Vermont legislature overrides Gov veto to allow for Gay Marriage.
 

This state was the first to have civil unions and not they are the first to make it law in this fashion.


Vermont legalizes same-sex 'marriage' with veto override
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/7/2009 10:35:00 AM

Updated 4/7/2009 2:15 PM



The way has been paved for Vermont homosexuals to legally "marry" -- another indication, says one Christian activist, of the current political climate in Washington, DC.

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize homosexual marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote. The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing homosexuals to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override. The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, poses this question: "How long can a nation founded on the laws of nature and nature's God expect to find favor in his eyes when we continue to mock God?"

Vermont's decision, he believes, sends waves throughout the country -- including the nation's capitol. "I believe that the purveyors of evil around the country feel emboldened right now with the current political climate in Washington, DC," Barber states, what with both the Oval Office and Congress inhabited by "people who are bent on thumbing their nose at God."

Barber believes states without constitutional amendments to protect marriage need to speed the process. In addition, he warns that if the Obama administration is successful in overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, even conservative states may have to recognize homosexual marriages legal in other jurisdictions.


Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council closely monitored the vote. "It's particularly disappointing that there were at least three legislators who betrayed the institution of marriage by switching their vote," Sprigg laments. "Fifty-two had voted against this bill last week. That would have been enough to sustain the veto -- but only 49 voted against it [on Tuesday]." He suggests that Vermont voters may want to keep those individuals in mind when they come up for re-election.

Sprigg also points out this is the first time that any state has ever enacted same-sex marriage through any kind of democratic process. "All of the other states that currently have same-sex marriage -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, and soon to be Iowa -- have had it imposed upon them through judicial activism by their state supreme court," he observes.

Sprigg also notes that the Washington, DC, council has voted to recognize homosexual marriages in states where it is legal.

Who is it going to hurt?
 

For those who don't like them, don't attend them.

It is not the event it is the ramification of the bond. Already several churches have been sued and lost because they refused to hold gay marriages. Also Christians business owners would be forced to accept a lifestyle choice that goes against their beliefs which violates their constitutional rights, while marriage is not a right. SO your lack of the facts has no doubt lead to your short sighted point of view.

How will their marriage hurt you personally? Is it because you don't like it? If so, don't go. No one is saying you have to accept it, just like no one tells me that I have to believe in a God.

Christian business owners don't have to accept it either. They can choose not to accept it too. How do you figure it violates Christians constitutional rights if gays get married?

Can you point to some news of the lawsuits against these churches please. I did a cursory search and didn't find any in the U.S.A.

I believe that your shortsighted view is due to religious fanaticism.

Again, how will it hurt you personally?

EDIT:

Do you think discrimination is a good thing?

Answers above in red.

Im sorry but I don't want my children to think that is an acceptable way of life. Marriage is very sacred and should be kept as intended between man and wife. :wacko:

What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? I'm talking from a purely secular, legal standpoint. Why were civil unions simply not good enough for the homosexuals?

Do they believe that being allowed to marry is going to somehow make them more accepted by the average American? Honestly, I believe it's going to have the exact opposite effect.

Here is a cut and paste from another thread from a year or so ago. This lesbian couple won the case and the church camp sued back and from as far as I have seen their case has been ignored.

By Peter J. Smith

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."

New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.

"The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com.

The Pavilion is routinely used for worship ceremonies and gospel concerts, and used to be available for weddings until recently, Hoffman said. "Right now we're waiting for a response from the attorney general's office as what to do next."

On top of that, the form Bernstein and Paster submitted in February would have also agreed to "indemnify and hold harmless" the OGCMA from claims arising from the use of the facility.

Although the OGCMA had 20 days to respond to the charges, Hoffman said his group "requested another 10 days so we would be able to fully and adequately prepare our response."

The group is considering all options, and contacted the Alliance Defense Fund for added legal expertise over its first amendment rights. Hoffman said his church group will attempt mediation with Bernstein and Paster to keep it out of the attorney general's office, but will not compromise.

"We are most definitively a religious organization, our mission statement is to provide a place for spiritual birth, growth and renewal in a Christian seaside setting," said chief administrative officer Scott Hoffman. "We don't think that by the way the rules are written now that churches are required by any stretch of the imagination to adhere to those policies, and we don't think we are either."

This whole gay marriage thing is really just another way for Satan to destroy the Church in America.

seems every week there is another story. Like you said earlier, why won't they stick to domestic partnerships.