Comments for Vermont gov. to veto gay marriage bill »
Posted By david_nwpa 8 months, 2 weeks ago in Family(Montpelier, Vermont) Vermont Gov. James Douglas (R) announced Wednesday that he will veto same-sex marriage legislation if it, as expected, passes the House.
Read Full Story at 365gay.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 42
-
100%
david_nwpa8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Vermont relies heavily on tourism dollars and the maple syrup industry for its economic survival. Apart from that, Ben and Jerry's ice cream is its largest economic anchor. Gay marriage could serve as a significant shot in the arm for a weakened economy in Vermont. More than a quick economic fix, the marriage equality bill in the House would provide Vermonters with equal rights for all citizens. All goes well, the Vermont House will have enough votes to override the impending gubernatorial veto.
Reply-
-
36%
b-happy8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand why Gay's can't leave straights alone. What's wrong with Civil Unions? I don't get why Gay's have to push their agenda on straights. If Gay's win this battle then next we will see people who want to marry their sisters pushing for equal rights as well. Then once that happens we will be like Denmark where no one wants to get married anymore because everyone can get married and it loses it's meaning.
Reply-
82%
scott42618 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why don't we ALL have civil unions then -f you so choose - go to the church of our choice to have it called a marriage? Certainly, the Episcopal Church or Unitarian Universalist would be where I'd go......and you know what? It would be MY BUSINESS....How in God's name does it detract from anyone else's marriage? I fail to understand that logic. To be honest, I could care less about the semantics of it, but I feel like my partner should be legally protected JUST AS MUCH - that is, WITH ALL THE RIGHTS OF CIVIL MARRIAGE - as any heterosexual married couple...period....
Reply
You are the one with the problem. Not me.-
36%
b-happy8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time but yet now the Gay Agenda is to change that. Why not just let any group that wants to marry whether be it too a goat, your sister or whatever, get married if we let gays get married? If any group can change marriage too make it what they want then marriage means nothing anymore. Right now it's the sacred "natural" tradition of unity between man and woman. The birthing of a child and raising in a man and woman relationship is special and can ONLY happen between man and woman. Gay's have to adopt so they don't have that sacred union as a man and woman does.
Reply
See your telling us that we shouldn't have marriages anymore. Just like I said, your taking something away from straight people because YOU don't think it's fair. That right there is pure bigotry and hatred. Because you can't have it, you want other people to not have it as well. Too me, your like a littler kid who whines because your brother has a toy and you want it too. Get over it.
Get a Civil Union with all the same rights as marriage and you can make your ceremony into whatever the hell you like.-
-
88%
willottica8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
b-happy, gays don't want to take marriage away from straight people. They want to share it. And Marriage is big enough to share; it's like love, you don't lose it when you give it away.
Reply
Your arguments about the family and birthing would only make sense if children were required in marriages. But sterile people can marry, old people can marry. Don't they take away in the same fashion?
Your characterization of marriage "between a man and a woman since the beginning of time" is a fallacy. Marriage is a human construct, and has not always been around. While it has been around, it has taken many different forms. Polygamy, Polyandry, and yes, even the marriage of close kin have all been allowed in the past.
Your rank homophobia is disturbing. Are you so afraid that if you were legally allowed to marry another man, you wouldn't be able to resist the temptation?
-
-
-
100%
CaptFamous8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The issue with Civil Unions is that they reek of "seperate but equal". Any time a gay person tells someone they're in a "Civil Union", they're being reminded of the fact that they aren't allowed to marry, because people who are allowed won't let them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
27%
b-happy8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yes Commodore1, lets not let any group get uppity and demand equal rights and protections under the law"
Reply
I agree. When people who want to marry their sister start demanding rights light Gays have, then we will be in a shiat storm. That's why we can't let gays get married. It opens the door for any group that says there rights have been violated. -
27%
Commodore18 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Vetoed? In Vermont? I'm shocked. I thought Vermont and it's neighboring states were as liberal as U could get. But the governor is conservative. I believe the gay movemnt might want to give it a rest for awhile. Not winning in California or Vermont has got to tell U something. The majority of people just aren't ready for this and if U try and force it then people will rebel.
Reply-
85%
ronbearoh8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay citizens should just leave their fight for their rights because its unpopular.
Reply
Look at what happened when the negros demanded their rights.
Yes Commodore1, lets not let any group get uppity and demand equal rights and protections under the law.-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will say this once. Being in a gay relationship is NOT ILLEGAL.
Reply
Being in a bestial relationship IS ILLEGAL (in most states)
Being in a relationship with your sister IS ILLEGAL.
Understand? That is where they differ. That is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Get that through your skull you nincompoop.
-
-
-
-
-
-
62%
antibrainwasher8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"people aren't ready for this"
Reply
By people, commode means the people who vote for school boards to force creationism and superstition on generations of children. Same people that vote for Caribu Barbie to fix the economy and lead the military industrial complex against the axis of evil. Same people who dream of the good old days, when a white man and his slaves and 5 wives could make a good living.-
11%
Commodore18 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, what part of "aren't ready for this" don't U understand? We're coming along but just not ready to take what amounts to a giant leap. And don't patronize me about what conservatives do. Liberals have no room to talk when trying to force their liberals ideals down everyone's throats.
Reply-
Neutral
CaptFamous8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, there's a significant amount of "aren't ready for this" that I don't understand. What exactly do you need to be ready for? If you aren't gay, how is your own life materially changed by gay people being allowed to marry? Why should homosexuals have to wait for other people to be comfortable with their way of life to get married?
Reply -
Neutral
hamy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes. Equality for all tax paying Americans is such a horrible thing! It's awful and should be stopped. How can liberals do such a thing as ask for equality! Let's go back the good old days.
Reply
Women! You no longer can vote! Black people, you neither! And furthermore you are only a fifth of a white person again! No mingling of races too! The Japanese need to get into their camps and special needs children should be instantly institutionalized for the rest of their lives or killed! Just like in the good old days.
-
-
-
55%
antibrainwasher8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cons are worried, they need the draconian legal structure to prevent themselves from themselves. Same as the Teliban.
Reply
If it wasn't for marriage laws, cons would be out there humping goats, and smoking the bone in airport bathrooms.....
wait, they already do that..... -
-
50%
antibrainwasher8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hurray cons who live to legislate their morality.
Reply
Remember Terry Shivo? Remember George Wallace on the steps of the school there in Alabama preventing that filthy white negro girl from attending the pure white public school.
Now, that's a con standing for his principles, then as now.-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
30%
antibrainwasher8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really, its amazing to hear the pirate murdering theives calling themselves conservatives say the word "liberals", with the attitude they have the moral high ground, standing by their status quo principles of white supremacy, misogyny, classism, elitism, greed, and facism.
Reply
After all, their moral structure is based on a baby jew god, who when he grew up was a conservative, racist, gaybashing, rich, status quo, sycophant who loved his government, subugated himself to the rich and powerful, and worshipped the status quo morality. Jesus was the Rush Lamebaugh of his day.-
fishifanbComment removed: Spam
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
willottica8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This was my favorite part of the article (in terms of sheer ludicrousness):
Reply
Opponents say gay marriage would undermine traditional male-female marriage, rendering men and women interchangeable
Are these opponents of gay marriage all completely bisexual? Perfect 3s on the Kinsey Scale? I thought that was a really rare thing. I think I'm about a 1, maybe a 1.5. Men and women are NOT completely interchangeable. I would not trade my wife for a man even though where I live I could marry a man if I so chose. I'm pretty sure that most on the homosexual end of the Kinsey scale don't find men and women interchangeable either. If they did, they'd probably save themselves a lot of pain and prejudice and just choose women. -
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
Hobe8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HoMosexual marriage could serve as a significant shot in the arm for a weakened economy in Vermont??
Reply
How Sad, to equate the economy of Vermont to the sucess Of Vermont Lies in the hands of HOMOsexuals??
D Dupa once again showes how shallow the thought process is...
The Great State Of Vermont and It's people will do Just fine whithout the Support Of HOMOsexuals wanting the Oppurtunity to Marry as Normal Man and Woman...
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.