TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

We will never forget



Toolbox

Published: March 1, 2009

Mr. Mark Osborne of Vernon ("Forget same-sex marriage for now," Feb. 22) reminds supporters of same-sex marriage here in Vermont, that once same-sex marriage becomes law here, we will not take our full civil rights for granted. Mr. Osborne writes out of fear and intolerance concerning a civil rights issue that he has not been educated about, his ignorance is evidenced by claiming that a family is led my one man and one woman, excludes the countless single grandparents parenting grandchildren, children raised by single parents or other single guardians, children in foster care, most of these children thriving along with children of GLBT parents.

Reducing, in Mr. Osborne's opinion, same-sex marriage as a "sensual" interest, furthers his ignorance of the commitment made by same gender couples, suggesting that the move towards full civil rights has been "engineered by professional propaganda" proves he has not heard the hundreds of testimonies expressing the bias and homophobia experienced by GLBT Vermonters in committed, loving relationships during hearings held throughout Vermont last year.

Bringing the country of France into his pointless argument suggests further ignorance, as a country of so called liberals can be compared to a small state attempting to protect all citizens. While on the topic of other countries Mr. Osborne could have mentioned a conservative country, Spain for example, whose population boasts the highest number of Roman Catholics citizens, has granted same sex marriage to its residents.

Hatred breeds hatred Mr. Osborne, fueled by intolerance and ignorance. And on a final note prior to writing a letter replete with misinformation, please check in with your state representatives . You will discover that the Legislature has been extremely focused, a new tougher sex offender law will reach the governor's desk within days, the legislature is working hard to protect family dairy farms, while tackling issues in our everyday economy that is the worst financial times in this state's history. All of these issues are important and our Legislature knows how important the marriage bill before them is, and will also be reaching the governor's desk soon. In the future Mr. Osborne, please gather facts to support your intolerance prior to publishing a letter. If you do educate yourself on same-sex marriage I am certain we will not hear your bias on this topic again.

Michael Saint Joseph

Enosburgh Falls







READER COMMENTS


I move to protest this topic by no longer participating in the discussion. This topis is taking up 3 spots in the top 5, neithor side will ever agree in the short term and we could be much better served by collaboratively working on a solution to the economy. IT appears that our faithful politicians will be hanling this gay issue, so i guess that means its up to the rest of us to fix the economy....
-- Posted by M. L. on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 10:53 am EST

report this comment


Interesting note about the front page poll the Times Argus is running on this website asking readers as to their views on whether gay marriage should be a priority for the legislature or not. As of this morning the "No" vote was running at 81%, then at 0859 a post on the key Vermont progressive blog "Green Mountain Daily" decried the poll results and requested readers to visit the Times Argus site and "help boost the Yes vote." In the past few hours the "Yes" vote suddenly jumped from 18% to 50%.
This speaks volumes regarding the supposed "majority" supporting the same sex marriage bill. When presented to an audience that is a presumably close cross section of the actual Vermont population; the online readership of the TA, the results were overwhelmingly against the legislature taking action on same sex marriage. However once supporters realized evidence of their actual minority status was leaking out, they organized a targetted response to skew the results. It is a defensive measure much like a cat puffing up his fur to make himself look larger and more intimidating than he really is. However, since it can't be kept up forever supporters of this measure need to generate a sense of an emergency in order to get the measure passed before cooler heads can ask the question "Why?".
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 3:36 pm EST

report this comment


The question of whether marriage is a civil right is not up to Patrick Cashman.
The majority of the Vermont Legislature believes that it is and that Civil Unions do not meet the stipulations of the 1999 Supreme Court ruling. The legislators will pass a marriage equality bill this month because they want to be in compliance with that ruling whether the Supreme Court comments further on it or not (and because they believe that marriage equality is right and the time has come to enact it.)
The Supreme Court ruled on the question of constitutional entitlement to benefits. It is up to the Legislature to translate the ruling into law. There is no reason that the Legislature cannot improve the law without further prompting from the court and nothing preventing the Legislature from enacting civil rights legislation without any instruction from the court.
You don't seem to understand that there is no way under Vermont law to "put this question to the residents."
What I don't see is how this affects you in any way. But if you feel that it does, you should certainly contact your legislators.
-- Posted by Judith Olinick on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 2:46 pm EST

report this comment


again pat, well said.
-- Posted by M. L. on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 2:11 pm EST

report this comment


Ms. Olinick,
The decision as to whether civil unions comply with the 1999 Supreme Court decision is up to the Supreme Court, not Judith Olinick. After a decade the law stands unchallenged, so it would appear the law successfully satisfied the right defined by the Supreme Court.
As to your allegation that I am somehow "changing the subject", you are mistaken. The twisting and abuse of established processes by proponents of this measure has been my topic all along. They stomp their little feet and shake their fists and claim this is a right, attempting to intimidate legislators into legislating their own world view without regard for the opinions of the rest of the state. If this is a civil right then settle it in a court, if not put the question to all residents.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 8:33 am EST

report this comment


To Patrick Cashman:
It's true that the VT Supreme Court did not specifically rule that same-sex couples were constitutionally entitled to marriage, while the MA, CT and CA supreme courts did. The VT ruling stopped short of saying that, allowing the Legislature to adopt the Civil Unions law. If called upon again, the VT Supreme Court would probably also rule specifically for marriage.
It's up to the court to issue the constitutiional ruling and the legislature to make the law complying with it. Civil Unions were a first attempt at complying with the VT Supreme Court ruling short of marriage equality. They were tried for a decade and caused no harm that anyone has ever been able to document. But they did not meet the court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. (Testimony before the marriage commission made that clear. Non-participation by marriage equality opponents merely indicated that they have nothing to say on the subject.)
Again: the Legislature's job is to write the state's laws, including its marriage laws. It will not make a profound change in Vermont's marriage law. It will simply remove language that prevents same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses, while making it clear only civil marriage is involved.
You are now changing the subject, talking about "ramrodding" special interest concerns down the throats of Vermonters because you refuse to acknowledge that marriage is a civil right. But it is a civil right whether you want to recognize that fact of not.
The VT Constitution, as you point out, has not changed. It still guarantees equal benefits to same-sex couples. The question is whether the Civil Union law delivers them. It does not and only marriage will. You'll see; the change will make no difference whatever in your personal life. You'll hardly notice it.
-- Posted by Judith Olinick on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 7:44 am EST

report this comment


* Social Security benefits. - Federal issue
* Immigration. - Federal issue
* Family leave. - Federal issue
* Home protection/* Nursing homes. - Federal issue
* Your partner dies, - Federal issue
* Estate taxes. - Federal issue

now when the federal govt says gay-marriage is the way it is,,then it will be,,they say the opposite. So as Harry Reid stated about running high tension wires throughout the country for the 'Green Ideas'. he said the federal government laws trump all. So perhaps, the best thing is to get the federal govt to just simply ban all gay-marriage requests. Very simple, the end,,now lets move on to the economy
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 7:34 pm EST

report this comment


If the issue were an actual right neither a referendum nor a vote in the legislature would be appropriate. Both methods express the popular will, one directly and the other once removed. Decisions regarding alleged denial of rights are settled by the courts, not by popular vote.
In this case, however, the very supporters of the measure are acknowledging the issue is not a right by the method they choose to impose it; legislation instead of court action.
Since the issue is not a right, it is instead an effort to define how Vermonters wish to define participation in the contract of marriage. Definition of a process by which the citizens of the state express their wishes as to how to define marriage is no more difficult than the wholly new legislative action extorted by supporters of this measure. Your representatives have been intimidated by a loud, aggressive, and threatening special interest group into discounting the opinions of their constituents. This was done by masking an issue that relates strictly to certain persons' perceptions of what is "fair" as a civil right.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 6:42 pm EST

report this comment


Patrick, Douglas - it is immaterial how many people approve or disapprove of gay marriage; minority rights are not dependent upon the whims of the majority. We don't get to simply vote unpopular /people/speech/customs/beliefs out of existence because we don't like them. They don't require our approval. Unless gay marriage infringes on the rights of others - which it decidedly does not - the majority has nothing to say about it, nor should they. If you feel it's a personal,moral issue then you should not marry someone of your own gender. That's your choice. Allowing everyone else to have the same choice is what is at issue. Hopefully that will be decided quite soon and we can move on, just as we did in 2000 when civil unions were the subject of the same debate. (which almsost a decade later, ironically finds such unions being advocated by the very same people who fought so hard and bitterly against them)
-- Posted by walt amses on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 6:40 pm EST

report this comment


It is not appropriate to vote on gay marriage in a public referendum, nor is it legal. This is why we have elected officials for that. If hot topics such as slavery,or women voting were voted on publicly, we would still have the first and not the second. Fortunately, these were handled at the federal level, and society eventually caught up with them.
Or are you saying that was a mistake too..?
-- Posted by patriotemt on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 5:08 pm EST

report this comment


It's a shame that the Voters of the so called Democratic or is it Demoncratic state can't vote on this. I believe that it would be a resounding no and the issue would go away if there was a public referendum. And just think of all the outside money flowing into the state in terms of "issue" advertising and lobbying monies...we could balance our budget and still let it fail. The legislature serves the special interests, NOT the public interest.
-- Posted by Douglas Anthony on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment


* Social Security benefits. - Federal issue
* Immigration. - Federal issue
* Family leave. - Federal issue
* Home protection/* Nursing homes. - Federal issue
* Your partner dies, - Federal issue
* Estate taxes. - Federal issue

While I agree with equal rights for all this bill is on the wrong "stage". The civil union act does grant equal state rights, we cannot, as a state, force other states or the federal gov to recognize civil unions. Only pressure on the federal level can further this issue.
-- Posted by Dave Erwin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

As far as I can tell this is about changing the name of what people are allowed to do. I say drop the word "marriage" all together as it applies to unions that are recognized by the state. Give every one a civil union and if a church wants to bless it with the term marriage than so be it. Solves all current and future possible issues. Its time for this state to pull our heads out of our asses and move on with actual issues!!
-- Posted by Dave Erwin on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 2:41 pm EST

report this comment


OK after listening to VT constitutional scholar, the difference is a "Chararistic" right.That really is the only difference that will be gained.

Now the scholars here can argue amoungst themselves as to what that means.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield,VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Fri, Mar 6, 2009, 9:30 am EST

report this comment


AYK says the left is trying to "sneak gay marriage through."

Where does that stand in your "most ignorant, uneducated post" list, CO? Has to be pretty well up there near the top, yes?
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 10:30 pm EST

report this comment


The reason the left is trying to sneak gay marriage through now is because all the normal working people are too busy working and paying taxes so the state can defend the rights of a traditional family. Maybe the gays can go to Iran and see if they & Obama can 'sit down and talk' about rights,,neither in reality
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 4:42 pm EST

report this comment


how does it make you ignorant to not agree with gays getting married? a little tasteless, perhaps. Why is somebody ignorant for not agreeing with the left? Oh yea, liberalism is a mental disorder, my bad.
-- Posted by M. L. on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 4:36 pm EST

report this comment


Mr. Cooper,
No one thinks they are part of a special interest group, instead they blithely assume that since what they believe is so obviously right and true that the majority must agree, despite the complete lack of evidence. I don't know how many Vermonters support same sex marriage, but neither do you, or anyone else. If it is a civil rights issue then popular support should be irrelevant, take it to court and settle it. If, however, the basis for implementing is supposed popular support, hold a referendum and actually measure the popular support.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment


Ironically a sex-crime bill was signed today..a step in the right direction for this state.Yes, there is hope....now they need to stand their ground before allowing sodomy and calling it marriage
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 3:32 pm EST

report this comment


I'm not kidding when I say that might rank as the most ignorant, uneducated post of the day!
-- Posted by Captain Obvious on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 3:02 pm EST

report this comment


Well Patrick, I suppose we could always go back to only whites can marry too, no interracial marriages allowed.

People fought that as a civil rights issue as well..

-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 12:55 pm EST ...................
might not be a bad idea,,,cats dont mate with dogs,,,horses dont mate with cows?? Only ignorant uneducated people want to ***** up the laws of nature,,,,,,,,,,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 2:56 pm EST

report this comment


What contentious topic. Same sex marriage..doesnt even sound normal....they even have to explain what sex they think they are....Before you know it, brothers will have a right to wed their sisters, cousins, brothers and brothers and fathers will want to marry their daughters since they already molest them. Same sex marriage,,,incest, all the same mental illness... Then the animal rights activists will step in,and people that love their pets will want to marry them.... if that women in Conn that had the chimp could've married her chimp, she would've done that too
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 2:54 pm EST

report this comment


Hey, PC, (what an unfortunate set of initials given your views) regarding your contention " ... the continuous whining screech that this issue is somehow a civil rights issue, a special interest group is attempting to ram through legislation that reflects their own social views without regard for the other citizens of the state." Geezum, I'm not a member of what you refer to as a "special interest group" not that particular one anyway, but I am a citizen of this state. I also happen to agree that all of our citizens should enjoy the same rights and bear the same burdens of citizenship. So, for those reasons (plus my upbringing in a family that believed in fairness and equal opportunity for all) I support my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in their pursuit of equal rights under the law, including but not limited to the right to marry anyone they choose, ... assuming the other party agrees, of course.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 2:37 pm EST

report this comment


Well Patrick, I suppose we could always go back to only whites can marry too, no interracial marriages allowed.

People fought that as a civil rights issue as well..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, 12:55 pm EST

report this comment


Melissa,
Neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a non-binding declaration) nor the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a ratified treaty with so many exclusions by our nation as to make it a farce) even mention sexual orientation. Of course, they are also irrelevant. The documents that define our rights as citizens of the United States and Vermont are the United States Constitution and the Vermont Constitution. The arbiters of the latter document; the Vermont Supreme Court, defined the right to marry in a way that was satisfied by the Civil Unions legislation. So what "right" is being violated?
You are confusing what you think is "fair" with actual rights.
As to your question of "why not?", my disgust is with the manner in which the issue is being addressed. From the farce of a commission sent around the state to evangelize for same sex marriage, to the continuous whining screech that this issue is somehow a civil rights issue, a special interest group is attempting to ram through legislation that reflects their own social views without regard for the other citizens of the state. If it is a civil rights issue then address it through the courts. If, instead, you want to legislate what you think is "fair", at least portray it accurately.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 5:31 pm EST

report this comment


This is not the time to be debating this. Obama lied, the economy died. Incase you didn't know, there are real issues to be delt with out there, this is not one of them.
-- Posted by M. L. on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 4:46 pm EST

report this comment


Since you asked, Semper Right, no, I do not agree. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. That's includes marriage. If married people of any gender are miserable, then too bad, so sad. I do not believe that people go into marriage with a doom and gloom attitude. Marriage should be a joyful act of optimism.

Sorry, SR, your statement reveals far more about you than it does about me.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 4:20 pm EST

report this comment


Wait, forget what?
-- Posted by M. L. on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 2:25 pm EST

report this comment


Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated upon in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.



But it is a civil rights issue, and ms olinick is correct, it doesn't allow them everything as a married couple would get. Many insurance companies are not offering partner policies, when they own homes together and cars and any other valuable asset, they have to many times have separate policies for these things, that's not the same civil rights as a married couple, the civil unions is not noticed in many states.

When two people love each other and are happy together, why is that an issue to anyone for any reason? Why not allow them to marry, what exactly would it hurt? Marriage is not sanctified so please by all means do not use that argument, it is as unsanctified today as it ever has been, many young couples or older even get married with the thought in their head, if it doesn't work out we can always get a divorce!! Or I'll just sleep with these ten other people and they'll never know.. sanctity is over used in these arguments of same sex marriage and it doesn't hold water.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 12:52 pm EST

report this comment


Ms. Olinick,
As you stated, no court having authority in the state of Vermont has ruled same sex couples have the right to enter into the contract of marriage. If it were true that the 1999 ruling would "probably" be rewritten to specifically mention marriage, then why is it better to address this percieved injustive through the legislature? Is the Vermont Supreme Court too overworked?
My view is the 1999 Court did not forget to include the term marriage but instead, having presumably some education in the law, specifically spelled out the limits of the actual right. They kindly defined the right, the legislature then enacted a law that satisfied that right. What radical shift in the Vermont Constitution has occurred since 1999 that makes that definition no longer accurate?
The substance of gay marriage is not the only issue at work here, my objection is more to the ramrodding of a special interest concern down the throats of all Vermonters by disguising it as a civil rights issue. So yet again we have a small but vocal group that intimidates lawmakers into passing a law that does nothing to address real issues but instead satisfies the unique political views of that group, while ignoring the opinions of wide swaths of the state.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 12:33 pm EST

report this comment


I strongly believe that everyone should have the right to marry and be miserable, Right Jest Askin?...
-- Posted by Semper Right on Wed, Mar 4, 2009, 11:54 am EST

report this comment


To Patrick Cashman:
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights and protections that heterosexual couples receive automatically with a civil marriage license. True, it did not rule specifically that they were entitled to marriage as opposed to some other arrangement, e.g. civil union; but it is now clear that civil unions do not provide all the benefits of marriage and it is probable that if the case were brought to the Court again it would rule specifically for marriage.
That will happen if necessary; but it would be better for all if the legislature would decide in favor of marriage equality by simply rewriting its current marriage law, which it is fully empowered to do.
Other supreme courts, in MA, CT and CA did rule specifically that same-sex couples are entitled to marry.
-- Posted by Judith Olinick on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 5:50 pm EST

report this comment


Doug - The information regarding zero impact of both civil unions and gay marriage is factual. All the scare tactics and warnings regarding both have simply never happened........anywhere. So "both sides" are not necessarily projecting "wrong info" or "hate"........not all the time anyway.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 5:28 pm EST

report this comment


All I can say is WOW. So much wrong info and hate on both sides and I thought I needed a life.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 4:37 pm EST

report this comment


Oh, Walt. You are so ... rational ... and intelligent ... and reasonable. What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you listen to El Rushbo? Don't you heel to his magnificence? Have you lost your ditto-mind? There's no free thinking here.

Now, stop posting here and go listen to His Corpulence, the definitive druggie, the anti-president, the sultan of sweat and spit, that treasure of treason, the ... well, you know who I mean. I'm tellin' ya: you keep on spouting this reasonable rhetoric and we're gonna have to revoke your forum pass.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 1:56 pm EST

report this comment


If I missed it I apologize, but I think the one - quite important - question that's missing in this discussion is "Why not?". As far as anything I've ever read, heard, seen, researched or explored there is not a single, valid reason to continue to deny gay couples the right to marry. Most anti-arguments are easily refuted smokescrens for a larger idiological agenda. I suggest anyone interested review the arguments against civil unions in 2000 and see how many of them panned out. The answer is none. Zero. You also might look at the states where gay marriage has been a fact of life for the last several years. There has been no discernable impact except this: attitudes have shifted and acceptance has grown. The sooner it happens, the sooner the fear will dissipate. In five years Vermonters will -hopefully - wonder what all the fuss was about.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 10:29 am EST

report this comment


Just for the record, I wouldn't miss any of those things. They are protections that are legislated and not for the benefit of all people. We are all created equal, remember.. .I don't have the same hatred that you do JA. You can take away all those things and I'd still be me, it's not the Government duty to intrude so much in our lives. I think we can all agree with that. If they would back out, we wouldn't need all the special interests chiming in for their legislation. I have open arms for any human being, do you ?
-- Posted by Douglas Anthony on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 8:22 am EST

report this comment


Hey Olde Man...Yeah, no rights are denied, IN VERMONT. Well, there are a couple other states too...Fair huh? I think not...it's still separate but equal...which stinks. I'm still a big fan of civil unions for all, no matter what gender wants to marry who...Marriage..well, that's for the religious...
-- Posted by patriotemt on Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 7:21 am EST

report this comment


DA, I tolerate people like you. I think that's pretty tolerant.

As to legislating things, check patriotemt's comprehensive list of things you might miss if someone hadn't legislated them for you in the past. Now, explain to me again why it is that you believe you should have these things and your gay and lesbian neighbors shouldn't?

Oh, I know. You don't hate those people you just don't want them to have the same rights that you do. You're just a little more special than they are, right? They can wait until every other problem in the world has been resolved and THEN you'll march right up and see to it that they get their due.

Yuh, right ...
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 10:35 pm EST

report this comment


Coydog, If'n you want to marry your rifle and you can find someone to perform the service, you have my blessing. Do I consider owning a firearm a "civil right?" No, but it's certainly your Constitutional right as interpreted by the current Supremes.

I would also say the providing for the common defense and domestic tranquility came along quite some time after the flight from Europe to obtain religious freedom, perhaps best thought of as the very first "civil right."

By way of suggestion, coydog, when you're ready to marry that rifle, call your local Marine recruiter. Maybe he can suggest a way to get that done for ya.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 10:27 pm EST

report this comment


Olde Man, (sheesh, I sure hate calling anyone that seeing as I'm one of 'em) There was a lot going on in 1930s Germany besides the despicable act of trying to eliminate all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, deformed people, etc. Certainly those were the ultimate acts of a government gone mad and a people gone soft but let's not forget it started with denying the rights of those people who were eventually packed in cattle cars and sent to their deaths.

My comparison had nothing to do with the eventual slaughter of those groups but if you want to extend your thoughts on denying the rights and obligations of marriage to gay people to an eventual 21st century holocaust, be my guest. But remember it wasn't my idea.. It was yours. Let's all pray it never comes to that!
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 10:18 pm EST

report this comment


patriotemt - Your filibuster on homosexual marriage is not 100% accurate:

Hospital visits are never denied to civil union, domestic partner or even "boyfriend/girlfriend. Health insurance allows domestic partner, civil union. Nursing homes and pensions also include civil unions.

It's true that some things are excluded. But you are EXAGGERATING the impact in some cases.

More so with you Jest Askin: 1930's Germany ! What an overstatement! You have no credibility when you compare the slaughter of millions of people to a homosexual marriage bill. Get your head out of your butt.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 7:52 pm EST

report this comment


Wow Jes Asskin... I guess I struck a chord with your hatred huh ? Funny how I don't hate anyone and hope everyone is as lucky as I have been in my life. I just don't think everything in the world needs to be legislated. Aren't you glad we still have free speech so you can rant like this. Tolerrance my boy, practice what you preach.
-- Posted by Douglas Anthony on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 6:26 pm EST

report this comment


As I was reflecting on Jest Askin's opinion of the no greater need for the USA to exist than civil rights when insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense popped to mind . I wonder if JA considers the right to bear arms a civil right. Perhaps If could marry my rifle I'd get to keep it.
-- Posted by coydog on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 4:02 pm EST

report this comment


* Social Security benefits. - Federal issue
* Immigration. - Federal issue
* Family leave. - Federal issue
* Home protection/* Nursing homes. - Federal issue
* Your partner dies, - Federal issue
* Estate taxes. - Federal issue

While I agree with equal rights for all this bill is on the wrong "stage". The civil union act does grant equal state right, we cannot, as a state, force other states or the federal gov to recognize civil unions. Only pressure on the federal level can further this issue.
-- Posted by Dave Erwin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 3:11 pm EST

report this comment


Ms. Olinick,
I'm unsure which courts you believe have ruled same sex marriage is a right, presumably not one having authority in Vermont or this issue would have been resolved. The civil union law satisfied the Vermont Supreme Court.
You are correct that issues of constitutional rights are not settled by a popular vote, nor are they settled by the legislature, which is an extension of the popular vote. If this is an issue of civil rights then address it through the courts, if not then let's stop pretending it is a big emergency and allow all Vermonters to be heard, not just those who wail and whine the loudest.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 2:06 pm EST

report this comment


To supplement the letter, "We will never forget" and probably shine an even brighter anti bigot light on those who claim there are better things Legislature can do other than make better civil rights laws, I say this..
Oh Boy, I agree! There are TONS of more important stuff that legislature can be doing. But, for now, lets do this....cancel all civil rights pertaining to marriage.
Here's what you won't get:
* Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
* Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, you'll receive no Social Security survivor benefits - resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
* Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.
* Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
* Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
* Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
* Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
* Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
* Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
* Your partner dies, and you have to adopt your kids. Nice eh?
(Thanks to the HRC web site for the wording )
So, while civil unions in Vermont patch SOME holes, it's not the be all, end all, by any means. How would you like your new life with no marriage rights in any other state, except for good old civil unioned Vermont? Sucks huh? It's time Vermont Legislators and residents took up the cause for civil rights and show the country that they are not just for some citizens, but for all citizens.
-- Posted by patriotemt on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 11:44 am EST

report this comment


DA, as has been pointed out by both sides in many, many discussions here, here, America was first colonized by Europeans seeking "civil rights" in the form of religious freedom. There was no "civil rights" law of 1620 in Massachusetts when the Pilgrims arrived. There were likewise no similar laws in Rhode Island or Maryland or anywhere else. But there were civil rights.

Take offense if you must. You are still wrong. The civil rights laws are meant to protect people from people like you who see nothing wrong with keeping others down, depriving them of what you have and treating them as unequal citizens. Specific laws have to be passed because people like you think you have some special privilege in this life based on your religion, skin color, political party or sexual orientation. You don't. This isn't 1930s Germany.

No, you don't get to vote about it. No, you don't get to continue to keep others "in their place." No, Vermont is not a place to launch a crusade against people of other (or no) religions, other skin tones, other political philosophies or other sexual orientations. The Crusades ended hundreds of years ago. They never came to North America. Get over it.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 10:54 am EST

report this comment


I take offense to the comment by "Jest Askin" saying "There is no greater reason for the USA to exist than civil rights" That's preposterous. The civil right's act wasn't passed until the 60's. That leaves about 190 years of US History that didn't require a civil rights bill. It was passed and used primarily as way to get convictions on KKK members in the south as they "took the civil rights" of people when they killed them. The legislation has been effective and I'm glad the Klan has nearly died out. I don't think anyone's civil rights are being hampered because they can't get married as gay or lesbian couples. Once again, if you do not like it, go somewhere where you can. This is still a society run by the many and not the few, like it or not. You've got your special interest groups... and you'll get your gay marriage eventually. It's about working the courts and not US History.
-- Posted by Douglas Anthony on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 9:54 am EST

report this comment


There has already been much debate, discussion, time & energy spent on this issue. The time is NOW to expect our representatives in Montpelier to make the vote happen. Perhaps, as has been stated (though I do not support this person's position) it may not be about MY civil rights; but it is ALL about the rights of others, who are not seeking anything MORE .. but do not want to settle for LESS .. than I and others in heterosexual ("Straight") relationships are automatically beneficiaries under the law. If "civil union" and "civil marriage" were of equal status -- we would not have two distinct (separate but equal?? I think not) descriptions. PLEASE make the vote happen during THIS legislative session ... we cannot change the economy immediately, nor our environment, not some of the other important issues ... but we CAN guarantee that the rights of ALL can be provided, and guaranteed with a vote to approve civil marriage for ALL couples.
-- Posted by Lea Hatch on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 9:47 am EST

report this comment


ML and Stephen.. Take a remedial reading course. The author clearly states: "our Legislature knows how important the marriage bill before them is"

Obviously, ML has trouble reading, that's a given. But, Stephen -- how is that as you put it "I want it now."

Just reason number 108 why I have to homeschool my children. Reading comprehension obviously lacking in Vermont public schools.
-- Posted by Pandora box on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 8:34 am EST

report this comment


I do not understand how this is about civil rights. This is no more than I want what I want and I want it now.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 7:52 am EST

report this comment


Marriage equality is absolutely a civil rights issue, as several courts have already ruled. The people whose rights are denied are same-sex couples who are not allowed to marry although the state has no legitimate reason (that is, no secular reason, which is all that counts)for preventing them from doing so.

The people of Vermont cannot vote on the question of how marriage should be defined because there is no provision in Vermont law for deciding statewide issues by referendum. (And also because questions of constitutional rights--yes they ARE constitutional; the Vermont Supreme Court has so ruled--are not subject to popular vote.)

Our legislative representatives will vote on marriage equality as well as on Vermont Yankee, health care and many other issues. The marriage bills will take very little time and will cost nothing. Marriage equality will come soon; justice will prevail and no one will be hurt in any way.
-- Posted by Judith Olinick on Mon, Mar 2, 2009, 12:55 am EST

report this comment


No one's rights are being denied, everyone has exactly the same rights. Proponents of this initiative like to confuse what they define as "fair" with actual rights. If this were a "civil rights" issue it would be settled in court, not by legislation. This is an issue of how the citizens of this state choose to define a particular kind of contract, and no one has actually put the question to the citizens. Instead an illusion of emergency is created by claiming the mantle of a civil rights issue in order to avoid actually asking Vermonters how they believe marriage should be defined. Put it to a referendum.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 10:19 pm EST

report this comment


OK, M.L., tell us how your civil rights are being denied. Go ahead ... Take your best shot. My empathic side needs a workout. This could prove to be overwhelming.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 3:51 pm EST

report this comment


It's perverted.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 2:14 pm EST

report this comment


what about my rights? What about my right to the persuit of happiness? I want this economy fixed, now, not after the gays get everything they want, we have given enough for now. I think they should be able to get married, im not bias. I just feel like we have spent a lot of time and money on this issue in the past and they have civil unions. If they wanted to go all the way with it, back then was the time, when we did not have more pressing issues. But they did not seek marriage, they went with the civil union. The time will come again to move foward on this issue, but not mow.
-- Posted by M. L. on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 1:14 pm EST

report this comment


M.L., There s NOTHING more important than civil rights. Nothing. There is no greater reason for the United States of America to exist than civil rights.

And, M.L., didn't you read the part of Mr. Saint Joseph's LTE where he patiently explained to people like you that the work of the legislature in other areas is continuing unabated? Can't you read that in the newspaper yourself? What is your problem?
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 12:56 pm EST

report this comment


I disagree, this is not the time for this issue, it needs to be shelved and delt with later. I can think of about 1,000,000 things that should be worked on before gay marriage. Its not about being afraid or being hateful, it is about necessity. We must do what is most important firt, dealing with the economy, and then work our way to the less pressing issues in good time. We have spent enough time and money on this issue already in VT, give it a rest.
-- Posted by M. L. on Sun, Mar 1, 2009, 12:23 pm EST

report this comment

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

Logout