Vermont is for all sorts of lovers
Carla Axtman
(Headline blatantly and shamelessly stolen from Henry Kraemer's Facebook status)
First Iowa's Supreme Court throws down against the scourge of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Today, Vermont's legislature legalized gay marriage.
And yeah, Oregon still sucks on this.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 7, '09
If Oregonians and Vermont residents would compare policies, and only do what the more progressive of the two would, you'd have a righteous set of laws. We both get it right on some things, some of the time. Between us we get it right on almost everything, all the time. This is a good example.
Yeah, Oregon sucks on this, but Portland leads! Tried, at least.
10:28 a.m.
Apr 7, '09
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always. " - Gandhi
We'll get there.
Apr 7, '09
DH:
That quote brings tears.
Thanks.
12:35 p.m.
Apr 7, '09
The other day Nate Silver came up with a model predicting when each state would vote against a ban on gay marriage. Oregon is one of 11 states that would vote against a ban this year. I think it's time we put that to a test.
Apr 7, '09
I definitely think a bm repealing 36 is on the way for the near future. I would put my bet on seeing it in 2012. There isn't enough time to get the funds and huge amount of groundwork done for 2010. If Prop 8 in CA was indication the campaign here is going to face a huge amount of money from out of state oposition although that could work to our advantage. In both Iowa and Vermont not wanting non-residents deciding law in their states has been part of the reason why the leadership in both states have rejected sending either issue to the ballot and for the most part folks seem to have been agreeing with that reasoning. (If your a batshit crazy conservative it won't matter if aliens from Neptune want to finance the campaign, as long as they hate queers) People have seen what a clusterf**k the FRC, AFA, and LDS turned the Prop 8 campaign into and they want nothing to do with it.
Apr 7, '09
If that's true, we've got to directly confront Catholic, Mormon and other Christian friends and acquaintances who STILL financially support successful organized church efforts to deny basic civil rights to gay and lesbian families in Oregon, and elsewhere...
REMEMBER: The Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, while hemorrhaging millions to settle claims for abuse, used parishioner contributions from Holy Names, St. Andrews, Holy Family, and other purportedly "progressive" congregations to selectively diminish my family's legal rights in Oregon. The Catholics in Portland were the NUMBER ONE financial supporters of the shameful, and successful, "Yes on 36" campaign.
The Albina Ministerial Alliance, and the wacky Mormons, weren't far behind. Once again, the American promise of equality for all was thwarted by religious prejudice. For a different outcome, we'll need to confront that prejudice head on.
For one thing, religious arguments against gays and lesbians are baseless and ridiculous ("my ethereal invisible deity, whom I cannot produce, um, well, doesn't like you. Oh, and he makes me wear this special underwear. It says so right here in 'Battlefield Earth!'")
Yet in Oregon, these batcrap crazy Catholic, Mormon and Christian prejudices are actually written into our state constitution, now amended to selectively deny basic civil rights, after a campaign paid for with money dropped into the collection plates at St. Andrews, the Mount Olivet Baptist Church, etc...
Vermont (notably home to fewer Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals) rocks.
Apr 7, '09
I hope the homosexual tyrants fail for using government and the judicial system to impose homosexuality on our communities. Iowans surely did not want homosexual marriage in their state and Vermont probably didn't either. Our leaders have become tyrants imposing the homosexual view and homosexual marriage (really this is not marriage) on our communities. This is in opposition to the majority of the people and in opposition to the proper functioning of government and our constitution. Why not bring it up for the people to vote in Vermont, rather than rush it through the legislature without allowing the people to voice their opinions and cast ballots. This is a travesty of justice and a violation of our constitution. I think the next step will be taking away religious freedom and forcing churches to accept homosexuality against their religions. This could start a religious war. Is this really what homosexuals want a complete destruction of society and an evolution of a religious war to maintain our God given right of religious freedom? It looks like that is what homosexuals want they should be more tolerant and stop forcing their views through the corrupt courts and allow the people to decide these issues. A religious war and the collapse of America is probably only one federal law away.
Apr 7, '09
I don't see how homosexuality is being 'forced' on anybody. If you don't want to have a gay mariage then don't. Anyway, f your stupid religion. Hopefully religion will fade out eventually due to its irrationality. I'd rather have homosex forced on me than religion any day...
Apr 7, '09
There isn't enough time to get the funds and huge amount of groundwork done for 2010.
Eighteen months? Seems like more than enough time to me. We need to get enough signatures to put repeal on the ballot -- and unlike a lot of other ballot measures, there won't be any need to worry about whether we get the language right, since it's just a repeal. The active campaign itself will last about three months, which gives almost a year to plug into existing grassroots mobilization and fundraising efforts. Seriously ... you want to raise funds? Go to ActBlue.com. Want good persuasive ads? Look at what's already out there, and solicit people to create their own ads to be posted on YouTube. Turn the most persuasive ones into media buys.
But really, if Nate Silver is right, there's not a whole lot of persuasion needed here. The on-going shift in attitude is a demographic thing, driven (I suspect) by the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers dying off, and more Millennials joining the voting rolls. Get out there with the Bus Project and start registering 18-20 year old voters, and get them to return their ballots by election day. That's where victory will come from.
I don't buy the "not enough time" argument. The question is: does someone out there care enough to file a repeal measure and organize a group of volunteers to circulate petitions? Worst case scenario, we lose by a narrow margin (52-48 or 51-49), and come back one or two elections later to win.
12:07 a.m.
Apr 8, '09
This is in opposition to the majority of the people and in opposition to the proper functioning of government and our constitution. Why not bring it up for the people to vote in Vermont, rather than rush it through the legislature without allowing the people to voice their opinions and cast ballots.
You and everyone else who complains at once about gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont are total hypocrites. The Iowa supreme court ruled that the law passed by the state legislature banning gay marriage was unconstitutional and therefore void. It's called checks and balances, and it's the exact same system that ensures you will always have freedom of religion. If the Iowa supreme court were to have struck down a law abridging freedom of religion, you would rightfully be praising them. Yet when they do the exact same thing and ensure the legislature does not pass laws in conflict with the constitution, you whine and complain because it's inconvenient to you.
So first you complain that judges overruled the supposed will of the people. But then, when the Vermont state legislature, which represents the will of the people, passes gay marriage, you complain about that too. You see, we live in this thing called a representative democracy. We don't all get to vote on every single issue facing our state or country, instead we vote for people to represent us. The Vermont state legislature did exactly that, and it's especially notable that they did it by a 2/3 supermajority. It couldn't be referred to voters because Vermont doesn't have an initiative and referendum system.
Now I know that you're personally not going to understand all of this because you're clearly bats*** insane. But the point remains that you can't complain about the Iowa supreme court upholding constitutional rights and then panic about freedom of religion, and you can't complain about the will of the people being ignored in Iowa, and then whine when the Vermont legislature, which represents the people, passes gay marriage.
I look forward to a future when people look back on individuals such as yourself and question how anyone could have ever been so backwards. All of the evidence shows that it's simply a matter of time.
Apr 8, '09
I like this car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKNl8iZLUec
Apr 8, '09
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Apr 9, '09
Posted by: StephanAndrewBrodheadForCongress | Apr 8, 2009 1:39:51 AM
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Oh, tell us what marriage is.
Marriage: 1. A social pathology, a measurable addiction. 2. A popular fraud. 3. The societal recognition of a breeding couple's right to procreate. 4. The only reason the conservative base still listens to conservatives. 5. The legal repository of estate rights and property. 6. The rationale for 60% of social security benefits being paid to the non-earner. 7. Least practiced, per capita relative to major US cities, in Portland, Oregon. 8. An archaic system of social meaning, revived by GLBT interests in being recognized as "married".
<hr/>