Vermont Closer To Allowing Gay Marriage

(AP)  A state Senate committee unanimously approved a gay marriage bill on Friday, moving Vermont one step closer to allowing same-sex couples to legally wed.

"It provides ... gay and lesbian couples the same rights that I have as a married heterosexual," said Sen. John Campbell, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief sponsor of the bill.

The committee's vote ended an intense week highlighted by a public hearing Wednesday night in which more than 500 people swarmed the Statehouse to speak for and against allowing same-sex marriages.

If approved, Vermont would join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only U.S. states that allow gays and lesbians to marry.

The measure would replace Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law with one that allows marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

Both Houses, under Democratic control, are expected to pass the measure. The Senate is taking the lead and is expected to debate the bill next week.

Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, has said he opposes the bill, but has declined to say whether he will veto it if it reaches his desk.

"I've made my position quite clear that I believe marriage is and ought to remain the union of a man and a woman, that our civil unions law affords equality of opportunities and rights under state law and that that should suffice," the governor said on the eve of the Senate committee vote.

The bill would exempt members of the clergy from performing same-sex marriages if their faiths forbid such unions, and would bar lawsuits prompted by such refusals.

The exemption would not extend to justices of the peace and other public officials who perform civil marriages but who might object to officiating at same-sex unions. Those people are agents of the government and are barred by law from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Campbell said.

Vermont in 2000 became the first state in the country to pass a civil unions law, which grants many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. But gay marriage advocates have argued since then that the law does not go far enough. California, New Jersey and New Hampshire also permit civil unions.

Friday's committee vote followed the panel's rejection of an amendment proposed by Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, that would have put the gay marriage question to a statewide referendum next March. After the amendment was defeated, Mullin joined his colleagues in voting 5-0 for the bill.

The committee's action drew praise from a leader of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, one of the leading organizations supporting gay marriage in the state, and condemnation from a leader of the anti-gay-marriage Marriage Advisory Council.

"The committee was attentive throughout the week. They heard a wide range of witnesses on a wide range of issues, and I think, ultimately, they did the right thing," said Beth Robinson, a Middlebury lawyer and chairwoman of the Freedom to Marry Task Force.

Stephen Cable, president of the group Vermont Renewal, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, said the civil unions law and the possible passage of gay marriage bill shows the state "no longer seeks to promote that each child have a mother and a father. And I think that's shameful and very sad."

[happyman1945]

and i dont like obama at all.he wants gays to be able to get married.and he wants to take away the rule. dont ask or dont tell.i dont like obam for a lot of reasons. and this one of them

[happyman1945]

i have a comment.gay people should not get married.and they should not have kids.kids have a hard on time growing up. to be with two men or two woman would make it a lot worse.and gays in the service. hell no.dont change the law.dont ask dont tell.

[cpeyrat]

We, as public citizens, do not elect these people to vote for us with their conscience. They are elected to vote how we, as citizens of a democratic state wish them to. This needs to be voted by the people, if our voted in people don't do what the majority of us wish to happen. I so dislike it when all of these voted in people vote their conscience and not what the public want. It seems like the people who yell the loudest get what they want now!. Well, now I am yelling! Do I feel that Vermont is a democracy? Not any more! Put it to the people as a democratic goverment should do.

[cheetah-man7]

Based on news that I have heard since this story broke on the 20th, it looks like a landslide victory for gay marriage in Vermont. Hey! That is great! I hope it goes through unamimously and hope that the hateful Republicans squirm in their seats for years to come. Serves them right - the pompous and evil fools who use God as their shield to disguise their evil hatred towards all God's children!

[caeric]

"Again, let me make this clear: I simply strongly believe the people of Vermont should be able to say whether or not this is what they want, and not be lied to that it isn't happening or have decisions made behind their backs, and that they should base their decision on the full knowledge of the situation as it has played itself out in other states. That's all. No hidden agendas! No going behind the backs of the voters. Just ask them." -klgrube1

What, do you think, would have been the decision if southern voters had been given the same opportunity during desegregation? Or when interracial marriage was front and center?

Would we still have a segregated society? Or, would we be sitting back and saying "Segregation is okay, the majority voted that way."

[klgrube1]

Why do those who support gay marriage want to stop the voters of Vermont from having their say on this issue? Why shouldn't the people of Vermont have their voices heard?

Call your State Senator immediately and tell him or her that you don't want them making this decision for you! Tell them you want them to table this issue today and allow a referendum on gay marriage. That way, whatever happens, the state will be assured that it was the will of the electorate and not forced on them by legislative fiat.

[honestabe8]

They should have the sense and decency to puit this to a vote by the people.
Posted by endurorob

Sense and decency? In politics?

[endurorob]

They should have the sense and decency to puit this to a vote by the people.

[RJHN86]

Call a homosexual couple whatever you want, call it a bananna if you want to, but such a "relationship" never has been nor will it ever be a Marriage. Just because you call a stinkweed a Rose does not change the smell.
Posted by tucano2 at 7:23 PM : Mar 22, 2009


You and the other 147.62 (from some of the posts here it is obvious that there are a few people posting here that are not fully human) people that have said the same thing need to realize that your statement is an opinion. It carries absolutely no weight in a discussion. Which is one reason why statements just like yours are scrolled over. But obviously since this is your point of view then of course marriage for gay people will not be the same as marriage for straight people. But if we look at all the gay people in the world, their friends and their families. Then I think its quite safe to say that they will see a gay marriage as being equal to that of a straight couple.

[tucano2]

Call a homosexual couple whatever you want, call it a bananna if you want to, but such a "relationship" never has been nor will it ever be a Marriage. Just because you call a stinkweed a Rose does not change the smell.