They Wanna Do It In Minnesota And Vermont

The next round in the battle over same-sex marriage in Minnesota officially began on Thursday when a bill that would define marriage as a civil contract between "two persons," rather than a man and a woman, was introduced in the state Senate.

The bill would strike language from state law that specifically prohibits marriage by persons of the same sex, along with language that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages from another state or country.

So, "two persons" might one day be able to get married in Minnesota, and "two persons" married in another state would be welcomed.

However, debate over the bill is likely to be fierce--fierce....isn't that one of those gay words?

For the past couple of years, gay marriage opponents--or H8ers--proposed bills to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would have decreed marriage is a union of one man and one woman, but those bills didn't get out of the Legislature.

And, in a blatant attempt to make the bill palatable for those who hate, the new bill states that nothing in it "mean[s] the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle," or allows it to be promoted as such in the state's public schools.

Condone it? We don't need to be condoned, we need to be treated equally. And then they trot out the old "lifestyle" remark. God, does that get old. Finally, for good measure, they make sure that the gays aren't gonna be teachin' that queer stuff in the stuff, you know, readin', writin,' butt sex.

Meanwhile, up in Vermont.......

Democratic legislative leaders are planning to pass same-sex marriage legislation this session.

Yes. This session. House Speaker Shap Smith and Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin said the bill will be among their priorities when the Legislature reconvenes. "It’s become clear we can and should work to pass a bill promoting the equal right to marry this year,” Shumlin said, laying out a schedule that will fast track the bill through the Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will start taking testimony March 16 and will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m., March 18, he said. The committee is expected to send the bill to the full Senate by March 20.

Shumlin and Smith expressed confidence that the bill would pass their chambers, but the Reverend Craig Benson of Cambridge, president of Take it to the People, which opposes same-sex marriage, will be among those leading opposition to the bill. He said he doesn’t think legislators have enough votes to override a possible gubernatorial veto in the House and that the move to take up the bill is simply to show supporters that they tried.

Hey Rev? At least their trying. You're spending your time spreading hate.

Vermont Governor, Jim Douglas, opposes same-sex marriage legislation, but won’t say whether he’d veto a bill until after it comes out of the Legislature. He's against gay marriage but doesn't know if he'd veto the bill? Is he taking lessons in doublespeak from RNC Chairman Michael Steele?

Then again, he might be concerned that in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 23-7 majority, an override of his veto would be likely, although in the House the veto override might be tougher. Smith said he hadn’t counted votes to see if he had the two-thirds majority needed for an override. “I would hope and would expect we don’t need one,” he said.

Nine years ago, when Vermont passed the first-in-the-nation civil unions law, the debate was heated, and Democrats lost control of the House amid voter backlash; many don’t want to repeat that scenario.

“We know that this issue can be one that unifies us or divides us,” Shumlin said.

Rob Roper, chairman of the Vermont Repugnant Party, said legislators should not be bringing up such a divisive issue when tough economic times call for unity. “They’ve got too many serious things they need to come together over,” he said. Fellow Repugnant Linda Myers said she leans against the bill, acknowledging that it’s an issue that makes many legislators uncomfortable.

But votes for same-sex marriage don’t fall entirely down party lines.

House Republican Leader Patti Komline of Dorset said she’d vote for the bill, while some Democrats are expected to vote against it.

Oddly enough, this new bill, which would allow same-sex couples to begin marrying on September 1, also raises.....raises.....the legal age for anyone to marry from 14 to 16.

So, let me get this queer, in Vermont, no one thought it strange that a fourteen-year-old could get married, but they don't like the idea of the gay folks doin' it?

Craziness!

Shumlin said he thought creating civil unions was the right thing to do in 2000 because he didn’t think Vermont was ready for same-sex marriage. “In the years since then, the world has changed dramatically,” he said, referring to same-sex marriage laws in Canada, Massachusetts and Connecticut. “We’re no longer leaders, we’re followers.”

But you are following, Vermont. And that's a good thing.