Vermont has long been a hotbed of secession, with much talk during the Bush administration years of separating from the union. Now it has served notice of its wish to secede from tradition and morality as well, with the Vermont House voting on Thursday 95-52 to pass a bill legalizing same-sex "marriage."

This was the first of two headline-grabbing setbacks for defenders of marriage this week, with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling unanimously today that hewing to the correct conception of marriage — that is, limiting it to only one man and one woman — is unconstitutional (we will have a full-length piece about the Iowa court’s usurpation on Monday). 

As for Vermont, there is some good news as well. The 95-52 margin is not sufficient to override a veto by the governor, Republican James Douglas. Gov. Douglas, taking the populist position and straddling the civil-union fence, opined in a written statement last week, “I believe our civil-union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions. But, like President Obama and other leaders on both sides of the aisle, I believe that marriage should remain between a man and woman.”

While the governor is certainly correct to say he has allies in this fight, the reality is that the forces arrayed against the defenders of marriage in the Green Mountain State are formidable, with the faux-marriage bill having passed the Vermont Senate last week by a staggering 26-4 margin. These activists are also passionate and, consequently, do not feel the need to match Gov. Douglas’ circumspection. As an example, CNN.com tells us, “Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, the main sponsor of the bill, has described Douglas’ decision as ‘cowardly.’”

‘You cannot veto love and commitment between two people,’ the Democrat said. ‘This is a civil-rights issue. It is time for the governor to show some courage.’”

This writer agrees. Ideally the governor should step up to the plate and defend tradition unabashedly and without compromise. Of course, this would mean opposing civil unions as well, as they are simply a transitional phase between historical normalcy and faux marriage. After all, would we even be talking about them were it not for the activism of the homosexual lobby?

While I won’t hold my breath waiting for comprehensive principle (not the correct kind, anyway) from a New England politician, marriage’s defenders will need passion to win this battle. Because their opponents certainly have it, and they are attempting to muster the majority necessary to override a veto. Said Beth Robinson, spokesman for the faux-marriage activist group “Vermont Freedom to Marry,” “We know we’ve got more work to do in the run-up to the override vote.”

If the defenders of marriage don’t want her work to work, they’d better get busy themselves.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Just Another Rare Liberal Republican said:

Defenders of Marriage What are you defending marriage from, exactly? Because if I were you, I'd stop trying to "defend" marriage from loving, consenting gay and lesbian adults and start looking at what effects stupid shows like "The Bachelor" are having on the kids your "proper" straight married couples are ignoring over their daily intake of domestic violence. And don't mock courage as if you know what it means.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 04, 2009
Votes: +1

MikeT said:

	Another Liberal Republican If marriage is a religious institution, why should the Federal and State Governments be able to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman...
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 04, 2009
Votes: +2

i'm a TRUE libertarian said:

just a good observer I have noticed that most articles on this site are dedicated to conservatism, American freedoms, and national sovereignty. Then we have those articles that are about gay marriage or Christianity. With our increasingly powerful presidents, our exploding debt, globalization, loss of freedoms, and two wars affecting this country, are gay people getting married in Vermont really such a big deal? I bet most people on this site don't even live in Vermont and this law doesn’t even affect them. When we have a truly free society that doesn't have a huge government trying to take away our freedoms, I’ll be open to debate people on gay marriage, but right now this shouldn’t be anyone’s priority.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 04, 2009
Votes: -2

A Paleocon said:

Defeat Special Interests It DOES matter for everyone. Wars, the economy, leftists shooting cops, etc.: all of these are sideshows put on by the Obamaniacs. The real issue needs to be NO SPECIAL RIGHTS for anyone - including buggers, sodomites and bulldykes. Libertarians are just slightly more educated liberals, who are still going straight to hell. Leftists, liberals, libertarians, neocons, Bush/Clinton/Obama - all the same.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 05, 2009
Votes: -2

Flu-Bird said:

	Same sex marrage unethical This whole idea of same sex marrage in unethical and imoral any real legal marrage is between one man and one woman the VERMONT house should all be removed and impeached
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 05, 2009
Votes: +1

Headlight said:

Conservatism and same sex marriage I always hear that conservatives want to get the government out of our lives. How come you want to tell people who they're allowed to marry? Paleo, When you say no special rights for anyone, are you including no special rights for hetrosexuals? The logic of your statement would seem to imply agreement with the Iowa court's view that there is no compelling governmental interest in denying equal treatment based on sexual orientation. The Iowa Supreme Court's decision is fundamentally conservative, keeping the government from giving anyone special rights unless there is a sound reason to do so.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 05, 2009
Votes: -2

atty79 said:

Tradition is no excuse As the Iowa court said very well, "tradition" is no justification to discriminate against a group of people. To use "tradition" by itself is a circular argument. Tradition defines marriage (arguably) as between a man and a woman. So when anyone says, same-gender couples shouldn't marry because it goes against tradition, they are basically saying, "same-gender couples shouldn't marry because it goes against marriage being between a man and a woman." Tradition as support for anything is just a simple-minded way of making one's own belief sound weightier. I urge everyone to read the Iowa court's decision. It was a very well written opinion and acts to explain exactly the reason behind the court's unanimous decision. (No, they didn't just simply say, "Gays are great so let's have same-gender marriage", as most detractors would have you believe.)

report abuse vote down vote up

April 05, 2009
Votes: +0

AlexT said:

It's not about Tolerance "This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” (Dallin H. Oaks, former justice of the Utah Supreme Court) http://yes-on-prop8.blogspot.com

report abuse vote down vote up

April 05, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

i'm a TRUE libertarian said:

... A Paleocon, libertarians aren't educated liberals. on many issues we are more conservatives than most democrats and republicans. also, to suggest that Wars, the economy, leftists shooting cops aren't as big a deal as gay marriage shows that you have misguided priorities. straight couples are destroying gay marriage with the divorce rate in this country, not gays. finally, you can believe in heaven and hell if you wish. I am above that and am not going to treat people based on the stories of a carpenter who lived two tousand years ago.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 07, 2009
Votes: -3

From Vermont said:

More than meets the eye Unlike most of the people commenting here, I actually live in Vermont. The title of the bill was “An Act to Protect Religious 17 Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage.” A few weeks ago there was a gathering of clergy numbering about 160 supporting the same-sex marriage bill at the capital; the media made a big deal of it and the headlines read, "Vermont Clergy throw support behind same-sex marriage". The following week there was a MUCH larger gathering with testimony before the House which refuted the previous gathering. It got almost no press. 8 or 9 years ago the politicos lied to us with civil unions, now they've done it again. Without getting into religious viewpoints, this opens the door for more than the state is bargaining for. This is not being billed as a 'gay marriage bill", the bill is actually written as 'genderless marriage' based on sexual preference. The problem is that the legal precedents open it up for other sexual preferences as well. There are at least three generally recognized sexual preferences; heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. So now, upon this legal precedent and the way the law reads, a heterosexual man can marry two bisexual women. Theory? Not hardly, this has already been accomplished in the Netherlands with exactly this legal logic, and there is a case pending in Utah right now. And if a bisexual man and a bisexual woman desire to, they can marry another couple with the same logic. You might also note that one of the larger arguments for this bill was that it would be an economic boost, because of the potential draw for homosexual couples to come marry and honeymoon here. In other words, not altruism, but pure greed.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Matt said:

What Threat? Gay people getting married effects no ones lives except the people that are allowed to marry. You are not defending marriage, because there is no threat to marriage. The threat is purely to your ego that somehow you are better and more special than another group of people. Well, it's time for you to know you're not. If you want to defend marriage get rid of divorce I've lived with my partner for 10 years now, we are hard working, tax paying americans and as such our constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. So if someone can explain to me where the threat to marriage actually is, maybe your argument would have some validity, but no one is saying you have to leave your spouse and marry someone of the same sex. They are simply saying that 2 consenting adults should have the LEGAL right to enter into a marriage together. This is a legal issue, not a religious one. This is the main problem with the conservative movement in America and why you have dug yourselves a hole you can't climb out of. you are continuously obsessed with non-issues. this is a non issue.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 08, 2009
Votes: -2