They're Making Sense Up There

Why it was just last Friday, way up yonder, 'round Vermont way, that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill extending marriage to same-sex couples--it was a 5-0 vote.

Now, there was lotsa testimony happenin' up there, from parents to religious leaders to civil rights advocates and even a few psychologists, about whether or not the great state of Vermont should become the third state in the good old US of A to allow same-sex couple full equality as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Beth Robinson, the attorney who successfully argued the court case that led to the civil union law, said Friday’s vote was the next step in the struggle for LGBT equality that started some fifteen years ago. "I don’t want to assume this is a done deal. We have a lot more education to do,” she said.

Indeed. There are several lawmakers who have declined to say how they would vote regarding equality, because it is a tough decision.....not. One such fool, Repugnant Senator Kevin Mullin, who sponsored an amendment Friday that would have instead placed the same-sex marriage question before the state’s voters--one of the requests of several groups opposed to same-sex marriage.

“I believe our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Vermont would find much greater comfort to know that their friends, neighbors and families also agree that allowing same-sex couples to marry is a good idea,” Mullin said, in pushing for the amendment.

Which is another way of saying, Don't make me vote, because I may want to run for higher office one day and I'll need the Repugnant base with me.

Democratic Senator Richard Sears disagrees with using ballot referendums to gauge public reaction. Allowing for a town meeting vote would set up a major public relations battle--including an influx of out-of-state money...Mormon Church, anyone--akin to what happened in California with Prop H8. “It’s a slippery slope,” Sears said. “What’s the next step? Public referendums on gun laws?”

The Mullin's amendment failed Friday morning with Mullin as the only committee member supporting it. But committee members did make some slight changes to the same-sex marriage bill.

The original bill reaffirmed the Constitutional right of churches to refuse to marry people if it disagrees with their faith, but clergy and conservative religious leaders were worried that the provision was actually an attempt to force religious communities to perform same-sex marriages. Several religious leaders worried that their churches would be sued for not solemnizing same-sex marriages. The altered language --also approved by a 5-0 vote--makes it clear that churches could not be sued in civil court.

I think people need to realize that gay couples who choose to be married are less concerned with whether a church will sanctify their marriage than the idea that the government would recognize it.