Same-sex Marriage Opposition Appears In Vermont | Lez Get Real

Mar 15, 2009 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

There is a grassroots effort underway to put the issue of same-sex marriage to the voters of Vermont in the same manner that this issue was placed before the voters of California. The reason for this is quite simple, in all likelihood. Whether or not they will ever want to admit it, groups like Take It To The People want to have the time to bring in the big guns. They want their minority of thirty-five to have the resources of the evangelicals behind them while they fight this battle. That is right, according to the latest data provided by Freedom To Marry and gathered by Marco Polling, only thirty-five percent of Vermonters oppose same-sex marriage strongly enough to express that opinion. Another four percent are lukewarm in their opposition. To put this into perspective, support for same-sex marriage in Vermont is listed as forty-five percent for strong support, and thirteen for leaning towards supporting it. Together, those numbers are thirty-nine against and fifty-eight for. These poll numbers date back to January of 2009. In order to find poll numbers which support the opposition to same-sex marriage, one has to go back to 2000, where those numbers were largely reversed.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of601
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 15, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Well if the numbers are what they say they are, that pretty much means that Vermont will vote for same sex marriage, and we wont have another idiotic ordeal that California is going through.

Since: Jun 08

Redlands, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 15, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

whitefalcon1678 wrote:
Well if the numbers are what they say they are, that pretty much means that Vermont will vote for same sex marriage, and we wont have another idiotic ordeal that California is going through.
omg, when will this end..(putting a ban to same sex marriages in the states' constitution..

they neeed to be beaten down soon..

“Full Equality. Nothing Less.”

Since: Mar 09

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 15, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The opposition is to be expected. The anti-gay hate lobby has infected all parts of the country. What the LGBT community needs to do is to STRONGLY counter the lies and myths spread by the anti-gay hate lobby and call them out DAILY on their support the institutionalization of hate and discrimination. Also, there needs to be more work done to foster a gay-straight alliance as some of the best advocates for gay people are straight people who believe in equality and justice.

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Id they are going to let people vote on the RIGHTS of other people, then let them also vote on the RIGHTS of blacks, jews, muslims, the handicapped, and other minorities.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Some moron in Vermont actually tried to argue that this issue should be sent back to the courts to be settled. I can't find the article to provide a link, but it was just hilarious. I always wondered what the anti-gay strategy would be when we got to the point of actually passing marriage equality legislatively, but I wasn't expecting that! Of course somebody pointed out to him that it was the courts that sent it to the legislature to be fixed in the first place.

At least the Mormons don't seem to have any influence in Vermont, and Focus on the Family seems to be running out of money; at least something positive came from the California loss.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Jabez wrote:
As with every other time the issue has appeared to voters, Vermonters will reject the concocted nonsense of homosexual 'marriage,' just has homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows it.
Vermont does not allow for anything other than a Constitutional Amendment to go before the voters. The latest numbers put the support in a solid way, so this is over.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
At least the Mormons don't seem to have any influence in Vermont, and Focus on the Family seems to be running out of money; at least something positive came from the California loss.
It is ironic that Mormonism was born in Vermont, but it is such a small proportion of the state's religious population. Vermont has the largest population of non-religious people in the country.

“A Proud Gay Parent”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Vermont does not allow for anything other than a Constitutional Amendment to go before the voters. The latest numbers put the support in a solid way, so this is over.
I wish I held that same optimism, but I recall when Prop 8 was first brought up, everybody thought it would be easily defeated.
The right wingers want us to feel like we are in the winning spot - because then people become complacent. The people of Vermont need to fight this battle head-on with full force instead of waiting to hold a defensive stance, which is what happened in CA.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Craig in OKC wrote:
<quoted text> I wish I held that same optimism, but I recall when Prop 8 was first brought up, everybody thought it would be easily defeated.
The right wingers want us to feel like we are in the winning spot - because then people become complacent. The people of Vermont need to fight this battle head-on with full force instead of waiting to hold a defensive stance, which is what happened in CA.
Craig,

This isn't California. They can't create a petition to demand a Constitutional Amendment. They can ask the legislature to put this before the voter, but nothing more. If the legislature does not agree to put it on the ballot, it does not go on the ballot. If the legislature does not create an amendment, it does not go on the ballot.

These guys have to hope that the legislature listens to them. That is unlikely.

“A Proud Gay Parent”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 16, 2009
 
Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig,
This isn't California. They can't create a petition to demand a Constitutional Amendment. They can ask the legislature to put this before the voter, but nothing more. If the legislature does not agree to put it on the ballot, it does not go on the ballot. If the legislature does not create an amendment, it does not go on the ballot.
These guys have to hope that the legislature listens to them. That is unlikely.
My point is - regardless of the method it takes - is complacency is usually what defeats us. If the people of Vermont think it's "unlikely" to happen, and therefore don't feel the need to do anything against it, it increases the likelihood that it will happen.
If 500 people petition the legislature to put it on the ballot and only 5 speak out against - who do you think the legislature would listen to?
I'm only suggesting to not let the apperance of an easy win lead to a disheartening defeat. In that way, Vermont COULD be like California.
Will

Baltimore, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig,
This isn't California. They can't create a petition to demand a Constitutional Amendment. They can ask the legislature to put this before the voter, but nothing more. If the legislature does not agree to put it on the ballot, it does not go on the ballot. If the legislature does not create an amendment, it does not go on the ballot.
These guys have to hope that the legislature listens to them. That is unlikely.
What you overlook is that there is an existing FEDERAL constitutional and statutory RIGHT to marriage.

A fundamental change in that FEDERAL right is an INFRINGEMENT of that federal right. The people of the state have a right to be directly heard on such a matter of great public policy that changes the common understanding of the definition of marriage.

Under federal law, any state action, whether by the state legislature, by the state executive or by the state court, which infringes a fundamental federal right of the people must be justified by a COMPELLING state interest AND must be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE means of achieving that compelling state interest.

The state legislature does not have a sufficiently compelling state interest in denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage.

Nor is denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage the least restrictive alternative.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 16, 2009
 
Theo wrote:
<quoted text>Mormonism was founded in New York. There are about 75,000 Mormons in New York. Learn some American history to find out why there is such a large concentration of Mormons in the American West. Of large denominations in the USA, it is now the fourth largest and it is also the fastest growing.
Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, VT. His family moved to NY while he was young, and the First Vision occurred in NY state. So you're right that Mormonism wasn't born in VT, but its founder was!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Will wrote:
<quoted text>
What you overlook is that there is an existing FEDERAL constitutional and statutory RIGHT to marriage.
A fundamental change in that FEDERAL right is an INFRINGEMENT of that federal right. The people of the state have a right to be directly heard on such a matter of great public policy that changes the common understanding of the definition of marriage.
Under federal law, any state action, whether by the state legislature, by the state executive or by the state court, which infringes a fundamental federal right of the people must be justified by a COMPELLING state interest AND must be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE means of achieving that compelling state interest.
The state legislature does not have a sufficiently compelling state interest in denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage.
Nor is denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage the least restrictive alternative.
Will, you're making less sense than normal. If the legislature enacts marriage equality, is that thwarting the will of the people? Is declining to put every cockamamie idea someone has on the ballot against the Federal Constitution?

Did anyone ever teach you that we live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 16, 2009
 
Craig in OKC wrote:
<quoted text> My point is - regardless of the method it takes - is complacency is usually what defeats us. If the people of Vermont think it's "unlikely" to happen, and therefore don't feel the need to do anything against it, it increases the likelihood that it will happen.
If 500 people petition the legislature to put it on the ballot and only 5 speak out against - who do you think the legislature would listen to?
I'm only suggesting to not let the apperance of an easy win lead to a disheartening defeat. In that way, Vermont COULD be like California.
Of course, you are right. I blame complacency early in the Prop 8 fight for the loss in CA. But I don't think the mood of our community is complacent at the moment. If anything, the anti-equality people have been MIA.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jabez wrote:
As with every other time the issue has appeared to voters, Vermonters will reject the concocted nonsense of homosexual 'marriage,' just has homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows it.
It is tragic that radical homosexuals waste millions on the hate based campaign to disenfranchise Americans on this issue, instead of dealing with real issues like the growing tragedy of HIV/AIDS. It remains a majority homosexual disease in America.
Well, Will from Pekin, you need to land on earth and look around now and then. First, this matter isn't going to the Vermont ballot. The legislature is going to enact marriage equality through Vermont's constitutional process. Second, the numbers don't bear out your theory.

What you fail to acknowledge is that time is on the side of equality. Time and again throughout history, people have been afraid of change, even if the only effect of change was greater freedom, equality, happiness, and opportunity. Vermonters--as Massachusetts citizens--have had enough time to adjust to the change, and they realize it is good.

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. That's why the anti-equality folks are fighting so hard with their last gasp of air.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

Craig in OKC wrote:
<quoted text> My point is - regardless of the method it takes - is complacency is usually what defeats us. If the people of Vermont think it's "unlikely" to happen, and therefore don't feel the need to do anything against it, it increases the likelihood that it will happen.
If 500 people petition the legislature to put it on the ballot and only 5 speak out against - who do you think the legislature would listen to?
I'm only suggesting to not let the apperance of an easy win lead to a disheartening defeat. In that way, Vermont COULD be like California.
Craig,

My point is that the legislature does not have to listen to the opposition. In fact, this is being done based upon a series of meetings from last year in which they went around the state and asked everyone what they thought. The opposition to same-sex marriage did not turn up, or turned up in such small numbers that it made up the legislature's minds to pass this. This is not just on polling numbers, but is on research the Legislature did.

Add to that, the legislature's first day of debate over this had more than 400 supporters show up, while the opposition had, around, zero.

There is a lot of difference between Vermont and California. Vermont's legislature actually has to go home and talk to those they represent. Heck, I have met my state rep several times already. They are not going to cave in to a vocal minority.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Will wrote:
<quoted text>
What you overlook is that there is an existing FEDERAL constitutional and statutory RIGHT to marriage.
A fundamental change in that FEDERAL right is an INFRINGEMENT of that federal right. The people of the state have a right to be directly heard on such a matter of great public policy that changes the common understanding of the definition of marriage.
Under federal law, any state action, whether by the state legislature, by the state executive or by the state court, which infringes a fundamental federal right of the people must be justified by a COMPELLING state interest AND must be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE means of achieving that compelling state interest.
The state legislature does not have a sufficiently compelling state interest in denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage.
Nor is denying the people a direct voice on the fundamental public policy change of the definition of marriage the least restrictive alternative.
You know, I'm not sure there was a point to what you just said. I read it a few times and couldn't make heads nor tails out of it.

Vermonters do not have anything which allows them to put on the state wide ballots any laws or amendments. The Vermont legislature can be petitioned to put something on the ballot, but they are not required to put it on the ballot.

This differs from state to state. And, since you bring it up, actually, what I could glean from what you wrote, is incorrect. After all, in the 1970's, the courts changed the definition of marriage. They allowed a white person and a black person to marry.

Several states had already done that via their legislatures as well. It did not go to a vote before the people either.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, VT. His family moved to NY while he was young, and the First Vision occurred in NY state. So you're right that Mormonism wasn't born in VT, but its founder was!
Ok, so shoot me for not know that. I've hardly studied Mormon history. I just know that Smith was born here in Vermont.

Sorry, I actually have very little interest in American history despite being thrust into studying it all the bloody time. I actually prefer studying pre-historic cultures.
Will

Baltimore, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Mar 16, 2009
 
Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig,
My point is that the legislature does not have to listen to the opposition. In fact, this is being done based upon a series of meetings from last year in which they went around the state and asked everyone what they thought. The opposition to same-sex marriage did not turn up, or turned up in such small numbers that it made up the legislature's minds to pass this. This is not just on polling numbers, but is on research the Legislature did.
Add to that, the legislature's first day of debate over this had more than 400 supporters show up, while the opposition had, around, zero.
There is a lot of difference between Vermont and California. Vermont's legislature actually has to go home and talk to those they represent. Heck, I have met my state rep several times already. They are not going to cave in to a vocal minority.
And MY point is that a federal court may have something to say if a federal right is implicated even by a matter of supposedly exclusive state law, because even state law cannot violate federal rights.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Mar 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rex wrote:
<quoted text>Your racism is apalling. There is no logical connection between the choice of defining your life by engaging in unspeakable acts and the fact of being born an African American.
And that has to be the lamest counter argument I have ever heard. Really.

Marriage was defined, BY LAW, as being between only people of the same race. In some states, that definition was torn down long before Loving v. Virginia in 1967. In Virginia, that law was the Racial Integrity Act. That Act made it a felony for a white person to marry a non-white person.

I mean, really, "ooo you're a racist because you made a comparison about how marriage was redefined in 1967!" Come on, at least give a better argument than that.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of601
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••