Vermont turns Civil Unions to Civil Marriage.
As Andrew Sullivan writes, "This is how you do it."
Which naturally made me sing and dance to this. Dance with me.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vermont turns Civil Unions to Civil Marriage..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12698
*dances* One more for the count!
I'd just like to say...
WOOOHOOOO!! =D
Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I have to take issue with Andrew Sullivan's position that legislative fiat is the best way to achieve equality. While it certainly helps credibility in the here and now, a point not to be undervalued, a legislative declaration of equality is far less potent than a judicial one. Raising something to the level of a constitutional right (through either the judiciary or the far more onerous -- except in California >:-[ -- amendment process) has a more lasting and irreversible impact than a legislative vote.
To be clear: it's extremely GOOD when legislatures do this. But to ensure equality, we STILL need something that says, not only is this our law, but our constitution PROHIBITS us from ever changing it. Otherwise, all you need is a year or two with a conservative majority to strip people of equal rights.
You're still reyling on government fiat. The fact that the government could reinterpret or change the constitution to prohibit something means that they can also do the reverse. There is no final victory, no point at which an issue ever becomes "solved." Widespread changes in basic attitudes are the only way to create social change, and that can go in both directions. The use of force via the state is a temporary measure at best, and a rather inelegant one at that.
I still can't wait for a state which decides to get out of the marriage business entierly.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I do think on the issue of acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage there's a definite trend and inevitable tipping point. Yes, there could always be an anti-gay revival, but the needle has been slowly but consistently turning from nearly universal hatred to general acceptance. Old people are the most anti-gay cohort, and young people the most pro-gay.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I do think on the issue of acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage there's a definite trend and inevitable tipping point. Yes, there could always be an anti-gay revival, but the needle has been slowly but consistently turning from nearly universal hatred to general acceptance. Old people are the most anti-gay cohort, and young people the most pro-gay.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I do think on the issue of acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage there's a definite trend and inevitable tipping point. Yes, there could always be an anti-gay revival, but the needle has been slowly but consistently turning from nearly universal hatred to general acceptance. Old people are the most anti-gay cohort, and young people the most pro-gay.
One more step to the medium-term goal I have in mind, which is marriage equality from the Delaware River to the North Pole.
Mass., Ct., and Vermont down, New York recognizing out-of-state marriages but not solemnizing equally yet; NJ in the courts I believe, and Canada already there. that leaves RI, NH and Maine at square one.
New York will be soon! Equality and Justice Day, hosted by the Empire State Pride Agenda, is coming up!
http://prideagenda.org
Just to be clear, the bill just passed the Vermont Senate. It's not law yet, it still has to pass the Vermont House (where it's expected to). The governor hasn't said whether he'll sign it, but the Senate has enough votes to override. So while Vermont is on its way toward same-sex marriage, it isn't there just yet.
He says it's a "distraction" from solving the budget crisis. I assume that means he won't veto, since that would set up an override vote and continue the distraction indefinitely . . .
Which is funny because the economy is a distraction from everything else!
One more step! Woohoo! We'll take 'em where we can get 'em until bit by bit, we have full equality everywhere.
I don't share Sullivan's principled or tactical objection to forcing gay marriage on unwilling states through judicial interpretation of state constitutions, but it's certainly much better (and more defensible) to have it actually be The Will Of The People (tm) for once.
I wonder why this took so long.
Because up until recently most people hated gays, and most people still dislike the idea of gay marriage.