Blog for Democracy

Compelling and fascinating video

iconI’ve been watching 4+ hours of the Vermont House of Representatives. It’s now 9:00 pm and they are about to call the vote, it will be a roll call vote. Vote is 97 to 50, 3 votes shy of veto proof. Sorry it was 95-52.

They are voting on gay marriage, VT already has civil unions.

What has been so interesting is how long the Speaker is allowing for the discussion and letting members speak without time limits. All of the speakers have been eloquent and intelligent. I’m fascinated by their procedures and decorum.

I wish I could say the same about what I’ve witnessed in our house chambers.

The bill has already passed the state Senate by a 26-4 vote, and is widely expected to pass the House. If supporters garner the two-thirds majorities needed to override the veto in both chambers, Vermont would become the third state in the country, after Connecticut and Massachusetts, to allow same-sex couples to marry.

FYI: They have a Gold Dome too.

The live video is brought to us by the Burlington Free Press.

Posted

in

by

Juliana

Tags:

Comments

29 responses to “Compelling and fascinating video”

  1. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    Correction, from what I am reading the NY Superior Court did rule that NY must recognize gay marriages if they were legally performed in other states. I believe that is the only such decision on the issue at an appellate level.

  2. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    You’re thinking of the full faith and credit clause.

    It’s never really been definitively decided whether the full faith and credit clause requires states with anti-gay marriage constitutional provisions to recognize the legal gay marriages performed in other states. This issue is being litigated right now, but I am not aware of any appellate court rulings that have come down on the issue yet.

  3. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    In re: “judicial activism” – opposition to “judicial activism” isn’t sensible, either. If the judiciary isn’t able to strike down a law passed by the legislature as unconstitutional, then in practice, the constitution does not exist, or only exists insofar as it isn’t contradicted by the state legislature. I don’t think anyone would argue for that, yet that’s exactly what argument against “judicial activism” is. At least on the surface.

    Otherwise, the Constitution does require that each state recognize every other state’s “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings,” but there are exceptions to that requirement.

  4. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    “Isn’t there something in the Constitution that says all states have to recognize all state contracts, or something to that degree?”

    Quite the opposite, I think. Think of driver’s licenses, law boards, certifications … pretty much everything I can think of requires an explicit agreement to get together across states.

  5. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    “I have no idea what Odin is trying to say.”

    I think I’m trying the “walks like a duck” argument.

  6. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Isn’t there something in the Constitution that says all states have to recognize all state contracts, or something to that degree?

  7. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    By way of brief background for the unfamiliar non-lawyer, in Loving v. Virginia, a white husband and a black wife who were married in D.C. successfully challenged a Virginia law that prohibited them from being in an interracial marriage within the bounds of the state of Virginia. They pled guilty and were sentenced to prison, but the sentences were suspended if they agreed to leave Virginia. They did, but then challenged the law in court seeking to be able to live in Virginia without threat of prosecution.

    There are numerous fundamental issues with the right to marry, and the right to actually receive the legal proclamation is only one part. Another important one that people often forget is the right to have that marriage legally recognized the same as other individuals. This is where the Loving decision is so important, because it wasn’t about denial of a marriage certificate–it was about Virginia’s refusal to recognize it as a legal and permissible marriage.

    The Supreme Court declared the following in Loving: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” I think that pretty unmistakably puts the right to marry on par with the other civil rights (right to equal educational access, right of equal access to public facilities, etc.) that were only achieved through court rulings rather than legislative action.

  8. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    I don’t know if IRE is homophobic, honestly he seems to me to be more about being against judicial activism, which I’m not, which is cool to agree to disagree on.

    I do however think that time ruraldem came in not knowing shit about the troy davis case and comparing him to that gangster out in LA said something though…

  9. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Well I’m not a lawyer so f*cked if I know. Also haven’t read it. Do I disagree with the decision though, that is a better question. And for that, I’ll let Drew think I have some latent racism mixed in with my latent homophobia.

    As for what I think about a SCOTUS case? Fucked if I know. I’m not a damn lawyer, I don’t know sh*t about sh*t with that sh*t. F*ck, were you really expecting me to answer that?

  10. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    The Red & Black also always makes annoying headlines for my op-eds too and uses a 3 year old picture of me back when I wore a cabbie hat everywhere

  11. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    IRE – It wasn’t just an Appeal to Emotion. It was also a comparison to an existing Supreme Court precedent, and a question about whether you thought it was wrongly decided.

  12. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    You make me LOLz Drew.

  13. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    I’m sure you’re supportive of it, if done “right.”

    Not like this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?hp

    Because it’s wrong for a court to enforce a constitutional guarantee of equality if a legislature has decided to abridge it.

  14. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    I’m just curious Drew, do you know what I feel about gay marriage?

  15. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Uh. Ok Drew, keep it up.

  16. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    And that your argument is crap, but I figured I’d get to the root of your problem first.

  17. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    I think I have no idea what people are criticizing me for anymore…Drew are you accusing me of homophobia? Eh is all I can say.

    The Appeal to Emotion was that paula asked if I think a loving couple should be able to wed. There was no logical basis for the argument, just emotion, ergo an Appeal to Emotion.

    I have no idea what Odin is trying to say.

  18. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    Small critique, Zaid. Your fire is more effective when you concentrate it on the proximate target of your ire.

    When in you slip implicitly into “he’s a bastard, but so is everyone else in power” you get a false equivalence set up. As in, if they are all crooked, why the hell to we bother?

    Now, to de-threadjack, back to what IRE was saying that there is a false equivalence between gay marriage and racial civil rights.

    What part of the checklist are we missing:

    -Liberty accepted as long as “they keep to their own kind”

    -Random beatings due to group identity

    -Separate but equal institutions

    -Completely arbitrary Biblical justifications

  19. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    When homophobia becomes unpopular, homophones have to get creative.

    Like pretending that schools or public transit aren’t civil functions that government has to authorize.

    Or manufacturing ad hoc, extralegal standards for what is and is not an appropriate method to end injustice.

    In this case, apparently, it is totally imappropriate for a court to enforce a constitutional guarantee of equality, or for a person demand that they do so. And state legislatures can ignore them as they like.

  20. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    “Mainly that “marriage” is either something the state grants a license for, or a religious ceremony.”

    Actually, legally speaking, it’s only the first.

    And their appeal is actually an appeal to history, not emotion.

    Whatever.

    This topic now about me trying my hardest to piss off newt gingrich:

    http://www.redandblack.com/home/news/2009/04/03/Opinions/Incompetent.Gingrich.Matches.Description.Of.Past.Presidents-3695398.shtml

  21. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Yes for a lot of reasons. Mainly that “marriage” is either something the state grants a license for, or a religious ceremony. Also your example is something of an Appeal to Emotion.

  22. PaulaG Avatar
    PaulaG

    IRE – I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but I genuinely don’t understand your argument here. Do you also think the Lovings (from Loving v. Virginia) should have waited for the good citizens of VA to legitimize their marriage? Please discuss.

  23. odinseye2k Avatar
    odinseye2k

    “Its amazing how we only want courts to implement the laws we want.”

    Isn’t that true for any branch of government?

    But that’s a major part of the American (well, any democracy) experiment right there – balancing elite and popular rule.

    Also, if I were a betting man, I’d say that Prop 8 doesn’t survive four years.

  24. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    Well, unless you amend the constitution.

  25. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    “Just saying, while we may want to make the two the same, they aren’t.”

    Right to marry = a civil right, based upon individual liberty.

    They aren’t the same, of course not, but the principle is exactly the same.

    If you have courts they will make de facto “laws” by interpreting the constitution. Let’s get over it, man. You’re not going to put up individual liberties up to majority vote in a constitutional model.

  26. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    I’d also add there is a huge difference between segregation and a civil function that the government has to authorize.

    Just saying, while we may want to make the two the same, they aren’t.

  27. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    Its amazing how we only want courts to implement the laws we want.

  28. Zaid Avatar
    Zaid

    Er, sorry, but these individual rights things have every right to come into law via the courts. Civil rights never would’ve won an up-down vote in the South.

  29. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    If gay marriage is going to be allowed in states, it ought to be made law the right way–as in the way VT is doing it–through the legislature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *