http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote. The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override. The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law. It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — As expected, the Vermont Senate has overridden the governor's veto of a bill that would allow same-sex marriage. The House planned to take up the issue later Tuesday, but it's unclear whether there are enough votes to override the veto by Gov. Jim Douglas. If there are, Vermont would become the fourth state to legalize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.
Great news. And it was done by the legislative branch for those who have complained about activist judges.
Thank you almighty state. What would we do without you authorizing marriages? _________Governme____________Governmet ______GovernmetGov_______GovernmetGovern ____GovernmetGovernme___GovernmetGovernmet ___GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGov_______Gove __GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGov_________Gove _GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernm_______Gove _GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGo______G GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGover__Gov GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovern_Gov GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetG GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmet _GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernm __GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGover ____GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGo ______GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetGovernm _________GovernmetGovernmetGovernmetG ____________GovernmetGovernmetGove ______________GovernmetGovernmet _________________GovernmetGove ___________________Governmet _____________________Govern ______________________Gove _______________________Go
I kind of prefer these two instead: _________FreedomF____________FreedomFr ______FreedomFreed_______FreedomFreedom ____FreedomFreedomFre___FreedomFreedomFre ___FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFr_______Free __FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFr_________Free _FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedo_______Free _FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFre______F FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedo__Fre FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedom_Fre FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFree FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFre _FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomF __FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedo ____FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFre ______FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedomFreedo _________FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedom ____________FreedomFreedomFreedomF ______________FreedomFreedomFree _________________FreedomFreedo ___________________FreedomFr _____________________Freed ______________________Free _______________________Fr _________LibertyL____________LibertyLi ______LibertyLiber_______LibertyLiberty ____LibertyLibertyLib___LibertyLibertyLib ___LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLi_______Libe __LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLi_________Libe _LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibert_______Libe _LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLib______L LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibert__Lib LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLiberty_Lib LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibe LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLib _LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyL __LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibert ____LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLib ______LibertyLibertyLibertyLibertyLibert _________LibertyLibertyLibertyLiberty ____________LibertyLibertyLibertyL ______________LibertyLibertyLibe _________________LibertyLibert ___________________LibertyLi _____________________Liber ______________________Libe _______________________Li
I don't understand the point behind this type of concern, especially in regards to gay marriage. If a state's laws and constitution say that two people can get married, and that equal protection under those laws should be provided, then what is a judge supposed to do? Wouldn't it be judicial activism to decree that somehow those components don't apply to homosexuals? I can understand how a court might uphold a gay marriage ban if the state's constitution doesn't have a clear equal-rights clause, but if the text of the laws provided by the people are clear then there isn't much choice but to allow gay marriage until the constitution is changed.
basso, this was not even close. This thread was started 5 1/2 hours before yours. There is no excuse. And to the topic at hand: What uolj said.
While I obviously agree with most of what you said, I don't understand this. Shouldn't the equal rights protection provided by our country's constitution be the overriding factor? Seems to me all of the laws, acts, referendums and amendments designed to "defend marriage" should go down in flames eventually because they are fundamentally discriminatory... whether it's by the courts or the legislature.
No state's constitution says right to marry encompasses same-sex union. The argument here is whether judicial interpretation of constitution is the sole interpretation of constitution, because in theory other branches of government can make that call too. I feel much more comfortable when the legal recognition of same-sex marriage comes from the legislature. That slams the door for debates.
The "governmet" (sic) heart is like the best thing ever. LOL. It shows what happens when you let governmet take over edgukayshun.
Short answer is no. Like you say almost all laws make a distinction about a group one way or another. Equal protection clause does not alone necessarily strike discriminatory laws, other than racial and alienage classifications. Government can discriminate if it has a legitimate interest such as public health, and the right involved is not explicit or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thank you. I can spell a little better than I type, especially if the boss is around and I'm typing fast.
My spelling is terrible, and it was public school. I had assumed you cut that from some other site and pasted it! I admire the dedication.
You can make a heart from whatever word you wish: http://www.htmlorkut.com/2008/06/heart-scrap-generator-ascii-to-heart.html So I did type it, but only once.
_________Artestic____________Artesticl ______ArtesticleAr_______ArtesticleArtes ____ArtesticleArtesti___ArtesticleArtestic ___ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticle_______Arte __ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticle_________Arte _ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArte_______Arte _ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtestic______A ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleA__Art ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleAr_Art ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtest ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtes _ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArt __ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleA ____ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArtestic ______ArtesticleArtesticleArtesticleArte _________ArtesticleArtesticleArtestic ____________ArtesticleArtesticleAr ______________ArtesticleArtestic _________________ArtesticleArt ___________________Artesticl _____________________Artest ______________________Arte _______________________Ar
None of the constitutions (in the states that have allowed it via the courts) say that marriage does NOT apply to same sex unions, but they do say that everybody is entitled to equal rights. So how can that be interpreted any other way than stating than same sex unions should be legal? When you say, "Equal protection clause does not alone necessarily strike discriminatory laws, other than racial and alienage classifications," are you referring to a specific state's constitution (like Iowa) or about the U.S. constitution? And I thought it was the job of the judicial branch to interpret the laws. Isn't that how the separation of powers is defined? I asked that question in the Iowa thread but did not receive an answer.
It's in the Constitution. Sorry I lost track of that thread. Constitution of US doesn't say the judicial branch is the final arbiter of Constitution interpretation. To adjudicate doesn't necessarily mean the Judiciary has the final say about the Constitution. I am in the camp that supports greater democratic power through legislature over 9 judges that are politically unaccountable calling the shots, unless it involves rights of minorities that don't have political power. The way you characterize the scope of a constitutional right is not the way the Court finds it. Whether same-sex marriage enjoys ABSOLUTE constitutional protection, it's up to the Court's interpretation of Constitution. To me this is more of a due process clause analysis than equal protection clause analysis. Again, equal protection does not automatically invalidate very discriminatory laws. If the opposite is true, it would be madness.
