Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lesson From Vermont: Don't Cower, Push
They did it. On Tuesday the Vermont legislature formally recognized that civil unions are not the same as marriage. Forgive me for saying it, but I think the Vermonters have a thing or two to teach the Congress.
Mustering one more vote than the two thirds majority needed to override their Governor's veto, they passed a bill that grants same sex couples the freedom to marry, and became the first state in the nation to achieve marriage equality through legislation rather than the court.
What's it got to do with Congress? Merely this: there is such a thing as the courage of conviction. How many times have we heard that progress comes through conciliation? It's the ubiquitous refrain of political "framing" and "spin-meisters." "Go to where the middle is." How many anti-war activists, anti-poverty, pro-single-payer advocates have been told that progress comes from hugging the middle, not pushing the edge? You hear it now in Washington, around healthcare --- or the budget.
Go to where the bipartisanship is. It's the conventional wisdom. And often it's bunk.
Civil Unions, passed in 2000 in Vermont, didn't satisfy fair-minded Vermonters. They'd pushed from the edge to Civil Unions, still wanted marriage equality, and they weren't going away, and they continued to work and to push. A veto threat from Vermont's governor didn't discourage the backers of same sex marriage. Among the people egging them on was former Democratic National Committee chair and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. "Vote your conscience, not your district," he encouraged legislators at a pre-vote party fundraiser.
"Stand up for doing the right thing; for being a human being," Dean was quoted as saying in the Burlington Free Press. "Put human rights above politics - because if you don't, you'll regret it for the rest of your political career."
He was right. Coming less than a week after a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that extended same sex marriage in that state, and with bills to follow suit under consideration in several other states, the arc of history feels as if it's tilting toward equal protection after all.
And watching LGBT equality advance you've got to chalk up one more victory to a small but determined minority clinging to what they believe is right. If culture warriors always trod softly-softly and adhered to conventional guff, we'd never have marriage equality. Or inter-racial marriage. Or votes for women, or civil rights.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
43 Comments so far
Show AllGood for Vermont and for freedom overall…
Yep.
It will stop being amusing when a couple of thousand gay couples who happen to have some color in their skin try to settle in lovely Vermont. Then they'll learn all about "love" Vermont style.
Laura Flanders is right in that the time for moderation is long gone. The opponents of marriage equality know full well that theirs is a position that is losing demographic traction, as it is held by constituency that is largely graying. Thus they are fighting like mad to put their bigotry into the law books, thus making rectification much harder, as they can no longer rely upon custom to do it for them. A simple analogy thus explains this situation, "You do not bring a knife to gun fight."
No!!! This subject is radically divisive just as the abortion issue is. It is extremely important to allow each State to decide it's policy and not attempt to federalize this issue. There are good and sufficient reasons to continue debating this issue, and not just by christian fundamentalists. There are rational educated people who question the wisdom of gay marriage, and I am one of them. Extremist agenda's on both the left and right are very damaging. Let the States decide the issue, then people can vote with their feet until the time when a greater consensus is reached.
Since, as far as I am aware, marriage licenses are issued by county governments, which get their authority from states, and state laws regulate spousal benefits instead of federal, it is only a state issue. Unless there is something in the Constitution or federal law about equal protection for all citizens that can be interpreted by courts to apply to marriage or civil unions, there's no legal basis for overturning these bans on the federal level. Of course, Congress could pass a law allowing gay marriage or civil unions, or a new Constitutional amendment allowing it can be ratified by the states, or a new Constitutional amendment banning it can be ratified by the states, in which case someone can challenge federal courts to declare it unconstitutional. But, I could be wrong, I generally don't know jack about legal stuff.
Uhh, yeah there is. Let's review the constitutional support briefly:
1) Equal Protection Clause - Iowa's is barely any different from the US constitution, something they mention over and over again in their decision. Merely their interpretations are different (namely, Iowa's is correct). It says a group - I believe that GLBT Americans constitute a group - cannot be treated differently without due process of the law - and I don't believe we've been given due process for giving up these rights in the first place, considering that our rights in this area were never enforced, despite the fact that yes, they've been ours the whole time. As the states are subject to the US Constitution, any law they make, even in their own constitutions, is void once the supreme court decides that GLBT Americans quality for higher scrutiny, a case for which a bunch of Iowa Republicans just argued very convincingly.
2) Full Faith and Credit Clause - I don't see why these states are all passing laws saying they'll recognize marriages from other states - there's no need - the Constitution already tells them they have to. It doesn't matter what DOMA says - DOMA directly contradicts the constitution, and I think the constitution wins.
Don't you see? The very founding document of the federal government lays it all out right there. All we need is a Supreme Court willing to enforce the law, as it's stood since the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Thanks, and good, let's hope it happens soon.
Ok, I'll bite. Can you provide some details about why "rational educated" people question the wisdom of same-sex marriage?
Um... well, for one thing, in this disintegrating economy, the last thing you'd want to do is put people who manufacture "Queer" and "Normal" signs for public restrooms and water fountains out of business!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Good one. Here's another: Having to talk about movies like "Milk" at the Academy Awards makes the event even longer than it already is.
How about questioning the granting of marriage licenses by any government at all. Why not get government out of the marriage business entirely? Let governments grant every couple, straight or gay, civil unions and, if they desire a religious ceremony, they can always pursue one privately.
What "rational, educated" argument can you present against gay marriage that is not merely bigotry re-framed? Rational and educated people are the biggest supporters of marriage equality, and human rights in general. Gay marriage is not an extremist idea any more, and it is only divisive because of the religious right's terror and hatred of it. The same types of arguments apply to abortion and the other phony wedge issues that deluded conservatives dredge up again and again. Your fears are a self destructive fantasy. Please keep them to yourself.
The following is the problem with "let every state make its own decision free of Federal interference".
Let me just give you one example why this can be dangerous nonsense. Suppose that my state of Texas passes a Constitutional Amendment that makes slavery legal again in our state only. That would clearly violate the Federal Constitution yet that is precisely the kind of action that you seem to be advocating.
The Iowa decision is by far the most interesting in this respect because the Iowa Supreme Court has clearly stated that discriminating in the issuance of marriage licenses to heterosexual and homosexual couples is in violation of the Federal Constitution as well as of the Iowa State Constitution.
This raises the following issue. How can one state be in compliance with the Federal Constitution while others are not? As Lincoln said it: "a divided nation cannot endure."
The "equal treatment" clause of the Federal Constitution either means something or is meaningless. The Iowa Supreme Court has firmly ruled that the clause matters in this case.
There remains the question whether states can "discriminate". It has long been established that they can. In Texas you cannot get a driver license unless you are 16 years old. However states must demonstrate a cogent justification for discriminating. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the State of Iowa has not presented such a justification in the case of "gay marriage." If that Court is correct then the legality of California's Proposition 18 is void.
We need to be remain vigilant to protect the rights granted. In Iowa, the opposition has organized a rally at the state capitol and brought in people from other states to bolster their numbers to push for a constitutional amendment to outlaw the Supreme Court ruling. It's too late in the legislative session for the bill to get pushed through this year, but I'm sure they'll be hounding the legislators next year.
Yeah!!! It's nice to see the continuation of Americans playing with semantics and the law. Wouldn't it be nice if the meaning of all 'people' in the Constitution applied to everyone? Lol
Sioux Rose
Gee... if we could get those Vermont gay couples to also rally for universal health care, then we'd be onto something! Since they are passionately commited to their cause and able to organize well from the "fringes" maybe they can lead the way to other breakthroughs, ones that will mean justice and/or a higher quality of life for all citizens.
Unfortunately, in the euphoria some facts seem to be forgotten. The law has at least two deficiencies.
1...It puts the government in the bedroom. (Many in the Vt gay community campaigned against giving the rights to those, who for many reasons are unmarried and/or not in a sexual relationship.)
2...It does not give equality for all. It gives the legal advantages of marriage (estimated to be approx. 200) only to those who marry. An entire class of people has been left out.
A much better solution was possible. It is often referred to as a "Next of Kin Law". Government should be completely out of the marriage issue. Marriage is a religious/cultural/social event. The legal rights granted by the government to those who marry should be also given to those who do not marry.
The class that is lacking equality is now smaller and much less powerful...the elderly, the disabled, some living in poverty, some who have lost their spouse, some who choose to not marry...... Who will speak for them?
"Marriage is a religious/cultural/social event" - I think you got that bassackwards. It's a legal contract. The other things you mentioned are simply overhead, and completely subjective. And it's these subjective areas that the righties concentrate on, conveniently disregarding the more important legal aspect.
Exactly. The facsists just want something to make noise about while the spend our tax money (and our children and grandchildren's tax money too) on war profiteering to make sure there isn't any money for social programs. This is an empty victory. The Insurance companies will fight this tooth and nail. If you think our government in Vermont is stronger than the insurance industry, then how come a "non-profit" in Vermont called Blue Cross just paid the ceo over 6 million smackers in a retirement golden parachute after 9 years of ripping Vermonters off? You folks are being distracted. Common Dreams should NEVER take its eyes off the insurance leeches. They own Vermont and many other states as well.
"1...It puts the government in the bedroom. "
If that's true, so does heterosexual marriage, so government is already in the bedroom, so your concern is meaningless.
"2...It does not give equality for all. It gives the legal advantages of marriage (estimated to be approx. 200) only to those who marry. An entire class of people has been left out."
No, it simply expands to all people the possibility and choice of getting married to who they want.
Thanks Rosemarie, I posted that exact thought in response to a post above, but yours was more eloquent frankly. I think it the most rational idea yet.
For those interested in legal rights a civil union provides the very same rights as a marriage ceremony, whether performed by a religious authority or a civil servant.
So when is Senator Leahy going learn that lesson and not cave everytime he sees a rebublican or democrat war and torture lover making faces at him?
When is Senator Sanders going to decide that he has enough principles to filibuster war funds?
Obama wants over 80 billion more for war and we're celebrating this?
This is pathetic!
This is tiresome. Minorities are barely tolerated here in Vermont. Free expression is limited to tatoos and leather with some skin showing. Try to challenge General Dynamics machine gun manufacture and there goes your free expression. The whole marriage, dignity thing is a farce. The main issue is and always was the laws about hospital visits, custody, surviver rights for retirement income, and insurance. All of that was covered by civil unions. What the hell does marriage mean to most people anyway? Here in Vermont it has been quite common to NOT get married to get a better tax break even while they had kids. If this is a victory then we are settling for next to nothing. Try to relax zoning in Vermont so you can have farm animals where some asswhole selectboard member doesn't want to see chickens and you'll see how free this state is. Hell, in Colchester we have a blatantly unconstitutional law stating that you CANNOT vote even if you are a citizen and reside here unless you "prove" that you have an "intention" to reside here. That's the way we isolate and reject (quite subtly) "outsiders" (people who aren't white enough).
When we say we aren't a "welcoming" state, we aren't kidding. Oh, the papers go on and on about what great neighbors we are to each other but the dynamics of our phd in invisible racism and collectivism and tribalism are fascinating. The main weapon here is the silent treatment. The gays fought back and good for them but it barely scratches the surface of a very sick Vermont society. Yeah, I like cold weather. I guess that's why I don't leave.
AGG...You make important points. About General Dynamics - you are 100% right. There are many examples like that around the State. There's not much green in the Green Mountain State. Where are the wind mills? They are opposed by the fat cats who do not want the views of 'their' ridge lines spoiled.
I moved to Vermont a quarter of a century ago, but I will always be considered a flatlander. Racism is an accepted part of the culture in many places. The cronyism that infects the State's power structure is worse than anyplace I have ever seen. Try to get Justice out of the Vermont Court system - it is rare. Cronyism and money control everything. Sometimes I envy the Judicial system in New Jersey. There there is occasional bribing of judges. It is illegal to bribe and it is prosecuted when uncovered. In Vermont cronyism is a major problem. It is NOT illegal.
Please read the article I link to - important info for anyone who still believes the Vermont myth.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Frank_Dean-Sorrell-Corruption.htm
How true. And the Abenakies that are more "native Vermonter" than anyone else here continue to get the royal shaft. Here's another big secret for you. Vermonters have a lot of strong family ties with people in another state known for racism; Utah! Brigham Young started here.
After reading the article you pointed me to I just want to say that I'm aware of the continual contrived theater of equal rights that is paraded here. I watched one of Dean's police henchmen get off scot free after severely abusing his wife. I remember when a woman who asked a St. Albans judge repeatedly for a restraining order (and was always denied) was killed by her ex. The judge said his decisions were correct. No action was taken against the judge. The Burlington Free Press is an excellent example of feel good, yippee, doo daa, we're so happy and free bullshit. On the rare occasions that I read it I get the same senstion you would get from putting a cup of sugar in your mouth. What coverup artists!
Start your own publication and expose the truth? Maybe you can get things to change.
zmann...Thanks for the comment. I am working hard for real change. I have more than 100 articles on the Internet. I have been censored out of most Vt newspapers and don't have enough money to start my own publication.
Sweet, great job :-). And being censored out means you know you're doing the right thing in a corrupt system. Do you have friends or family that believe in what you're doing, and are willing to help by spreading word, gathering money and supplies to at least print short publications? It's pretty easy to turn a few pages of text on a word processor into a multi-page, double-columned folded publication. You could run it out of the public library to start with, or your own basic printer if you have one.
Yuht. Vermont is the "whitest" state in the Union - and eugenics barely over the horizon in our illustrious history. Cronyism starts in the cradle and very quickly excludes those that work the land (and have no time for politics), but includes the "big city" entrepreneurs who have "improved" our state by bringing their "big city" values upcountry, then complaining about the bone deep conservatism that doesn't trust an outsider to have the sense he was born with to manage a state based on agriculturism - cuz, duh, he's from the city - don't know about drainage, road building, heat conservation, open vs forested land, nature conservation etc etc - old issues now swallowed in the amalgamation and hybridization of what a "Vermonter" is - someone with a New York accent running the state while running the third and fourth generation Vermonters out of it, taxed into oblivion by a "view tax", cow pastures filled with condos and mcmansions, farmers viewed as eccentric "back to the landers" and "organic" - and all sense lost of what clean air, a lazy summer evening by a brook, lake or river, or being neighborly really means: Stay out of your neigbor's business unless they need your help, and do unto other's as you have them do undo you.
Its been a sad reality Vermonters who love truth will admit, rare though they are. Vermont is definitely both more and less than it touts itself. But like being an American, I'll take it cuz its the best there is right now (this from a Vermonter who lives now in Alaska and has watched politics take a distinctly right turn from the middle road we were treading gracefully for a few years there, getting rid of corruption within gov't).
"Go to where the bipartisanship is. It's the conventional wisdom. And often it's bunk."
Right. Balance and compromise make sense in matters of opinion where there are no absolute criteria. But in public policy there are absolute criteria: The public interests, and universalist ethics.
Shielding the society from the diversity of reality (e.g. homosexuality), especially to build political support against the diversity of reality, is against the public interests and universalist ethics.
The balance and compromise represented by most US public policies (fed, state, local) fail the public interests and universal ethics by setting up a host-parasite relationship between the people (host) and the elites (parasite). The balance is in the host having freedom from the parasite half time instead of full time. This is bunk. The people need full time freedom from the elites.
The progressive far left is the only sensible platform for the people, fully supporting the public interests, universalist ethic, and the diversity of reality. In contrast, the US conservative platform supports only a miniscule subset of these while the US liberal platform critically omits many public interests and most of the universalist ethic.
Bravo AGG...You mention the Abenakis. The legislature is still persecuting them. And the Blue Cross CEO's shake down of the rest of us. Also, better take a look at the salary of the CEO of your nearest hospital...and the salaries of the college presidents...... What happened to the Peace movement up here? All I hear is a lot of silence when it comes to the war. And why does Vermont have no Investigative journalists? Oh well, soon we won't even have any newspapers.
Did I ever tell you about my friend who lives near here. She had a toothache and actually went to Costa Rica to find a good dentist that was accepting new patients. She had a lot of dental work done in Costa Rica at one fifth the cost...
On the bright side...we now have a clinic for poor people with no insurance. It is open 3 hours a week on Thursday night. Still no hope for eye or dental care.
The homeless are persecuted. At a recent Select Board meeting, there were complaints because a homeless man walked down the street with a backpack on his back......
And then there's the economy that is so bad that they had to change the title of the song to "Moonlighting in Vermont"........
Thank you. I just read about your deposition problems. I'm a retired air traffic controller and I've managed to avoid some of the problems you have had because I'm more cynical. When I moved here over a decade ago I asked myself what the dynamics (or lack of them) were here that kept change from occuring here. After some study I came to two answers:
1) They push their progressive youth out of the state to only return when they're retired.
2) They keep a huge low income, poorly educated, fiercly provincial group of people as happy is possible by lying to them about what great people they are.
The elite control (and are partly related to) the latter group. The former group are allowed to make some harmless noise now and then for appearances. I live in peace only because I'm on a hyper-alert footing every time I leave the house for a "set up" of some kind.
I have no illusions. They'll kill you before change is allowed here.
I wish you well and I'll read your articles but I don't share your faith in our democracy.
AGG...I like your cynicism and share it. It is refreshing to meet someone who is as cynical as I have become. About my "faith in democracy" - I don't really have much. I have often written that it would make more sence to select our president by a random drawing of names from the phone book. And I can often be heard saying that a benevolent monarchy might be better than what we have.
AGG and anyone else who will ever be in Vermont MUST read this one. Let me know what you think.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski01252006/
Sorry that link might not work.
Please google rosemarie jackowski The Deposition
Interesting. Having read the article and the comments, all I can say is there really are no real differences between red and blue states. Both write off the most important issues such as the economy and healthcare and only differ on the social issues. I can now see that the chances of VT passing single payer for the state are the same as MO passing single payer for the state. :(
P.S.: I've noticed in my state that every time same sex couples are attacked, more singles feel the pinch that they too will be equally persecuted just because they didn't marry. So what if some of us can't find love or we simply choose not to marry? That doesn't make us gay or lesbian.
Common Law has been the 'normal' means of marriage for thousands of years. It was only during the Middle Ages and on that 'contract' marriages became necessary - for strictly political purposes. That's why so many European men of the ruling class have 'mistresses' - their REAL wives (at least it started out that way.) It is still common today in parts of the world for parents to 'arrange' marriages for political purposes - that's where the 'dowry' comes in, which has replaced the real estate once connected to ruling families. It's also why women often 'wear their wealth' - diamonds, gold, etc - so they can transfer wealth to their female heirs (that's still practices in my family, and many others as well.)
The big bruhaha about the 'sanctity of marriage' is a recent issue. Like the idea of priests being celibate, it is all about politics, power, and inheritance. Marriage has no business in the government of a modern State (be it a regional 'state' or a nation) because we're not supposed to 'rule' in that manner in a democracy - or a republic. Women are no longer property, and families find other ways to mend fences or join forces - the reason for the 'contract' is no longer applicable, or even valid for its original intended purpose - it's time to drop the farce. Benefits should be available to anyone who is entitled to claim them per permission given by the grantor. Anyone can be a beneficiary - we need to straighten out that legal mess, not continue beating a dead horse. Getting modern 'marriage' out of the courts is the only way to end this idiotic circular debate. A child supporting an aging parent should have the same rights as a married couple - contracts are supposed to be between agreeing parties, and those parties aren't supposed to be chosen arbitrarily by the State. That's nonsense. And legal contracts require time limits - how do you reconcile that little oddity?
Marriage is a social/cultural choice - an option, like having birthday parties, or funerals, or family reunions. Special benefits for a small margin of people classified as 'heterosexual pairs' is hardly fitting in this day and age. They are the minority - especially in those 'developing countries' where much of the population is under 21. (Often, divorce is more popular within those groups who scream the loudest for special treatment for their definition of 'marriage' and/or family... think about that - and the ratio of dysfunctional relationships these people spawn.
We need to stick to a core group of eligible 'dependents' and get rid of this 'spouse' nonsense completely. There is no reason to give special benefits to a particular group that probably already has good tax breaks while denying those who are unfairly burdened (such as women heads-of-households caring for an aging parent). Marriage is a hobby - let's all grow up and treat it as such.
Very thought provoking! Thanks!
Excellent!. I wish everyone gave as much thought to the whys and wherefores of our society as you do. I am grateful to you.
I have visited Vermont a couple of years ago. I had a good time there. Vermont is a very pretty state. Lush green hills all over the place would be what I describe the parts of Vermont that I have visited. The state looked green to me. You know? Well...while in Vermont, I had the privilege of visiting the Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory also. It was there that I discovered that Vermont was the only state that George W. Bush did not visit while he was President. Dubya must not have liked those who lived in Vermont.
Anyways, I wanted to thank the Vermont State Legisture for overriding their Governor's veto on the legalization of same-sex marriage in their state. I am sure this took tremendous courage for you all to do and I sincerely thank you very much for doing so. You have made many people very happy but disappointed others. The bottom line was that you all did the RIGHT thing. You made a FAIR and a JUST decision also. Thanks.
I think it is fair to say that all people who are against gay marrage should not be forced to marry a member of their own sex. See now you can relax, nothing to worry about.