This will be great news to wake up to for approximately 46 more mornings.
Fixed that.
So, bets on which state is next, which will be last?
I can't see some states ever allowing it barring federal action. There are still states that refused to remove segregation from their constitution (I'm looking at you Mississippi). But if sufficient states decide it is fundamental right eventually the federal government will as well. I would be surprised if all of New England doesn't have it by the end of Obama's first term, but I can't see places like Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma or Alabama allowing it this generation unless the federal government makes them.
Pretty reasonable as a contended for "will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world."
Their Governor is actually not too awful on this, believe it or not. I don't think he's for marriage equality, but at least is for full legal rights and what not, which is more than I would have expected.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Pretty reasonable as a contended for "will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world."
It really boggles my mind that I didn't realize an entire state of the union was a de facto Mormon theocracy until college. I really feel like high school should have covered that at some point.
I just finished reading the decision and it is indeed very well written, so much so that should anyone ever argue against gay marriage all we need do is link them the Iowa supreme court decision.
It starts out a little dry, but if you start around page 50 where the judges assess the validity of the states arguments in support of the same sex marriage ban there are some juicy tidbits. They accused the state of using circular logic:
When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.
They pretty soundly demolished all the states arguments for maintaining a same sex marriage ban, but I think that one was the most fun.
Dman on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
All we need now is a mass extinction event in the federal court system and the gay agenda will be near fruition.
Also from that article, completely missing the point of the judiciary:
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group, said “once again, the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject.â€
cherv1 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Also from that article, completely missing the point of the judiciary:
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group, said “once again, the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject.â€
The judiciary is always undemocratic when they make decisions you don't agree with. Damn those fuckers.
Pretty reasonable as a contended for "will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world."
It really boggles my mind that I didn't realize an entire state of the union was a de facto Mormon theocracy until college. I really feel like high school should have covered that at some point.
It's weird. Salt Lake City itself is becoming increasingly liberal, but it's surrounded by a blood red tide of Mormon.
I'm probably going to law school at University of Idaho (yikes, Idaho), and I know there are going to be some hard core Mormons attending. I really hope I don't make them cry. Having said that, go Gay Marriage!!! At least I'll be in a college town, with a hopefully more progressive environment, so maybe it won't be too bad. Maybe I'll be able to get my district to at least put up a decent candidate for office.
Also from that article, completely missing the point of the judiciary:
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group, said “once again, the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject.”
The Economist had a good article on Judicial Independence (linky). In regards to Maggie Gallagher, fuck you. An activist judge is a judge you simply don't agree with.
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
It's called statesmanship and responsibility to one's constituents. Those who only follow federal politics may be unfamiliar with the concepts...
Nerissa on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
Yup. Semi-standard ass-covering. Vote against it, knowing that it will pass and be subject to a veto, because you need to pander to your constituents. Vote for it when your vote is needed.
Honestly, I was having a little trouble parsing the logic of that myself. To vote for the measure but against the veto it seems like what you must be objecting to is the fact that the governor has veto power at all; like they have a problem with that aspect of the process, or something. And that's assuming they have a principled position and are not just playing politics, which it sounds like they are.
If the state retains its traditional position as the first stop on the road to the White House, the legalization of gay marriage will almost certainly play a role in the Iowa caucuses.
Why? Critics of the Supreme Court’s decision are pushing for a constitutional amendment to be placed on the Iowa ballot, which would turn the issue over to the judgment of Iowa voters. But the earliest this would likely happen is November 2012, which is the date of the general election in the next presidential race.
The 2008 presidential campaign unfolded largely without much attention being paid to the social issues that have often caused internal and external divides among Republicans and Democrats. But is the Iowa court ruling going to push the next crop of Republican presidential candidates to the right, forcing them to run on social issues?
2012 looks to be another interesting year, even setting aside the apocalypse.:P
Well, in 2012 - unlike 2008 - we'll only be having a Republican primary process, and it's hard for me to imagine that any of the major GOP candidates won't be firmly against gay marriage. So even if Iowans are voting on an amendment, without any real debate among the GOP candidates I have a hard time seeing how the issue catches any more fire in the caucus than it normally would. I mean, I realize they'll all grandstand, but I suspect voters are kind of jaded to that, especially if they sense there's no real difference among them.
darthmix on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Three years of gay marriage without the skies raining blood is all this decision needs.
Three years of gay marriage without the skies raining blood is all this decision needs.
If only more people thought logically like that. Today, my girlfriend's dad called her to ask her how we're doing down here now that Obama "has started doing his stuff." And that to not blame him, cause he didn't vote for him.
Mind you, this is a relatively un-wealthy backwoods Pennsylvania man who will much more greatly benefit under Obama than he would ever have under McCain.
I don't think he was even talking about the gay marriage thing. I think he just wanted to act smug about voting for McCain, instead of that asshole Obama who is going to give him tax cuts and healthcare. That asshole.
Honestly, I was having a little trouble parsing the logic of that myself. To vote for the measure but against the veto it seems like what you must be objecting to is the fact that the governor has veto power at all; like they have a problem with that aspect of the process, or something. And that's assuming they have a principled position and are not just playing politics, which it sounds like they are.
But, hey, I'll take it.
Well it could also be the idea that you should only use the veto for egregiously wrong things and not for things that legitimately have the support of the majority. Its similar to voting for cloture but against the measure.
I hope Florida follows suit. It will be lovely watching the northern half of this state explode, leaving the civilized south to finally be free of the crazy.
Pretty reasonable as a contended for "will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world."
Their Governor is actually not too awful on this, believe it or not. I don't think he's for marriage equality, but at least is for full legal rights and what not, which is more than I would have expected.
So is the Mormon Church. Or so they claimed. So some people called their bluff and asked for their support for some propositions. And then they went no comment.
BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill late on Thursday that would legalize gay marriage, but supporters failed to get enough votes to override a veto threat from the governor.
Lawmakers in the Democratic-led House voted 95-52 in support of the measure, which had already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote. Advocates were five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Vermont may still get gay marriage soon but it looks like it might not be this year.
My wife read an article yesterday that said some of the lawmakers that voted against the bill would actually vote in favor of overriding the veto. They voted against the bill because it was the will of the constituants in their districts but they also feel the majority of the state has spoken and don't think the governor should go against the will of the people.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
Here's the link where Vermont legislators that voted against the bill have stated they will vote to override the veto.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
Yup. Semi-standard ass-covering. Vote against it, knowing that it will pass and be subject to a veto, because you need to pander to your constituents. Vote for it when your vote is needed.
Not really. We have a very... different group of politicians here than I see in a lot of states. The Republican reps in Vermont often vote Dem, and the Dems vote Pub. They vote the way their constituents expect them to vote. It is one of very few reasons that I really enjoy living here.
Vermont just sent a bill to the Governor's desk, but he's an asshole who's going to veto it.
It's weird, because Douglas is not exactly a conservative... I half expected his signature on it as things started looking serious. When he said he would veto, I was pretty shocked.
Posts
No, I just legitimately never expected so much forward movement so soon in my lifetime.
This will make so many people hate me, but I don't care since I'm so happy about this news. I hope it spreads.
Gotcha. Me too, it was just, ya know... "MrMister gets misty..."
I'll show myself out.
Fixed that.
So, bets on which state is next, which will be last?
I made the mistake of looking in that thread. Eyes...bleeding....
Surely they mean a "setforward"?
I can't see some states ever allowing it barring federal action. There are still states that refused to remove segregation from their constitution (I'm looking at you Mississippi). But if sufficient states decide it is fundamental right eventually the federal government will as well. I would be surprised if all of New England doesn't have it by the end of Obama's first term, but I can't see places like Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma or Alabama allowing it this generation unless the federal government makes them.
ed
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Pretty reasonable as a contended for "will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world."
Their Governor is actually not too awful on this, believe it or not. I don't think he's for marriage equality, but at least is for full legal rights and what not, which is more than I would have expected.
PS, I'm new. Hi.
And I say this as someone who grew up in Kansas and Oklahoma.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It really boggles my mind that I didn't realize an entire state of the union was a de facto Mormon theocracy until college. I really feel like high school should have covered that at some point.
I think we have to worry about our own state first.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF
It starts out a little dry, but if you start around page 50 where the judges assess the validity of the states arguments in support of the same sex marriage ban there are some juicy tidbits. They accused the state of using circular logic:
They pretty soundly demolished all the states arguments for maintaining a same sex marriage ban, but I think that one was the most fun.
Also from that article, completely missing the point of the judiciary:
The judiciary is always undemocratic when they make decisions you don't agree with. Damn those fuckers.
It's weird. Salt Lake City itself is becoming increasingly liberal, but it's surrounded by a blood red tide of Mormon.
I'm probably going to law school at University of Idaho (yikes, Idaho), and I know there are going to be some hard core Mormons attending. I really hope I don't make them cry. Having said that, go Gay Marriage!!! At least I'll be in a college town, with a hopefully more progressive environment, so maybe it won't be too bad. Maybe I'll be able to get my district to at least put up a decent candidate for office.
The Economist had a good article on Judicial Independence (linky). In regards to Maggie Gallagher, fuck you. An activist judge is a judge you simply don't agree with.
As for the Iowa decision, I was astounded, shocked and elated. But of course, still somewhat depressed with the knowledge that living in Salt Lake I will be in the state's political minority for the remainder of my life. I only hope a federal shift comes before too long.
Wait, what? They voted against it, it got vetoed, so now they want to vote FOR it?
It's called statesmanship and responsibility to one's constituents. Those who only follow federal politics may be unfamiliar with the concepts...
But, hey, I'll take it.
2012 looks to be another interesting year, even setting aside the apocalypse.:P
If only more people thought logically like that. Today, my girlfriend's dad called her to ask her how we're doing down here now that Obama "has started doing his stuff." And that to not blame him, cause he didn't vote for him.
Mind you, this is a relatively un-wealthy backwoods Pennsylvania man who will much more greatly benefit under Obama than he would ever have under McCain.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Quick is this an El Nino or La Nina year?
Well it could also be the idea that you should only use the veto for egregiously wrong things and not for things that legitimately have the support of the majority. Its similar to voting for cloture but against the measure.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
So is the Mormon Church. Or so they claimed. So some people called their bluff and asked for their support for some propositions. And then they went no comment.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Not really. We have a very... different group of politicians here than I see in a lot of states. The Republican reps in Vermont often vote Dem, and the Dems vote Pub. They vote the way their constituents expect them to vote. It is one of very few reasons that I really enjoy living here.
It's weird, because Douglas is not exactly a conservative... I half expected his signature on it as things started looking serious. When he said he would veto, I was pretty shocked.