The American Spectator

Brian Kirk| 4.7.09 @ 12:44PM

Hardly a wingnut battle when Obama and Bill Clinton are opposed to same-sex marriage.

hmmm_contrib| 4.7.09 @ 1:12PM

Right, Brian, because presidential candidates of both parties never go wishy-washy centrist or anything to get elected.
Equal rights for gays in another state have arrived - a moment for our nation to be proud of. (And not a single hetero marriage was affected by it. Huh. Guess all the fear mongering was wrong...)

Real American| 4.7.09 @ 1:48PM

Gays get more special rights. less than 1% of the population tells the rest to go F themselves (maybe they could watch). Of course, Vermont has an avowed Socialist as a Senator, so who's really surprised by this anti-marriage travesty. the pervs must be really thrilled.

Tim| 4.7.09 @ 3:18PM

On the bright side, I can finally marry the man of my dreams...

Alan Brooks| 4.7.09 @ 3:20PM

anyway,
homosexuality isn't threatening anymore, that would be exciting or titillating, or at least disturbing.

No, all sex today is empty and boring in the psychic sense-- it's routine. "six o' clock friday for dinner, a movie, then animalistic sex; same on saturday [yawn]"

Alan Brooks| 4.7.09 @ 4:54PM

today's libertine is tomorrow's old f*rt.

Alan Brooks| 4.7.09 @ 5:36PM

well, I don't mind if gays get married, it's comforting to know they are over the age of 13 when they marry, they're not marrying close relatives...

Alan Brooks| 4.7.09 @ 5:38PM

theyre not marrying their dogs or cats ...every little crumb of normalcy helps.

Roy| 4.7.09 @ 7:20PM

Alan: So you hate zoosexuals?

Samuel| 4.7.09 @ 8:34PM

The decline of Western civilization moving along, right on schedule....

Lori| 4.8.09 @ 12:51AM

One more victory for immorality, one more block knocked out of the moral foundation of this nation. Choices do have consequences and wrong choices never produce desired consequences. We all have desires that are morally wrong. We have to make a choice not to give in to them, and NOT to expect laws to be changed to make what is wrong acceptable. Will you still maintain a person's right to their sexual preference if it comes to legalizing the right of a person to have sex with children - because they believe they were "born that way"?

John| 4.8.09 @ 11:25AM

What Mr Antle forgets is that most major social change has been preceeded by judicial activity of one sort and another. Votes for women, desegration of schools, desegregation and the overthrow of Jim Crow, factory legislation, clean water....the list is endless. Conservatives are losing this argument as they are losing most arguments that favor the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Western civilization is not ending.

Paul Drapiewski| 4.8.09 @ 11:29AM

Common sense tells any normal person that having sex with children is bad because of the obvious harm it causes, and because children do not have the capacity to make mature decisions for themsleves.

Gay marriage is an agreement between two consenting adults and has no social harm other than what people who hate us make up.

Paul Drapiewski| 4.8.09 @ 11:29AM

Common sense tells any normal person that having sex with children is bad because of the obvious harm it causes, and because children do not have the capacity to make mature decisions for themsleves.

Gay marriage is an agreement between two consenting adults and has no social harm other than what people who hate us make up.

Vince| 4.8.09 @ 1:41PM

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

Rick Herrick| 4.8.09 @ 2:08PM

You're incorrect on a very important point. The California legislature passed AB43 by 22-15 in the Senate and 42-34 in the Assembly:

http://tinyurl.com/c29xsm

It’s not law because it was vetoed by the governor, but the elected legislature made the same decision as Vermont’s.

Angel| 4.8.09 @ 3:15PM

Vince, you mean Prop. 8? I'm very proud of the passage of Prop. 8--you can be ashamed of prop. 9 if you want to. Can't even get the number right, tool.

W. James Antle III| 4.11.09 @ 10:05PM

Rick, I should have worded my post more precisely in anticipation of this objection but my basic point still stands: the Vermont legislature is the first elected legislature to successfully enact same-sex marriage. Bills passed by legislatures don't become law because of the veto all the time -- this is basic "how a bill becomes a law" stuff.

It's hard to argue that California's governor undemocratically circumvented the will of the people when the state has now voted twice against same-sex marriage. The Vermont legislature has passed the same-sex marriage regime with the greatest democratic legitimacy in the United States.