Vermont legalizes gay marriage

[tvashtarkatena]

It's the 4th state to do so. Many other states, including our own, allow same sex civil unions with various subsets of rights allowed to married couples.

 

A good friend just went in for open heart surgery yesterday. If Washington did not have a civil unions law protecting his partner's right for visitation, he might have to go through such a traumatic experience alone.

 

Laws banning gay marriage (with full rights afforded to hetero couples) are cruel. They are supported by a rabid minority who simply doesn't give a damn about anyone who isn't brain dead or emotionally childish enough to subscribe to their ridiculous cults. A civilized society should walk confidently into the 21st century and tell these psychotic control freaks to go fuck themselves.

 

Vermonters are sho ghey

[rob]

One day, people will be embarassed to remember how violent the opposition to gay marriage was during the early 21st century. It will be remembered the same way we remember Jim Crow.

 

It's too bad that remembering things like slavery & jim crow don't prevent us from making the same mistakes over and over again.

[billcoe]

When ya moving?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

soon TTK and Ivan will be able to live happily ever after ;-)

[ivan]

soon TTK and Ivan will be able to live happily ever after ;-)

i think that they twain of us could consume all the xanax in the world and not be able to achieve such an end

 

how the hell was VT 4th though? jeebus, they're the gheyiest state in the union, no?

[DirtyHarry]

Iowa is legalizing it too. Fucking Iowa.

[STP]

Isn’t it hypocritical to apply your ideas of what constitutes tolerance to everyone especially in a society that is not homogeneous? If that were the case, then per community standards your vision of a just society would be acceptable. However, shouldn’t parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit? If those parents find that lifestyle unacceptable, should the long arm of gov’t force these parents to alter their mindset and consequently their children’s upbringing in order to form your vision of an ideal social order?

 

Personally, I don’t strongly object to what consenting adults do behind closed doors and your example (hospital visit) makes reasonable sense but I also do not see this issue in the same light as racial discrimination. So, I object to any federal push to weaken the Defense of Marriage Act. Let there be 50 social experiments but don’t force any of these 50 to legally recognize what passes as acceptable by federal dictate.

 

[billcoe]

Concur with STP re: states rights. If gays want this - why not? They should have the same right to be raped, screwed, shaved, cheated, manipulated and savaged by the divorce lawyers just like the Hetros have experienced for so many years.

 

Next topic, prostitution and then polygamy.

 

 

That's about it for me and don't start up with the "Consenting adults and animal" thing please.

[olyclimber]

I'm glad that happy people can get married in Vermont too now. It would suck if only depressed people could.

[tvashtarkatena]

Isn’t it hypocritical to apply your ideas of what constitutes tolerance to everyone especially in a society that is not homogeneous? If that were the case, then per community standards your vision of a just society would be acceptable. However, shouldn’t parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit? If those parents find that lifestyle unacceptable, should the long arm of gov’t force these parents to alter their mindset and consequently their children’s upbringing in order to form your vision of an ideal social order?

 

Personally, I don’t strongly object to what consenting adults do behind closed doors and your example (hospital visit) makes reasonable sense but I also do not see this issue in the same light as racial discrimination. So, I object to any federal push to weaken the Defense of Marriage Act. Let there be 50 social experiments but don’t force any of these 50 to legally recognize what passes as acceptable by federal dictate.

 

ARGUMENT FAIL (no suprise there given the source): Equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The 'raising your children' argument is not only a bigot's haven, it's idiotic on its face. The very same argument was used stridently to justify interracial marriage bans prior to the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, allowing gay marriage in no way prohibits parents from attempting to handicap their unfortunate progeny with a pointless need to force others down to their level of ignorance.

 

It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

Edited April 7, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

I'm glad that happy people can get married in Vermont too now. It would suck if only depressed people could.

 

They're happy now, but wait until they've been married a few years.

[STP]

I do not see why you do not understand a parent’s right to raise their children free from the interference of a government mandated social agenda. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

So you actually believe that the will of the state invalidates the wishes of the parent? Tell me why government should force otherwise mature parents of children to conform to the state’s vision of the ideal society? And why should judicial activism be used nihilistically to remold society in some ‘enlightened’ vision of a select few? Isn’t this what could be properly termed the ‘tyranny of the minority’?

 

And why is it that you not see the contradiction in your own views? You would call someone a bigot for having the conviction of their beliefs in raising their children free from your overbearing intolerant demands?

 

So now (armed with your ACLU membership card), you’re a self-professed expert in constitutional law? Tell me, how far can we take this 14th Amendment? Does it protect individuals who practice lifestyle choices involving alternative marital arrangements such as polygamy? Does it protect pedophiles?

 

In other words, does it require that others accept as normal what they consider to be deviant behavior? I’m not necessarily saying it’s deviant only that you consider if it is just for people to be forced to conform to someone else’s standard.

 

Why is it so difficult to see the distinction between what is seen as genetically determined versus what is considered to be a behavioral choice? Inclusion under a protected status would be more readily accepted by society at large if that difference is rooted in an inherent basis and don’t tell me stories about the sexual behavior of animals as your pop science validation of your beliefs.

 

[ivan]

rousseau's "social contract" has your answers stp - yes, you can be forced to become enlightened - it's what made so many heads roll in the french revolution!

 

in this case, i don't think the state is trying to paint a picture of what an "ideal society" looks like, merely saying, "here are some elements it WON'T have, like shamelessly discriminating against people based on an inherent characteristic" - you're not one of those nut-jobs that think folks chose what they fancy to fuck, eh?

 

polygamy should be legal - the state has no right to tell you who or how many folks you can marry - it's none of its business - prostitution should be legal too - pedophilia as you mention is dumb (clearly the state has an obligation to protect those who can't protect themselves, like children and the mentally disabled)

 

how is the state invalidating the wishes of a parent in this issue? the state can't keep you from retreating to a shack in the middle of the woods, shunning all outside content - home-school baby!

[JosephH]

STP - the logical, legal, constitutional, and common sense failings of your entire tract are too numerous to detail, but - even leaving aside the inanity and ignorance inherent in the 'determined vs. behavioral' point - the overarching debacle of what you keep writing is the classic [Rovian] approach to turning bigots and racists into victims. It constantly amazes my how you folks on the right rail against 'big government' and 'government in our lives' on one hand and then can't wait to impose government at every turn when it suits what I consider your decidedly anti-American religious and social agendas.

 

Hey, if you, like the Cheneys, Gingrichs, and any number of other folks on the right don't like gays and gay behavior, then for god's sake ST[O]P HAVING AND RAISING THEM! Again, you whole sad litany is a wolf of ignorance and bigotry attempting to pose as a victimal sheep bleeting and bleeting about how 'put upon' you and fellow white suburbanites are - pathetic and weak at best, relentlessly insulting and dangerous at worst.

[tvashtarkatena]

STP is simply observing the time honored tradition of associating victimless romance/sex between consenting adults with criminal behavior such as pedophilia. He also makes the false argument that putting the equal protection clause in actual use somehow forces non-participants into 'that lifestyle', so 'that lifestyle' shouldn't be allowed because it 'forces' others to 'think about it'. Um...no. Sorry if you don't approve of blacks marrying whites or men marrying men (same same as far as how much it 'infringes' on the rights of a non-participant), but that's what a free society's all about. Get used to it. You don't get to tell others how to lawfully pursue happiness. Sorry.

 

Fucking control freak.

 

Oldest tricks in the book, but, fortunately, much of our increasingly enlightened society just doesn't buy that bigoted shit anymore.

Edited April 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

Let there be 50 social experiments but don’t force any of these 50 to legally recognize what passes as acceptable by federal dictate.

 

When I read this, I assumed it was also infering to allowing a state like Vermont to be able to make local choices without a right wing christian-big government or George Bush style political ass-stomping telling them otherwise. Of course, allowing states the ability to chose there own path you may have states like Georgia having consent to marriage age of 13 or 14 and places states perhaps like Alabama allowing brothers and sisters to marry.

 

Might even have prostitution in parts of Nevada. ....wait

[prole]

I still don't get where sucking cock (if you're a man) and munching rug (if you're a woman) doesn't entitle you to the same rights and privileges that any other citizen enjoys under existing law. STP, on what ethical/moral/philosophical foundation does your objection to gay sex rest?

--Honestly Curious

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm glad that happy people can get married in Vermont too now. It would suck if only depressed people could.

 

They're happy now, but wait until they've been married a few years.

 

Let gays get married. Misery loves company. ;-)

 

[STP]

Fucking control freak.

 

Whoa there, chief. I love all my bruthas and sistas...but especially the sistas.

 

[STP]

You got me pegged all wrong dude.

[STP]

Where do I specifically object? This board is full of everyone's own projections of the Other. So when are you going to recognize that your own objections arise from yourself?

[STP]

Let there be 50 social experiments but don’t force any of these 50 to legally recognize what passes as acceptable by federal dictate.

 

When I read this, I assumed it was infering to allowing a state like Vermont to be able to make local choices without a right wing christian-big government or George Bush style political ass-stomping telling them otherwise. Of course, allowing states the ability to chose there own path you may have states like Georgia having consent to marriage age of 13 or 14 and places states perhaps like Alabama allowing brothers and sisters to marry.

 

Might even have prostitution in parts of Nevada. ....wait

 

How come you're the only one that gets the gist of what I'm saying.

[JosephH]

1778 - 'free' [white] men get rights

1865 - blacks [in theory] get basic rights

1870 - minorities [in theory] get to vote

1920 - women get to vote

1965 to present - blacks fight for the rest of their equal rights

1967 - interracial marriage rights recognized

1969 to present - gays fight for equal rights

 

Could it be a trend? Could it be our history? Could it be bigots are just afraid of our history because bigots of one stripe or another have attempted to block every one of these milestones in U.S. history.

[olyclimber]

This board is full of everyone's own projections of the Other.

 

Broadly, Continental philosophy often sees human beings as essentially social beings. We are thought to exist at our deepest level in and as a community. We depend on others not merely for our existence, but for our very sense of ourselves, and our awareness of others is claimed to be at the heart of our awareness of ourselves.

 

Opposed to this view are those who see each of us as aware of ourselves and our experience in a way that we can never be with respect to any other human being. Self enclosed, we are seen as needing to reach an understanding of the inner lives of others, somehow, on the basis of our own unique awareness of our inner lives. However, this denies us the comfort of a more direct closeness. We live forever with a gap between ourselves and others.

 

To have one or the other of these two diametrically opposed views is to differ profoundly on fundamental human experience. Each can lead to very different conceptions of human existence and interpersonal relationships, and, indeed, to different ways of living, and different relationships.

[prole]

Let there be 50 social experiments but don’t force any of these 50 to legally recognize what passes as acceptable by federal dictate.

 

When I read this, I assumed it was infering to allowing a state like Vermont to be able to make local choices without a right wing christian-big government or George Bush style political ass-stomping telling them otherwise. Of course, allowing states the ability to chose there own path you may have states like Georgia having consent to marriage age of 13 or 14 and places states perhaps like Alabama allowing brothers and sisters to marry.

 

Might even have prostitution in parts of Nevada. ....wait

 

How come you're the only one that gets the gist of what I'm saying.

 

Because he's the only one willing to entertain the idea that gay sex marriage is equivalent to child fucking and incest?

 

 

Edited April 8, 2009 by prole