Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Vermont has legalized gay marriage and it didn't take a court ruling to do it. The state legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor it, enough to override the veto of Governor Jim Douglas.
Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Now, of course, all marriages between heterosexuals in that state will become meaningless, parents will stop raising their children and men will begin marrying box turtles.
Politics
Comments
Goddammit, I don't want to marry a box turtle. I was holding out for a Galapagos tortoise.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | April 8, 2009 9:16 AM
Great. Where do I find a box turtle? Are there matchmaker services for that?
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 8, 2009 9:34 AM
So, since they can't blame this one on activist judges, and the vote was so overwhelming, how are the rightwingotards going to spin this one as not being the will of the people?
Inquiring minds and all that.
Posted by: FastLane | April 8, 2009 9:42 AM
Goddamn activist legislators! The courts should do something about it.
Posted by: Taz | April 8, 2009 9:46 AM
The talking point seems to be "wealthy gay activists poured money into the pockets of legislators who are disproportionately influenced by over-educated, special-interest elitists who throw nice cocktail parties". Or at least that's pretty much the tactic that the Family Research Council is embracing. Only a direct referendum really would establish a "will of the people" vote in their eyes - and if they still lost in that situation, I'm sure we'd see some new rationalization to follow.
Posted by: Alex | April 8, 2009 10:03 AM
"Goddammit, I don't want to marry a box turtle. I was holding out for a Galapagos tortoise."
So you're into MILFs, I take it.
Posted by: steve s | April 8, 2009 10:06 AM
I thought that box turtles were an endangered, or at least protected, species.
Posted by: Engr Tony | April 8, 2009 10:09 AM
Alex:
Well, I've been looking at the demographic data and Vermont's been going downhill, GODwise (like a Mad River skier) since 1990. In 1990 the state was 84% christian (although nearly 43% of those were adherents of the "Whore of Babylon" RC). In 2008 that 84% had been reduced to 55%. Holy schnikey, the christians aren't fucking enough! They're being outbred by the satanspawn GAY! Well, either that, or, since Vermont was never a "Slave State" there can't be any True Christians there.
Posted by: democommie | April 8, 2009 10:17 AM
That's the great thing about being bi, box turtle or Galapagos tortoise it's all good either way.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 8, 2009 10:17 AM
Hmmm, now the question is, if two men (or women) get married in Vermont, what happens when they move to a right-wing state that denies their rights? They could get away with it when it was a "civil union" based mostly on hair-splitting, but when it's a flat out marriage that they're refusing to recognize...?
Any odds on a Supreme Court case within 5 years?
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2009 10:32 AM
@dogmeatib
I'd bet for a Supreme Court case, yes.
Specifically, someone is going to get married in Vermont and move somewhere else. The new state of residence will declare the marriage invalid under the Defense of Marriage Act passed back in 1996 (which stated that states were not required to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states), and the couple will sue.
My hope? It gets to the Supreme Court and they strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. It's in pretty clear violation of the whole "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Act IV of the Constitution. Even those opposed to gay marriage need to realize that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State" means you can't throw out a contract from another state just because your religion says it's a sin.
Posted by: Patrick | April 8, 2009 10:42 AM
The next step (and from lawyers I've talked to, it'll be a long time) will be when someone in a dark-red state tries to invoke Loving v. Virginia.
The "long time" is because although Loving is totally on-point and totally unambiguous, courts are far more results-driven than they would like us to believe. The current USSC is not one that anyone wanting national recognition for Vermont marriages would risk.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 8, 2009 10:48 AM
Patrick,
Pretty much my take on things, my only concern is the composition of the court...
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 8, 2009 10:51 AM
Nice to see some here are willing think outside of the box(turtle) - :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 8, 2009 11:28 AM
But why shouldn't Congress
a) overrule DOMA
b) declare the definition of marriage should be left to the states (except -- as in Loving -- where SCOTUS has declared certain regulation Unconstitutional)
AND c) pass a law declaring explicitly that the 'full faith and credence' clause applies to state marriage definitions?
This would mean that a State could refuse to marry a gay couple, but if they were married in another state and moved -- or visited -- that state, they would have to receive any benefits available to any married couple.
(The only question that would arise would be whether a state could forbid a resident of that state from 'contracting a marriage in another state that would be illegal in their state of residence.' I would even allow such a provision -- it wouldn't last long.)
Then, in about 2014, when SCOTUS (with new members) applied Loving to same sex marriage, it wouldn't even get a headline.
(Seriously, I have beren proposing this for some time, but there are enough lawyers and 'legal junkies' here that if there would be a problem with this approach they can tell me. I know that, a few decades ago, the states had wildly different rules for marriage and divorce -- to the point where Craig Rice, the detective story writer, had been, in several states, divorced more often than she'd been married. But over time, the states' regulations have grown less diverse, and, except for gay marriage I know of no area where this would be controversial. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | April 8, 2009 11:44 AM
Someone in this forum brought up a great point yesterday (sorry I don't recall who or have their link), and that was that the RR likes their activist judges argument so much the couldn't help but keep it up in spite of the Vermont example. I agreed with that notion and went searchin' . . .
Surprise, those brilliant wits at the National Review Online did not let us down:
I admit the NRO drives me batty given their refusal to allow comments in such dishonest diatribes. I'd like to diatribe them right back.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 8, 2009 12:00 PM
As long as the box turtle consents.
Posted by: AL | April 8, 2009 1:01 PM
Hey Ed, nice post. Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage
Posted by: Vince | April 8, 2009 1:07 PM
Emphasis added.
Saying this vote is overwhelming is a bit misleading. This was a legislative act to override a veto, which required a 2/3 majority. As the papers here in Vermont are reporting it, the measure passed "by just 1 vote."
Don't get me wrong. I believe that Vermont has taken an important step toward national legalization and acceptance of gay marriage, which is the way of things to come. However trying to spin a victory by 1 vote as an "overwhelming" victory is misleading.
The battle for same-sex marriage is not over, nor have the tides even turned. There is still a long way to go. This is only one successful step in a long journey.
Posted by: Paul | April 8, 2009 1:25 PM
The tides are turning, Paul! They are getting close. People say that this may be what finally pushes things over the edge, and that slowly we'll start to see other states turn around. I choose to believe that. :)
Posted by: marilove | April 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Paul:
I don't think it's spinning to call it overwhelming. The whole point of the 2/3 veto override rule is so that the legislature can pass legislation over one person's denial (the governor's), when the support is overwhelming.
If the governor was on board, the legislature would have merely needed 'yes' votes in the high seventies. Instead, for every legislator against, you could find two for, and still have two left over.
The best part of this? The bill passed a few votes short of a veto-proof majority, but when it got vetoed, enough legislators switched to override.
The tide is turning from where I stand, but that's no reason to take the foot off the gas. Vermont and Iowa this week, with DC voting to recognize same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. But that's still 46 to go.
Posted by: chancelikely | April 8, 2009 1:48 PM
What a great week its been for gay rights!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 8, 2009 1:59 PM
@Fastlane
The guys over at rightwingwatch have been tracking it, and there are some still blaming it on judicial activists, while others are using the homosexual wealthy elite, overriding the will of the people, etc approach.
Posted by: Hayate Yagami | April 8, 2009 2:24 PM
How dare people in a democratic society get used to not discriminating against unpopular groups!
Posted by: James Hanley | April 8, 2009 4:17 PM
And lately, several have been emphasizing the "only one vote" angle, when you know that if a decision outlawing gay marriage was decided by the vote of a single senator, they'd be heralding it as a triumph of democracy.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | April 8, 2009 4:22 PM
A few points to dampen spirits (just a little):
1. The Full Faith and Credit clause has never applied to situations that were deemed contrary to the public policy of the state. Thus, until recently (and the advent of Lotto) most state courts would not enforce a gambling contract entered into in Nevada; in the same manner, many states would not recognize inter-racial marriages pre-Loving. And Congress has no power to overrule state legislatures in this regard.
2. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause will only apply if Congress recognizes sexual orientation as a protected class (as the Iowa Supremes did). This is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Still, a good week for equality -- and box turtles.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 8, 2009 7:51 PM
Kehrsam,
I don't think you are right about the application of the Full Faith and Credit clause in it's application to issues that affect the public policy of the state where enforcement is being sought.
While you are right that states were not forced to enforce gambeling contracts, that had to do with the fact that while the state where the contract was signed allowed gambeling the state where it was being enforced did not. Meaning that the while the state where enforcement was being sought might have recognized the validity of the contract, since gambeling was against its' state policy it coulden't be enforced. In this the enforcing state treated the contract just like it would have had the contract been signed in itself...
Marriage is different however. Every state in the US allowes marriage, and while the requirements for getting married in each state may be different, once you are married in one state you are married in all of them. Louisiana for instance does not allow common law marriage (marriage by dint of living together for years), however a couple that is propery married by common law in another state when they move to La will be considered married. Since under the law of the state where the marriage took place it was enforcable.
For DOMA to withstand constitutional muster the state would have to show that either it is within Congresses power to relax the Full Faith and Credit clause (which to my knowledge has never been tested). However I doubt that this is the case. My guess is that should DOMA be challenged it would likely fail, though a results oriented court could go either way despite the Constitutional law on point.
Posted by: Stumble | April 10, 2009 12:00 AM