Henry Raymond

Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Henry on April 07, 2009, 07:10:06 PM

Title: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: Henry on April 07, 2009, 07:10:06 PM

Yes (100) • Janet Ancel, D-Calais • Peg Andrews, D-Rutland City • Bill Aswad, D-Burlington • Charles Bohi, D-Hartford • Bill Botzow, D-Pownal • Christopher Bray, D-New Haven • Mollie Burke, P-Brattleboro • Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich • Alison Clarkson, D-Woodstock • Jim Condon, D-Colchester • Chip Conquest, D-Newbury • Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, D-Bradford • Gale Courcelle, D-Rutland City • Susan Davis, P-Washington • David Deen, D-Westminster • Anne Donahue, R-Northfield • Johannah Donovan, D-Burlington • Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro • Alice Emmons, D-Springfield • Debbie Evans, D-Essex • Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln • Bill Frank, D-Underhill • Patsy French, D-Randolph • Eldred French, D-Shrewsbury • Frank Geier, D-South Burlington • Gary Gilbert, D-Fairfax • Maxine Grad, D-Moretown • Adam Greshin, I-Warren • Sandy Haas, P-Rochester • Helen Head, D-South Burlington • Martha Heath, D-Westford • Mary Hooper, D-Montpelier • Stephen Howard, D-Rutland City • Richard Hube, R-Londonderry • Tim Jerman, D-Essex • Willem Jewett, D-Ripton • Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero • Kathleen Keenan, D-St. Albans City • Warren Kitzmiller, D-Montpelier • Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier • Patti Komline, R-Dorset • Diane Lanpher, D-Vergennes • Mark Larson, D-Burlington • Joan Lenes, D-Shelburne • Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick • Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg • Jason Lorber, D-Burlington • Terry Macaig, D-Williston • Steven Maier, D-Middlebury • John Malcolm, D-Pawlet • Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington • Richard Marek, D-Newfane • Cynthia Martin, D-Springfield • Linda Martin, D-Wolcott • Jim Masland, D-Thetford • Jim McCullough, D-Williston • Virginia Milkey, D-Brattleboro • Alice Miller, D-Shaftsbury • Sue Minter, D-Waterbury • Mark Mitchell, D-Barnard • Anne Mook, D-Bennington • John Moran, D-Wardsboro • Mike Mrowicki, D-Putney • Floyd Nease, D-Johnson • Betty Nuovo, D-Middlebury • Anne O’Brien, D-Richmond • Michael Obuchowski, D-Rockingham • Scott Orr, D-Charlotte • Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham • Kathy Pellett, D-Chester • Peter Peltz, D-Woodbury • Paul Poirier, D-Barre City • Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington • Kesha Ram, D-Burlington • John Rodgers, D-Glover • Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe • Ernest Shand, D-Weathersfield • Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol • Megan Smith, D-Mendon • Shap Smith, D-Morristown • Robert South, D-St. Johnsbury • Kristy Spengler, D-Colchester • William Stevens, I-Shoreham • Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury • Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor • Tess Taylor, D-Barre City • George Till, D-Jericho • Kitty Toll, D-Danville • Larry Townsend, D-Randolph • Ira Trombley, D-Grand Isle • Linda Waite-Simpson, D-Essex • Kate Webb, D-Shelburne • Richard Westman, R-Cambridge • Rachel Weston, D-Burlington • Jeff Wilson, D-Manchester • Suzi Wizowaty; D-Burlington • Kurt Wright, R-Burlington • Jeff Young, D-St. Albans City • John Zenie, D-Colchester • David Zuckerman, P-Burlington

No (49) • Joe Acinapura, R-Brandon • Steven Adams, R-Hartland • David Ainsworth, R-Royalton • Kenneth Atkins, D-Winooski • Joseph Baker, R-West Rutland • Clem Bissonnette, D-Winooski • Carolyn Branagan, R-Georgia • Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester • Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington • Bill Canfield, R-Fair Haven • Gregory Clark, R-Vergennes • John Clerkin, R-Hartford • Howard Crawford, R-Burke • Tim Corcoran, D-Bennington • Michel Consejo, D-Sheldon • Dennis Devereux, R-Mount Holly • Eileen Dickinson, R-St. Albans Town • Andrew Donaghy, R-Poultney • Peter Fagan, R-Rutland City • Peg Flory, R-Pittsford • Robert Helm, R-Castleton • Mark Higley, R-Lowell • Richard Howrigan, D-Fairfield • Ronald Hubert, R-Milton • William Johnson, R-Canaan • Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport City • Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town • Joseph Krawczyk, R-Bennington • Leigh Larocque, R-Barnet • Richard Lawrence, R-Lyndon • Robert Lewis, R-Derby • Michael Marcotte, R-Coventry • Norman McAllister, R-Highgate • Patricia McDonald, R-Berlin • Francis McFaun, R-Barre Town • James McNeil, R-Rutland Town • John Morley, R-Barton • Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington • Linda Myers, R-Essex • Patricia O’Donnell, R-Vernon • Chuck Pearce, R-Richford • Janice Peaslee, R-Guildhall • Peter Perley, R-Enosburg • David Potter, D-Clarendon • Gary Reis, R-St. Johnsbury • Brian Savage, R-Swanton • Donald Turner, R-Milton • Scott Wheeler, R-Derby • Phillip Winters, R-Williamstown

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: JLB on April 08, 2009, 08:36:19 AM

Way too close for a law that changes our society so significantly.  What was wrong with the civil union's law?  Did it not provide all the legal benefits of marriage?

Is this all about a term used to describe a relationship?

Rather than saying "I have a civil union partner or I am in a civil union", they wanted to be able to say "I am married'?

If two people really love each and they find happiness being together, then I am happy for them.   

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: Loctavious on April 08, 2009, 12:02:25 PM

Hate to play devils advocate here, but reverse the situation.  For discussion's sake, your a heterosexual who's sexuality is not the main stream.  You're the minority and have access to all the same benefits as the majority, but not the same label.  Assuming you can distance yourself from your bias for a minute, would you feel the same way as you do now?

Let's move it away from sexuality altogether.  Let's move it to say ... politics.  You've recently changed your party affiliation.  let's say there's a law that unless you've been the same affiliation for x amount of time, you can't be considered a true democrat, republican, progrssive, etc, yet you'll still have the ability to vote and it will count.  Does it matter that you can reap the benefits of a voter but not be labeled as you want to be for x amount of time?

Not a good anaolgy for sure, but i tried to find a subejct people are passionate about and is considered to be a civil right. 

My beliefs are not affected either way - what would be affected is my ability to say i'm proud to be associated and part of this state i love.  I'm proud to say i'm from a tolerant state that's taken a moral high ground on other issues important to the rights of the individual - regardless of their sexuality, political affiliation, or Hell  - skin color.  What if we interpreted the constitution the way the South did during the civil war?  we'd have endorsed slavery if so.

The only thign that was close was howmany votes we needed for the Super majority!  100 - 49 isn't close.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: cestreet on April 08, 2009, 05:23:01 PM

Jackie,

I don't know how this can be both a "law that changes our society so significantly" and just a "term used to describe a relationship".   I don't see it as either of these things, but I can't fathom how it can be both at the same time.  I don't see any possible negative impact on anyone.  What is the problem?

Clarice Streets

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: JLB on April 08, 2009, 07:03:43 PM

Loctavious I have heard some folks question if this is considered a civil rights issue, then one might be able to put a forth legal argument that polygamy is a right.   If it is one's belief and personal inclination to have more than one spouse, then why not allow it.    I personally don't believe it is a right but to hear the argument was interesting.   

This recent override of the governor's veto seems like a very partisan issue.     Note how many democrats voted one way and republicans voting another.   Then there were these Republicans out of sure spite against the Governor's early announcement of his intent to veto, specifically changed their vote.    That seems silly when one considers how many lives are affected and the change in our society.  To me that is not a true super majority.   

Some say the liberties of any religious organization that performs heterosexual marriage will be challenged if anyone of these groups decides  to not perform a homosexual marriage based on their belief.   I received this in an email:

"Last week, an overseer of several Vermont congregations was told by legislative leaders that if the bill becomes law, his churches will face a choice: either allow gay weddings in his church sanctuaries, or have no public use of church property at all.  That meant no school concerts, no town meetings, no weddings, no community craft shows, no community food shelfs, no concerts sponsored by worthy Christian organizations, no organized public enjoyment of the property. As you might imagine, this church overseer objected strenuously to the state’s intrusion into his churches’ religious liberties and performance of their mission. He was told simply to come back for more talks on Monday (March 30).

 Concerned about this development, I called another pastor friend of mine who has been following this issue very closely. He said he had heard of these developments, and said the concerns are very real. He said there is some possibility that the law will be changed to supposedly address these concerns.  But he added, there is virtually NO chance that the law will be changed to give freedom of religious conscience to businesses that do wedding announcements, photographs, catering, bed and breakfasts, etc.. "    My local representative responded to this and agreed the issue has not been researched enough to vote yes.


Clarice
It is not both a "law that changes..."   and   just a "term..."
The latter was a question.  Is that how the gay community feels about it.  That they are denied the term of being "married".


To me it just seems the whole thing was rushed.  It is almost as if they waited until after the elections to see which party became the majority.   

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: jasony on April 08, 2009, 07:36:20 PM

Here is the statement of purpose from bill S.115 (which legalized gay marriage in Vermont):

"This bill proposes to permit same-sex couples to marry starting September 1, 2009. Couples will not be permitted to establish civil unions after such date, but existing civil unions will continue to be recognized.  The bill would allow clergy the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage, if to do so would violate the clergy person’s right to religious liberty protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont."

Here's the full document in PDF format:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2010/bills/intro/S-115.pdf (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2010/bills/intro/S-115.pdf)

This is not about taking away liberty, it's about protecting it.  Your rights within the church will not be compromised.  Nobody has any interest in crashing a school dance or homeless shelter. 

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: cestreet on April 08, 2009, 09:27:17 PM

Jackie, It appears that you and the church leaders you quote are advocating for "separate but equal".  Seems I've heard of that before somewhere...

Clarice Streets

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: JLB on April 09, 2009, 06:07:33 AM

Hi All,

Well  the root of much of this has been that for me it seems one element to marriage is the ability to procreate.   That is why I feel a marriage should be between one man and one woman.  A son I think should be raised by a father and a mother.  A daughter by a mother and a father.   It seems rather fundamental.   This is the way we as a species were designed or evolved which ever way you view it.    I have a hard time understanding these gay families who go through great lengths to have a child who ends up being of the opposite sex.    For example  two men in a marriage have a girl.    Don't  you think that is confusing for the daughter?  Later in life to explain to her how she came to be.     Growing up without a mother, what will she experience, think, feel and conclude?     It just seems outside of our evolution.     

Like I said if two of the same sex fine true happiness with each other, then I am happy for them.  Great for them to live out a life of joy and fulfillment in a recognized union.  But to change a key element in our society of what defines a marriage seems to have long lasting implications.   

I don't see it as a civil rights issue.   Gay relationships are fundamentally different than the Heterosexual relationship.   

I appreciate these "conversations" with you all.    Maybe I might finally see the whole picture that others seem to clearly see.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: gpdvt on April 09, 2009, 12:17:24 PM

JLB,
I could respond to your posts by going point by point on how I think you are wrong, but I won't. All because of your last sentence about maybe being able to see the whole picture. So instead i will just try to show you what my realtionship is like, and maybe help you see that aside from the more intimate moments, your marriage is more similar to mine than "fundamentally different". Here are some of the issues etc.,  in our relationship:

Why can't he learn to put the lid to the toilet seat down, it just looks so much nicer and the cat won't drink from it.

How come i get 1 peg on coat rack, he gets 6,...exactly how many coats do you wear in a day??? we have plenty of closet space.

Since our washer is in mudroom, do you think you could put the lid to it down when you're finished with it???

Exactly how long do you plan on keeping your old mail on the dining room table??

When the kleenex box is empty..that means throw it away and take a new one out.

He is in charge of lawn, which includes all the raking...I am in charge of the gardens.

I do most grocery shopping, plan most of the meals but we both look foward to cooking dinner together at the end of the day.

What do ya mean "I've got a headache"???

Hopefully you see some similarity between our relationship and the one you have with your wife. My mother, 74y/o, staunch republican, daily churchgoer and volunteer always laughs when she hears some or our bickering and irritations. Says it reminds her so much of her marriage and is suprised how despite some large differences, my relationship is so similar to all the "straight" ones. She has had a hard time with this issue mostly because when she hears the word "marriage" shes sees flowers, white dress, catholic ceremony etc. However, she does understand the need for it from a legal/financial stand point, which is what "civil marriage" is all about...including the marriage you have with your wife. The expression of love and commitment can be done with out getting a marriage license. "Civil marriage"(not to be confused with civil union) allows YOU to not worry that if your wife dies, her family won't take your kids away, or half your house, or let you make life/death decisions for her. You can move anywhere and that "civil marriage" gives you that security. Civil Unions are great, as long as you stay in VT but thats where it stops. Even the current gay marriage law doesn't give us the same security due to the laws in different states., but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Title: Re: Gay Marriage Roll Call Veto Vote Today
Post by: jasony on April 09, 2009, 02:37:47 PM

JLB: We want to protect our children and it's a natural instinct to stick to what we know works.  I respect that.  But we're talking about the state's role here, not how you want to raise your own children.  The state needs to protect kids from many backgrounds and place them with parents who can care for them.  Vermont and the rest of the country are much more complicated than the values you can articulate and encourage in your own kids.  Two men raising a daughter has happened and is happening, so it isn't "outside" our evolution or design, and it's presumptuous to make fundamental arguments about human nature like that, and even more dangerous to apply it to a regulatory body like the state government. 

Think of how many children are at risk who are either with abusive families or without a caretaker at all.  In terms of adoption -- which apparently doesn't fit into your view of marriage, since it's not based on procreation -- agencies have very, very high standards for prospective parents.  Income, living arrangement, past history (especially with drug/alcohol use) are all carefully investigated before a child is placed into the custody of an adoptive family.  The process of adoption is also a very expensive -- about 30-50k per child, which I believe is around the median annual income for a Vermonter.  The state should be helping with those costs, not putting up barriers, for example, by not recognizing a family unities (eg: gay marriage).

I'm close with a couple who have adopted two children.  It was a difficult and extremely expensive process for them, and it took four years of hopes, trials and let-downs.  They went through an organization based in Oregon that presented their profile -- their names, pictures, mini-biographies, whether they have any other kids, what values they wish to encourage -- to mothers who were preparing to offer their child for adoption.  Their profile was presented along with many others, both gay and straight, men and women.  You can imagine how intimate and moving it is for a mother to choose you and your married one to take care of their child.

They now care for two beautiful girls, Sarah and Esther, who are healthy and happy, bilingual in English and Dutch, both very exploratory and talkative.  One father is an engineer at Google; the other stays at home with the little ones, but finished his Ph.D. in child psychology before they began the adoption process.  Both they and the two girls were lucky to be in a financial position to afford the adoption.

For the girls, having two fathers isn't strange at all.  Children are incredibly adept and protecting them from diversity is the social equivalent of spraying your house with Lysol every five minutes.  Kids intuit and understand love much more easily than adults.  Adults worry about petty things like: so are they both called dad?  (One is "dad", the other is "papa".)  What will they do when they hit 13 and start maturing?  (Gay men rarely have a shortage of girl friends.  Trust me, it's covered.)  Will they be made fun of in school?  (Everyone is made fun of in school.  When we were kids, we stood up, hated our parents a little, got through, coped.  Went home, had a good meal.)