The gay marriage ban was overturned as unconstitutional. I’m sure Sullivan will have more, and this seems notable:
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.
The bill, which faces a largely procedural vote on Friday before heading to the desk of Republican Governor Jim Douglas, would have made Vermont the third U.S. state, after Connecticut and Massachusetts, to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
It passed with overwhelming support in both houses, but Douglas is going to veto it so it is not a “distraction.” The Republicans are so hopeless they can’t even come up with believable bullshit anymore. And you wonder why this sort of thing is often decided in courtrooms.
Also, activist judges!
Incertus
When I saw that story just a second ago, my immediate reaction was "wow, Iowa?" It’s not that I put Iowa in the category of states least likely to do this–that’s more of the Utah or Alabama list–but I didn’t figure the Iowa Supreme Court for one willing to do this.
And as for Douglas, I just don’t get the logic. Is he trying to pull a Rudy and keep himself viable for national Republican politics? Or is he just a dick?
Dave
I would guess Douglas is under pressure from the RNC. And since Vermont has become more blue (who knew that was possible?) I’d bet most of his funding comes from out-of-state. So he needs to keep the slope-brows happy.
jibeaux
Well, there’s mildly surprising news everywhere. There’s a perpetual low-grade winger push in NC to pass a defense-of-marriage type thing that never even gets to a vote, and the polling suggests the public wouldn’t support it anyway. We’re the only Southern state without one according to the wingers — they say it like it’s a bad thing to be distinguishable from Alabama.
I am more than mildly surprised to learn Vermont has a Republican governor. Okay, I’ve only ever been to Burlington, but the granola and hemp are practically woven into the fiber of the sidewalk.
** Atanarjuat **
There will come a day when "gay marriage" will become an unnecessary, redundant term, just like "interracial marriage."
It will simply be marriage, and it will only concern those individuals who are actually getting married, not moralizing, grandstanding nosey bodies who seek to push their own agenda at the expense of everyone else’s right to privacy.
-A
Scott H
In Vermont it is a matter of how many Democrats change their vote to override the veto and how many Republicans change their vote to support the governor.
In Iowa I suppose it will be the usual move to erase rights protected by the State’s constitution by changing the constitution to specifically deny civil rights. (I wonder that religionists never seem to ponder the danger of this precedent.)
sgwhiteinfla
Incertus
Because Douglas is a Republican I am going to go with a combination of both.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Incertus:
He’s a dick. I live in Vermont. I hate the motherless fuck.
guest omen
the gay marriage tourist dollar should supplement iowa’s income nicely.
your loss, california, you bunch of dummies.
Fencedude
@** Atanarjuat **:
Who are you and what have you done with Atanutjob?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@jibeaux:
Most of the rest of the state is redneck country. There are enough Hippies on those farms that we can usually carry the state, but there were plenty of McCain signs in Addison County and Rutland County last fall. (The Northeast Kingdom is also a Republican stronghold, but it’s also pretty much uninhabited, so it barely matters.)
zzyzx
"In Iowa I suppose it will be the usual move to erase rights protected by the State’s constitution by changing the constitution to specifically deny civil rights."
Can’t happen until 2012 at the earliest due to IA’s constitution. Same as MA; by the time there can be a public vote on the matter, there will be enough time with it legal for people to wonder what exactly the big deal is anyway.
I still don’t understand why NV hasn’t gotten around to doing this. Allowing easier access to marriage and divorce was one of the things that made Las Vegas grow.
John PM
Does this mean that there is now going to be a mass migration from Boys Town in Chicago to the Quad Cities? This gives whole new layers to the musical "The Music Man": "You’ve got umbrage with a capital ‘U’ and that rhymes with ‘Q’ and that stands for Queer."
Seriously, however, I am very happy to see this ruling. If Iowa sees the logic in not denying marriage to gays, then every state north of the Mason-Dixon line should follow suit.
And yes, Sullivan already has three posts about the ruling
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Dave:
For some reason, Douglas is very popular. He’s coasted to re-election for both the election cycles I’ve lived up here (despite my personal, vehement opposition).
He’s done that by glad-handing shamelessly, and appealing to the proper constituencies, and by acquiring a reputation as a personally affable fellow. I’m not sure how his veto decision is going to affect his statewide popularity, but I do know that a lot of hitherto-indifferent people are now pretty pissed off at him.
Jay C
BTW, here’s a more detailed account of the Iowa court decision than John’s link provides.
Re Vermont: most of the commentary I have read re Gov. Douglas’ vow to veto the SSM bill pretty much agrees with Dave’s 11:01 analysis: he probably doesn’t care much one way or another about signing a gay-marriage bill (it’s not like it was a legislative squeaker, after all), but has to put on the "proper" front for the national GOP – and probably hopes he’ll get overridden – best of both worlds.
Oh, and rare (but deserved) props to Atanarjuat for his 11:08 – Assuming I’ve interpreted it correctly, I wholeheartedly concur.
KCinDC
I think the article is wrong about how short they were of the votes required to override a veto. As I understand it, they need 2/3 of those present and voting, so with 147 voting, that would be 98, making them 3 votes short, not 5.
Tsulagi
Don’t forget elitist! Those Iowans must have replaced corn with arugula and Belgian endive.
jibeaux
@zzyzx:
I expect because states recognize other states’ (non-gay) marriages and divorces, but states don’t usually recognize other states’ gay marriages. So unless you live in NV, there is not much tangible to be gained by going there to get married. Unless you just wanted the ceremony + gambling opportunities, I guess.
KCinDC
The DC city council would pass same-sex marriage, except that Congress is already riled up about our gun laws, so there’s no need to give them a reason to yet again stomp on us and overrule our local government, especially when we’re still hoping to get a vote in the House. We may have to wait until more states do it, especially our neighbor Maryland, and it becomes less controversial.
TR
That title should read "Congratulations, Iowans." It’s not just gays who should be celebrating the death of a moronic piece of discrimination.
There was a great moment when Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was being interviewed in the 1950s. Paraphrasing from memory here, the reporter asked him "Are you saying that all Negroes should support the civil rights movement?" and he shot back, "No, no, I’m saying all Americans who care about liberty and democracy should support the civil rights movement."
Persia
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Don’t forget that most of his Democratic and Progressive opponents have been too busy bitching about each other to get together a decent campaign for governor. I’ve held my nose and voted D ever since he came on board, but that doesn’t mean I like it.
KCinDC
Jibeaux, I think one of the arguments for passage in Vermont was that it would bring in wedding tourism. People definitely do travel to places (including Canada) to get married, even if the marriages aren’t recognized at home. It does seem like it would be Nevada’s sort of thing.
Just Some Fuckhead
What are you gay Islamic commie devil worshippers doing to my beautiful heartland? I think it’s time to get Rapture Ready.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Persia:
Yeah, the local Democrats are often pretty repugnant themselves. It was hard to vote for Symington last time, but in the end even if we’d been united Douglas still had the votes to win the thing.
Jim Douglas and Bernie Sanders are the two most popular guys in state politics. Someday, I’d like to see them matched up. I think Sanders would win.
jibeaux
@KCinDC:
Oh, that very well may be, I guess I was specifically addressing the idea that it would be a logical descendant of easier marriage and divorce. I can be very literal-minded.
Maybe NV is just a little too tacky for teh gheys. Hawaii, you need more tourism? Or, could be that NV has about as many churches as it does casinos.
It will be kind of funny if the nail in the coffin is the economy boost argument. It’s not a bad argument, it’s just a bit like saying we should have universal health care because it would really help any medical professionals who are out of a job right now.
jcricket
Fuck the governor of Vermont. His logic makes no sense, and this is overwhelmingly supported by the legislature.
I also note that after railing against activist judges and saying the only legitimate way for gay marriage to pass was the legislature (or direct vote by people), Sullivan said this about Iowa’s ruling:
Classic Sully logic pretzel twisting. Because it’s unanimous (amongst 9 people or whatever) his objections to court decisions suddenly go away.
At any rate, the history of interracial marriage is being followed by gay marriage, just at a faster clip. States are legalizing gay marriage (or repealing their bans), other states are strengthening them, and it’s a mish-mash of places. In 5 years you’ll probably have 10 states where gay marriage is legal, at least, and it will get to the same point anti-interracial marriage laws were when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining states’ laws.
As a reminder – When Loving V. Virginia was decided by the Supreme Court in the 70s there were 18 (count ’em) states that still had anti-interracial marriage laws, despite 100 years passing since the first state struck down one of those laws.
JD Rhoades
Here’s a Constitutional Amendment for you:
"In matters of romantic and/or sexual relationships between consenting adults, the Legislature shall mind its own goddamn business."
SGEW
Heightened Intermediate Scrutiny for Equal Protection Clause interpretation is in tha house, y’all.
The unanimous opinion (via Politico, of all places) is pretty super awesome.
And:
(Citations omitted)
Smack down.
Cyrus
Looking at the Vermont roll call vote, I’m a tiny bit proud that of all the legislators I know, the only one who voted against gay marriage is not just a Republican from a Republican town but also a pretty slimy guy personally. Not that it matters or anything, but still, it’s nice to know that superficial gut reactions are sometimes right.
As for how Douglas gets elected, Vermont used to be a very Republican state, and Vermont Republicans were more sane than many. Jim Jeffords, for example. But the main reason is, the left in Vermont is as fractious as it is anywhere. In 2008, the Progressive Party candidate for governor actually got more votes than the Democratic Party candidate.
Also, Scruffy, Persia, where are you guys from? I’m surprised there are so many Vermonters here. I grew up in Bethel but lived in Middlebury from 2005 or so to 2008.
Scott H
One hopes. Public sentiment is glacially slow, but it moves generally to what is just. For some reason, this country never seems to be able to do the right thing in a hurry, quite the reverse. If something is wrong we can get it FedEx.
This is as good a time as any to thank everyone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight for being upstanding in the cause of legal protections for gay relationships.
mak
Ready! Aim! BACKFIRE!
I wonder how many other state-constitutional challenges the ‘pubs have teed up with idiotic "one man, one woman" statutes they’ve passed over the last decade.
Had they not gone out of their way to preemptively ban that which did not exist, state supreme courts would never have been forced to decide what is essentially a pretty simple constitutional question for all but the most politicized judges.
Instead, in true wing-nut style, they insisted on taking a big running start before stepping on the rake.
SGEW
btw
Unanimity on a major constitutional issue from a state’s highest court (Iowa?!) is a pretty good reason to make certain particular objections "go away" in general, Sullivan’s personal consistency on judicial matters aside.
Scott H
As for Republicans in Vermont or anywhere else, some of us remember when being a Republican was the sensible and conservative thing, not the irrational and reactionary thing.
I don’t mind waking up one a day and finding out I am now a "progressive" if that is the ideological shift – my own ideals have never changed.
Xanthippas
No doubt. Of course if it weren’t for "activist judges" blacks and whites would go to separate schools and we’d be working mandatory 80 hour weeks. Which, actually, is what most right-wingers would prefer.
wasabi gasp
This issue is a distraction. A distraction to Liberty as she persists in walking tall while knee deep in a slurry of crackpots and bigots.
Oh, Tickle-Me Malibu Beach House Baby Jesus, please make this issue a Tootsie Pop: once you get to three, the whole thing cracks wide open.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@jcricket:
Amen. Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
@Cyrus:
I’m originally from Delaware, but I’ve lived up here since early 2006. I live in Burlington, but I mostly work in Middlebury. Work takes me further south down Route 7 a lot, though.
jake 4 that 1
Iowa?
Really?
Iowa?
Zifnab
@Xanthippas: Segregation and slave labor are free market values we can believe in.
But gay marriage threatens our sacred freedoms.
WereBear
Iowa has a long progressive tradition; there were some Grangers & rabblerousers there, way back.
Now Indiana, right next door… that’s a different story. And a sadder one.
Mark S.
Also, that Bill of Rights everyone seems to like so much? 3/4 of it wouldn’t apply to the states if it weren’t for activist judges.
Iowa Housewife
I am a California native living in Iowa, I am soooo happy about this ruling. The right wing radio is going ballistic, it is so much fun.
Iowa is much more progressive than people think, it is Kansas that should scare everybody.
Gravenstone
@WereBear:
The good folks of Illinois might wish to quibble with your geographical acumen there, but yes the point remains.
Cyrus
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss: Cool. Small world.
gbear
Well now the entire arts community in the Twin Cities will be heading down to Decorah and Dubuque.
Tim Pawlenty better rediscover the value of MN’s dying ‘progressive’ brand before he’s turned MN into a cold Omaha.
iluvsummr
Ya know, Iowa has consistently impressed me since January 4, 2008. Congratulations to all Iowans. You put my state (California) to shame.
KRK
This isn’t the first indication that the Iowa judiciary is smart and has little patience for right-wing "legal" theories. Fortunately, this particular decision is based on rights afforded by the state constitution, so there’s no chance for the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved and muck it up.
This
Is fabulous.
Interrobang
JD Rhoades: Is it just me, or did you just translate "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" into American?
Xanthippas
True, but the Iowa legislature sure can, and you can be damn sure the Supreme Court won’t have anything to say about that either.
Tattoosydney
@SGEW:
There is so much win in the judgment:
Trans: "We are going to take each of your stupid arguments and point out, in detail, how stupid each of them is."
Tymannosourus
All eight of you!
Ahhhhhhh, just messing, this is awesome.
KCinDC
Xanthippas, if the Iowa supreme court is saying that banning same-sex marriage violates the Iowa constitution, then the legislature can’t do anything about it either. It would require a constitutional amendment, which in Iowa apparently requires a long, involved process (unlike the idiotic process in California, where the constitution can be changed to match the latest whim of the electorate).
Catsy
I just sat down and read the entire opinon, start to finish. I recommend that anyone who cares about this issue do the same, regardless of how long it takes or how many words you have to look up. Skip the footnotes if you have to, but do read all of the large type.
This is pretty much every wingnut justification for legislation based on anti-gay bigotry lined up in a row and decimated with the very best, most thoroughly researched counter-arguments you could possibly get. It’s like a perfect storm of ironclad logical reasoning, and it will have ripple effects on the decisions of other states whose constitutional EP clauses read similarly to Iowa’s.
There is not a single bit of fail that I can find in this opinion. Even the wingnuts are tied in knots with their inability to plausibly attack it as partisan or poorly-reasoned.
Mark my words. This will be looked back on as a pivotal decision in this struggle.
Fencedude
@Tattoosydney:
Thats beautiful.
Man, someone had a lot of fun writing that. (or at least as much fun as writing a legal opinion could ever be)
binzinerator
Republicans simply do not believe in democracy unless it the will of the majority happens to be in line with their own narrow religious and social views. Or unless they can loot the treasury.
Persia
@Cyrus: Where are you finding the roll call vote? I suspect I’m going to be calling my Rep this weekend and begging him to change his vote. For all the good it’ll do me.
I’m reluctant to name my town, as I’m still there, and you know how small they are, but I’m in one of Bethel’s Big Sports Rivalry Towns. :D
Tsulagi
@Catsy:
Well, “plausibly” would be the operative word in that sentence, but when has wingnut thought ever been limited by reality?
Speaking of which, of course there is a post on the Iowa decision at RedState. I think a frequent commenter and RSSF trooper there put into words wingnut thought and feelings on this decision…
Brilliant. Not content with just that, after blockquoting the EP clause which to most minds supports the Iowa decision, he expanded…
Kind of like recent Bachmann Constitution logic isn’t it?
liberal
@iluvsummr:
I grew up there (lived there ages 2–17), and it actually does have some liberal-ness in its history. See e.g. the Clark Amendment.
I remember the wee hours of the morning that my dad woke me up to tell me Clark had lost. Not a happy camper.
Catsy
Which only proves that said commenter did not read the opinon. This point was specifically addressed and refuted:
Just so. And for more evidence said RSSF squad leader either did not read or did not understand the opinion:
Which completely ignores the /50 pages/ in the opinion spent examining the following with regard to the applicability of Equal Protection to this case:
A. Background Principles [of the doctrine of Equal Protection]
B. Legal Tests to Gauge Equal Protection
C. Determination of Constitutional Facts
D. Similarly Situated People
E. Classification Undertaken in Iowa Code Section 595.2
F. Framework for Determining Appropriate Level of Judicial Scrutiny
G. Determination of Appropriate Level of Scrutiny
H. Application of Heightened Scrutiny
I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage
J. Constitutional Infirmity
The various cites and reasonings that run through these fifty pages are too complex to summarize without ellipsis that detracts from its impact. Suffice to say that there is not one argument in that entire Redstate thread that is not preemptively demolished by this opinion.
jcricket
But see, this is the best part. When the GOP is run by the likes of Erickson, Sarah Palin or even her right-wing legal buddies, they can only win with the dumbest of judges. And even the laws they do pass end up over-turned, because they don’t understand how to craft constitutional (state or federal) legislation.
There’s nothing but long-term win for Democrats and, frankly, America, by the dumbing down of the GOP.
The Tim Channel
Proud Iowan currently located now in Mississippi.
Fort Dodge Senior High Class of 1976.
Iowa is a lot more progressive than most people realize. Here’s the view off the back of my dad’s porch:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3410268780/
More on Iowa.
No helmet law. Every summer around the 4th (Freedom Rally) the bikers get together and have a big bash in the middle of Iowa. As it turns out, the place they have their big bash is also right down the road from my dad’s house:
It is land they purchased and maintain just for their own use where nobody will bother them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3410276786/
The best place in the world to visit is Clear Lake Iowa on the 4th of July. During the last election cycle, I was there on the 4th (2006) and saw Bill and Hillary as well as the introduction of the famed Mittmobile.
The place is as seriously Norman Rockwell as you will ever see in your lifetime.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3410308730/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3409499355
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3409498805
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3410308358
You can also visit the Surf Ballroom, site of the last performance of Buddy Holly et.al. :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3409529667
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3409529769
Enjoy.
gbear
(I copied/pasted this news release from Americablog. No link to an original. I’m not going to try to blockquote it. I’d just mess it up.)
News Release
For Immediate Release: April 3, 2008
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal
House Speaker Pat Murphy
Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing civil rights
This is a joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy on today’s Supreme Court decision:
"Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.
"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.
"Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.
"Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.
"In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
"In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
"In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
"In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.
"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.
"Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws."
Cyrus
@Persia:
At the Burlington Free Press’s Web site, here. I had some trouble loading that page, but I think it was just my crappy computer at work; refreshing or playing around with the URL should take care of it.
Chris Johnson
I think it’s cool. I’m the guy who was parodying that Ann Coulter ad (by pointing it at my furry comic, still linked through my name) before Laura W laid the smack down on everyone and said "this PW ad place is MINE".
I’m a Vermonter (but grew up in Massachusetts) and I’m in Bellows Falls, but I’ve also lived in Brattleboro, Wilmington, Putney… seeing as I own a house in BF now, I don’t plan to be bouncing around more or leaving Vermont anytime soon.
Ella in New Mexico
2012? Really? Yahoooooo!!!!
If that’s the case, then it looks like this decision will stand for quite a long time.
I mean, the only people who would want to foot at campaign for a Constitutional Amendment are the same people who will be extremely busy preparing for the Rapture right about then.
JWW
Congrats John,
Now you can marry your favorite pet. I’m sure it won’t last long because you always follow the current breeze. It is such a shame, your seeds end up landing in my yard. Round-Up does work, but I don’t like the hassle.
It’s a good thing we can’t breed ourselves.
zoe kentucky
I always wonder how such a person would feel about this if their son or daughter brought home a gay person (of the opposite sex) and announced that they are going to marry? Would they be in support of the marriage? Or would they find it disturbing and upsetting? Is that what they want people to enter into, a marriage in name only devoid of romantic love or sex? Forget the gay person, why would they wish this on any straight person? It’s truly bizarre and divorced from reality.
zoe kentucky
As for JWW’s "current breeze" comment above, I hope you’re just kidding. Or do you believe that same-sex marriage is just some kind of trend and will become passe eventually? That’s it’s just a phase? Because that is certainly where you’re wrong. Look at polls of people who are 30 and younger and you’ll find very strong support for same-sex marriage. It is the inevitable future in this country, it’s just a matter of time.
The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
What fascinates me more about JWW’s comment above is how the bigots immediately jump to the homosexuals=animals argument. As the arsenal of tired false equivalencies goes, its an unusually revealing glimpse of the deeper structures of their world views. Anyone not like them is sub-human, and unworthy of the rights accorded "completely" human beings.