Comments on: Vermont Senate Judiciary Approves Civil Marriage http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Louie http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36867 Louie Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:35:19 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36867 The problem in California was that the Governator felt that he could not sign the bill because of Prop. 22 being passed by the voters back in 2000. Which was then struck down by the CA Supereme Court in 2008. Which was then passed again in 2008 under Prop. 8, except by a much small margin (4%) vs. 2000 So, if Prop. 22 hadn't been passed in 2000, would Schwarzenegger have signed the bill? Or would he have come up with some other excuse? The problem in California was that the Governator felt that he could not sign the bill because of Prop. 22 being passed by the voters back in 2000. Which was then struck down by the CA Supereme Court in 2008.

Which was then passed again in 2008 under Prop. 8, except by a much small margin (4%) vs. 2000

So, if Prop. 22 hadn’t been passed in 2000, would Schwarzenegger have signed the bill? Or would he have come up with some other excuse?

]]> By: Stefano A http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36847 Stefano A Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:22:52 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36847 I'd forgotten that, actually, the California Legislature passed AB 849 2005, which would make it the first bill legalizing same-sex marriage without a court order. The problem was Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who immediately vetoed the legislation. I’d forgotten that, actually, the California Legislature passed AB 849 2005, which would make it the first bill legalizing same-sex marriage without a court order. The problem was Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who immediately vetoed the legislation.

]]> By: Tavdy http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36837 Tavdy Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:28:44 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36837 TRiG, it would be the first time SSM has been legalised by a US legislature, but either the sixth or (if the Swedish Riksdag gets in first) seventh time internationally. Six countries have legalised SSM so far (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway) while the legislature of one is debating it (Sweden) and the legislatures of two more will do so in the near future (Nepal, Scotland). Legalisation involved the Courts in three of these - Canada, ZA and Nepal. ZA is the only one where the legislature was not involved - marriage equality there was gained automatically when Cape Town chose not to act on Bloemfontein's offer of civil unions as an alternative to SSM. TRiG, it would be the first time SSM has been legalised by a US legislature, but either the sixth or (if the Swedish Riksdag gets in first) seventh time internationally.

Six countries have legalised SSM so far (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway) while the legislature of one is debating it (Sweden) and the legislatures of two more will do so in the near future (Nepal, Scotland). Legalisation involved the Courts in three of these – Canada, ZA and Nepal. ZA is the only one where the legislature was not involved – marriage equality there was gained automatically when Cape Town chose not to act on Bloemfontein’s offer of civil unions as an alternative to SSM.

]]> By: Stefano A http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36806 Stefano A Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:16:50 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36806 TRiG <blockquote>Would this be the first time it passed by legislation rather than court order?</blockquote> In Vermont you mean? Or in general? The civil unions were passed by legislature, but this would be the first time SSM has been passed without a court order in any state if Vermont votes "yes". TRiG

Would this be the first time it passed by legislation rather than court order?

In Vermont you mean? Or in general?

The civil unions were passed by legislature, but this would be the first time SSM has been passed without a court order in any state if Vermont votes “yes”.

]]> By: Stefano A http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36804 Stefano A Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:12:47 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36804 Senate Standing Committees: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/comms.cfm?Body=S Legislative Directory: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm Variaious Links for the House and Sentate including a link to the Standing Committees of the House/Sentate and the Senators/House Reps listed by Name or District) Senators Listed Alphabestically: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/alpha.asp?Body=S Senate Standing Committees: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/comms.cfm?Body=S

Legislative Directory: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm
Variaious Links for the House and Sentate including a link to the Standing Committees of the House/Sentate and the Senators/House Reps listed by Name or District)

Senators Listed Alphabestically: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/alpha.asp?Body=S

]]> By: Stefano A http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36800 Stefano A Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:55:30 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36800 <blockquote>For some reason, Vermont seems to be the only state who’s website does not give one immediate access to the member of various committees so I can’t report on to what extent this was a bi-partisan decision. However, we know that at least one Republican voted yes.</blockquote> The only Republican on the Judiciary Committee is Mullin. The members of the Senate Judiciary Committe are: Senator Sears of Bennington District, Chair (Democrat) Senator Campbell of Windsor District, Vice-Chair (Democrat) Senator Cummings of Washington District (Democrat) Senator Mullin of Rutland District (Republican) Senator Nitka of Windsor District, Clerk (Democrat)

For some reason, Vermont seems to be the only state who’s website does not give one immediate access to the member of various committees so I can’t report on to what extent this was a bi-partisan decision. However, we know that at least one Republican voted yes.

The only Republican on the Judiciary Committee is Mullin.

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committe are:
Senator Sears of Bennington District, Chair (Democrat)
Senator Campbell of Windsor District, Vice-Chair (Democrat)
Senator Cummings of Washington District (Democrat)
Senator Mullin of Rutland District (Republican)
Senator Nitka of Windsor District, Clerk (Democrat)

]]> By: Lindoro http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36799 Lindoro Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:11:31 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36799 Timothy: No. California, for what I understand, twice passed legislation making marriage available and it was twice vetoed by the Governator. We all know how much he is regretting that one. Lindoro Timothy:

No. California, for what I understand, twice passed legislation making marriage available and it was twice vetoed by the Governator. We all know how much he is regretting that one.

Lindoro

]]> By: Timothy (TRiG) http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/20/10002/comment-page-1#comment-36792 Timothy (TRiG) Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:11:45 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10002#comment-36792 Would this be the first time it passed by legislation rather than court order? TRiG. Would this be the first time it passed by legislation rather than court order?

TRiG.

]]>