other crtieria being equal)
or vice -versa? (I have also noticed that women think they can raise a man when men know they dont get a lot about women and can admit they would be bad at instilling "female virtues"...)
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:43 pm EST

report this comment



If you are against gay marriage, then don't marry a gay man. Period.

Next.....
,
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 4:28 pm EST

report this comment



I keep hearing from our Unemployed Right-Wingnut Regulars here on this forum that the majority of Vermonters DIDN'T want gay marriage.

Well, here's your chance to back up your own words: post your proof here. Someone? Anyone?

Time to put up or shut up. PROVE to all of us that a majority of Vermonters didn't want gay marriage in our state. Cite polls. Research. Surveys. Anything.

I went looking for proof myself, and all I could find was the every-year-since-Jesus-was-a-teenager Bill Doyle Poll, which provided the following results at Town Meeting Day this past March:

55% support gay marriage
38% oppose gay marriage
7% are undecided

So, clearly, THAT ain't it. Gosh, I must be missing something.

Jerry Coleman? "True" Vermonter? Back Nine? One of the seventeen different "None None"s who post here? C'mon, wingnuts... ONE of you must be able to back up your own words, right?

We'll all be anxiously awaiting your replies.
-- Posted by That Guy on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 1:38 pm EST

report this comment



Personal beliefs and opinions about whether gay couples should be equal to straight couples in VT are now irrelevant. Everyone is free to believe what they like, but the fact is that under VT law gay couples ARE viewed as equal to straight couples, and that is not going to change. The debate may continue privately among the disgruntled few, but, in the public sphere, misgivings about homosexuality really don't matter. We're here, we have families, we're respected by our friends and neighbors, we pay equal state taxes, get used to it.

However, DOMA, in preventing federal recognition of couples deemed equal under state law, interferes with a state's right to determine its own marriage laws and the equality of its citizens. Clearly, DOMA is discriminatory for this reason and will fall sooner or later. I am proud of our representatives in Congress for supporting DOMA's repeal and for standing on the side of justice. Sen. Leahy rightly regrets his earlier support of DOMA and shows how the views of fair-minded people have evolved over the past decade. His evolution shows how far we've come in a short time.

Once again, I am proud to be a VTer and proud of our elected leaders in Washington.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 10:01 am EST

report this comment



It is illegal to marry your daughter because of the high likelihood of genetic defects that come from inbreeding, not exactly a risk for same sex couples.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 9:46 am EST

report this comment



NN#1

Marriage is NOT a Right. Never has been. You need to define what you mean by RIGHTS. Then you need to show me in the Bill of Rights, Constitution or anywhere where it says that Marriage is a right.

We are all born in this country with the same God given rights and we have the same Government Rights, per the fading away Bill of Rights.
You are saying and correct me if I am wrong, that if I chose t live a life differently from the MAJORITY, let's say I want marry my daughter, then I should be able to. That as long as I love her, I should have a right to marry her? or do you believe that INCEST is immoral and wrong? Well! then what makes you think that Gay is any different?

So if Gays have a right to marry a right that is written where NN#1? Then why isn't incest allowed? I would think a Mother Son, Father Daughter, Brother Sister have a lot stronger LOVE towards each other than two gays who have only known each other for a short time. Why can't we allow Incest couples to marry as well?

Please skip the bashing NN#1 and address my point in full and with a clear and concise reply.

Thank You
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 8:17 am EST

report this comment



You have the Right to believe in gays and I have the right to NOT believe in Gays.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 7:58 am EST

Today I'm choosing to not believe in conservatives.
*puts fingers in ears*
LALALALALALALA!
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 8:10 am EST

report this comment



Wow!

CF Reality

Wrote "
You don't want to be gay.. That's fine. That's your moral judgement. It's not meant for you to judge, or force others to live how YOU or conservative man THINKS they should live"

He said it was my MORAL judgment to not accept Gays. CF How can you say it is a MORAL judgment in one breath and then defend them in the next? ROFLMAO does that mean you have to have ZERO MORALS to accept Gays? LOL I think so and I guess we know where you fall in.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 8:05 am EST

report this comment



Jack

I also like the way they answer the Balanced upbringing with the comment that the Heterosexuals are probably drunk parents and the Gay parents are the Perfect ones.

If the Gays parents are the perfect ones then how come pedophiles are an extremely high percentage of Gays?

How come the majority of all serial killers have been GAY.

Who cares about Sodomy? I don't. You missed the point.

The POINT WAS and I will try to type slow so be sure to read slow.

The Government Marriage Contract was created to protect the FAMILY ELEMENT that is created with the JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN and the OFFSPRING of the couple.

Gays are UNABLE to create off spring and the only reason they seek Marriage is for Benefits. They had their CONTRACTS with Civil Union, but that wasn't good enough. The Vermont Law is able to be repealed after this General Assembly and it will be repealed. People are tired of only a few ramming this B.S. down our throats.

The Gay Life style is an immoral and deviant Life style and all the laws in the world will not change that fact.

There is no way that a Gay couple can bring up a child of either gender better than a set of parents that consist of One man and one Woman and by the way, I DO NOT DRINK.

There is no way in He$$ that Two gay men could bring up a daughter anywhere near the way a Heterosexual Couple could. I have raised daughters and there is so much a man can not do for a daughter, including a man with a limp wrist.

Gays want to have a Union? Then allow them to live to together but without benefits. The Gay Lifestyle is wrong and they are Gay from choice and should not be rewarded for this choice. They do not deserve the same rights and benefits in a Union that a Heterosexual couple have. It is idiotic to even claim that they do.

I agree, it is time for Pedophiles to be legalized and it is time to have multi Choices of restrooms.

Boys
Girls
Men
Women
Gay Men
Gay Women
Transgendered Males
Transgendered Females


The Gays make up less than 1.5% of the population and we changed laws for 2000 Gay couples most of which came form out of state? Where is all this money you claim was going to come in with them? DId you forget about how many were leaving this God forsaken state?

You have the Right to believe in gays and I have the right to NOT believe in Gays. I am in the Majority, if you try and claim the Majority of Vermonters want Gay Marriage, well we will see in 2010.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 7:58 am EST

report this comment



I find it totally ironic that the left/liberals on this forum toss the "hate' word around whenever someone disagrees with their livestyle. They use terms like 'conservatives have no right telling us how to live our lives' or 'they are taking away our rights'.
Then, on the same day, on a different topic, these same people will critize others because they don't agree with government run health care, illegal immigrants receiving government support or the fact that I, as an individual don't believe in man-made climate change. Somehow it is OK for them to want to change laws to benefit themselves but for a conservative, that also doesn't believe in government interference in our lives that we are "bigots", "hateful", "racists" or even "stupid". I guess if it fits their agenda it's OK, if not......
-- Posted by Jack Bauer on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 7:37 am EST

report this comment



Your right NN#1, YOU ARE THE MINORITY, if we were all like you then we all would have a big problem, no people on earth and we couldn't **** and moan about this subject. It aint right, period, just try and understand that! AND THE MAJORITY BY FAR DIDNT WANT GAY MARRIAGE THIS IN THIS STATE!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 7:31 am EST

report this comment



To the haters in this forum:

Get one thing straight, NO MAJORITY (straight bigots) SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT, BY VOTING TO REMOVE OR DENY RIGHTS TO A MINORITY! PERIOD!

What a precident that would set if you were allowed to do that! Next you'll want to vote on whether or not to allow black people out on Saturday night or allow hispanics to walk on the left side of the street on weekends.
,
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 6:00 am EST

report this comment



Most true Vermonters do not want this, it is the poeple we send to Montpelier , has anyone ever been to Montpelier and seen what we send up there? They are a nasty lot ,so there way of thinking is...if we pass a gay bill we will not look so bad when we get caught, think not... check out the rest area or the ymca oh yea he is going to get away with that, that town should be proud of Flanagan he is your town.
-- Posted by Billy Garrow on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, 5:47 am EST

report this comment



"Force others to live or how you or conservative man thinks they should live" CF Reality
Strange CF I thought that was your job as a Liberal to tell everyone else how to run their life ???
-- Posted by angelo None on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 11:48 pm EST

report this comment



Sorry None None..

Balanced Upbrining???

I'd choose two great parents over 2 drunks anyday. Gay or not. Heterosexuals are not perfect. If you think they are. You have serious issue's or live in LALA-LAND.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 11:04 pm EST

report this comment



I agree with Comfy and many, many others. Although I am not gay.

Children need good parents. Doesn't matter if the parents are gay or not. Some homosexual couples will make great parents. Some will not. Just like many heterosexual parents do NOT make good parents.

"They cannot reproduce naturally." That is true. Is that all bad? I don't think so. Many marriages take place without children. Marriage is not defined by children like None None would like to believe. There are many children that need good homes. Everyday there are heterosexual kids/adults having unplanned children and giving them up.

In the end. A homosexual couple decides when it is right for them to raise children. They don't have unplanned pregnancies at a young age. Kid's are not neglected or being raised around adults that DO NOT want them.

Gay is Normal. It's not the majority. It's not the NORM... But it is normal. It's been happening for 1000's of years in our written history. Even before Jesus was born. It was happening 1000's of years before we could even write.

It's fine if you want to be a bigot. Personally, I believe in the simple teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't believe he was a bigot. I believe the bigotry comes from "The Church", "Conservative Man", and their efforts throughout time to control people/society how they saw fit. Which they have undisputedly done. Afterall.. The bible was written, edited, printed, rewritten, edited, and reprinted by MAN!

"The Church" decides what goes in the bible and what does not. From a collection idea's that ALL came from man. Both good and bad idea's. Even idea's that CONTRADICT other idea's!

Jesus' words and idea's are in there. You just need to look thru conservative man's garbage to find them.

Simple point = Jesus doesn't want you to judge others. Then why would the BIBLE make prejudgements and TELL you how you should feel about it? It doesn't make sense.

Simple .. 1 = Jesus' words. Everything else = B.S. from conservative man using "Scare Tactics" to control MAN!




None None....

If they live an abnormal life and you are so perfect?

Have you ever had oral or given oral sex? That is considered SODOMY even for a man and woman.

Have you ever had sex in any other position than MISSIONARY position? That is considered SODOMY even for a man and woman.

Have you ever masturbated? Guess what!!!!

Point is..... Conservative man has tried to CONTROL society to how they saw fit. NOW they want to tell SOME people that some things are ok now. And some things will never be ok.


You don't want to be gay.. That's fine. That's your moral judgement. It's not meant for you to judge, or force others to live how YOU or conservative man THINKS they should live.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 10:58 pm EST

report this comment



Not according to Vermont law it doesn't.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 8:39 pm EST

report this comment



No! Comfy, NO! that a child being brought up by a Mom and a Dad is better off than being brought up by two dads or two moms?

I think it is you with the totally absurd answer.

Of course they are going to be better off with a BALANCED upbringing.

Two dads are going to know how to raise a daughter? really? I leave much to the wife, but I guess you know something that I don't. Two moms are going to be better or equal at bringing up a son versus one mom and one dad?

Marriage = One man and One woman
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 7:51 pm EST

report this comment



E.S. the answer to your question is no.
What a truly absurd assumption.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 6:30 pm EST

report this comment



Welch did not speak the truth when he said Vermonters voted for gay marriage. It was the lop-sided legislature funded by massiive outside money from some special interests groups that rammed through this law. Vermonters never had a chance.!!! It could of been done in a much better fashion.

-- Posted by jerry coleman on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 9:34 am EST

Follow the money people...next year we have transgender bathrooms with this group of legislators..
-- Posted by Back Nine on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 6:08 pm EST

report this comment



one question...

can everyone agree that a child with a loving mother and father is better off(even if just slightly) than having 2 moms or 2 dads? (please dont change my fact pattern by comparing alcoholic married folks to loving civil unions...assume all other things being equal)

if so...then civil unions and marriage are not the same...and shouldnt be...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 4:50 pm EST

report this comment



Last post should read Nooz,...sorry about misabbreviating your pseudonym.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 4:30 pm EST

report this comment



P.S. News, that would be a sight! Thanks for the laugh.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 4:27 pm EST

report this comment



It should not matter how many vermonters do or do not support gay marriage, we do not have the right to deny competent, consenting adults the right to enter into a legal contract. We are obligated to equal protection under the law.
I don't like some types of people either, but I am not running around trying to take away their rights. There is no excuse for that.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment



No, Most Vermonters did not support gay marriage, can't he even figure that out, i believe he has some kind of brain damage making statements that are totally false!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment



Well at least your post got ONE thing right.
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 11:22 am EST

report this comment



Gay relations are nowhere the same as heterosexual relations.

Gays can never produce offspring, therefore there so-called marriage is for the sole purpose of benefits and not through necessity.

Marriage laws were created to protect the family and Gays can never be a family, they can be partners, but they can not produce blood off spring. Why is there protection for them then? Why isn't there protection for pedophiles who seek deviant relations the same as Gays?

Marriage is for creating a family and the bond that is created between a man and woman both during and during sex, is far beyond what Gays can simulate with their deviant relations with each other.

There is nothing Natural about a Gay relationship and there is nothing about their relationships that deserves recognition for the same benefits as heterosexual relationships.

Children need a balanced upbringing and not an upbringing that would be extremely limited when involving Gay parents.

No matter what Kevin, Ernie or Comfy may try and tell you all, Gays are gays out of choice. Limp wrists are not by birth nor is the speech, both is something they choose to do. If they feel they are mistakes by nature then they can seek medical treatment and become the gender that they were suppose to be.

Peter Welch just lost a lot of Votes as did most Democrats who feel Gay Marriage is worth mentioning. They currently have the same and equal rights as any of us have, they have chosen to live an abnormal lifestyle and they want to be able to collect benefits from that choice.

Am I a Bigot? If NOT accepting Gay Marriage is being a bigot, then I am a PROUD BIGOT.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 10:42 am EST

report this comment



Welch did not speak the truth when he said Vermonters voted for gay marriage. It was the lop-sided legislature funded by massiive outside money from some special interests groups that rammed through this law. Vermonters never had a chance.!!! It could of been done in a much better fashion.
-- Posted by jerry coleman on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 9:34 am EST

report this comment



People sometimes wake up and change. Leahy joins others in reversing previous support for the institutionalized discrimination of DOMA.
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 7:21 am EST

report this comment



Why did Leahy vote for DOMA in the first place? Inquiring reporters might have asked that question.
-- Posted by noozereeder on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, 7:08 am EST

report this comment


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

Logout