Vermont passes gay marriage! And D.C. moving along, too!

[chicken]

Gay marriage legalized in Vermont. The vote in the House was 100-49, which I thought meant some last-minute scrounging for a very few votes, and indeed, the story behind four of those five votes is quite fascinating. I love the guy who changed his vote from "I am a Catholic and have to vote against gay marriage" to "I am pissed off at being dissed by the governor so nyeh, diss ya back!"

And it's very moving to see how they got that very last vote, the good old-fashioned way, people calling their legislators. “Many supporters – mostly straight and many not historically political – have stepped up to the plate,” Robinson said. That just about makes me cry.

So soon after the Iowa victory, this is such good news.

And check it out, D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages. That's enough to make me want to move, in spite of the expense. WOW. That would mean our Massachusetts marriage license would be recognized. That's just amazing. With the District's relative disenfranchisement (not having Representation in Congress), and with the stupid federal DOMA still in effect, I wonder what the tangible benefits would be? Just not being in Virginia, which is so actively hateful toward gay people, would certainly be one tangible effect.

Now of course I'm wondering about Rhode Island, which I consider my home state. This New York Times article has some things to say about Rhode Island, including, Advocates of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island said they were aiming for legislative approval in 2011. That is when Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who is against same-sex marriage, will leave office because of term limits.

Furthermore, the legislative landscape in Rhode Island has changed a lot since the last time around, and according to kerri9494, there are a lot of interesting candidates for governor in 2011, including Lincoln Chafee, who is so much more liberal than Carcieri, it's dizzying.

All of this definitely makes the whole Prop. 8 thing less horrifying.

Comments

[keever.livejournal.com]

Two states in two weeks is pretty damn awesome. It's nice to feel heartened by news for a change.

Relatedly, I read this about the process in Iowa today. It made me smile.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

And D.C., kind of: D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages.

Thanks for the Iowa link -- straight people who feel their marriage enriched and made more meaningful by gay marriage, instead of feeling threatened by it!?!?! That really is enough to make me cry.

[keever.livejournal.com]

Go D.C.! That's where we stand in New York right now, too. I think that's still being challenged, but we're at least somewhat on the right track.

And yep, that's how I/we feel every time there's a victory on this front.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Wow, New York is further along than I thought. Rhode Island is literally geographically squeezed right now, from all sides! Heh.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure Rhode Island already would recognize your marriage. A few years ago they quietly started legally recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages performed where legal (which, at the time, would have been Massachusetts). Basically the executive branch reasoned that there was no explicit law against it.

And since Massachusetts' (now-repealed) law against non-residents coming there to get married only forbade doing it if your home state wouldn't recognize the marriage, that meant that Rhode Islanders could get hitched with a very short drive. So I've sort of regarded Rhode Island as the secret gay-marriage state ever since then.

I think New Mexico and New York also recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages now. In NY it's very recent; it was an executive order from Paterson. For some reason this has all been somewhat under the media radar. Recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage in states that don't have same-sex marriage licenses tends to happen by executive order, rather than legislative or judicial action, so it's somewhat politically contingent and fragile.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

which, at the time, would have been Massachusetts

...and some non-US jurisdictions as well (most notably Canada), of course.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Hmm, checking Wikipedia, I guess the situation's actually murkier than that. The RI attorney general issued an opinion in 2007 that out-of-state same-sex marriages would have legal force there, but a court in Rhode Island has also ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction to divorce a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. So things are a bit up in the air pending a law or decision actually legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

I remember reading about that divorce case as well. It is definitely murky. The GLAD page concurs.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

This is true. Rhode Island does recognize Mass. marriages. I'm not sure what all the details of it are and what it entails, but I know that there is a definite recognition of some sort and there is a lot of buzzing going around that they're planning on legalizing it very soon.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

I do think as Matt said that it's a bit murky and uncertain, and that there have been conflicting cases creating contradictory precedent. Still, there's hope!

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

You're right, I did read about that -- and it is all a tiny bit meaningless in the face of the federal DOMA. A fact that's especially apparent around April 15th when you have to file as "single" on your damn taxes. *ARGH*

[medelle.livejournal.com]

There is A LOT of buzz going around about whether or not New Hampshire or Rhode Island is going to be the next state to legalize it.

It's pretty interesting! Soon we'll have all of New England! :)

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

And of course, New England all together has fewer people population-wise than California. The Prop. 8 thing really burns.

[anelith.livejournal.com]

This Iowa and Vermont double whammy is so very heartening. But the potential for D.C. to recognize marriages is very, very interesting because of what I read in the link you provided -- if, as expected, D.C. goes all the way and recognizes gay marriage, apparently the US Congress must approve it first due to something called Home Rule. Now doesn't that make it fascinating? If Congress doesn't approve it, they will be slapping down D.C.'s right to govern themselves. If they do approve it -- well, what a can of worms *that* opens! Whee!

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Oh, they'll slap it down. They don't even want DC to be able to make its own gun laws. Home rule isn't at all what you think it is. Home rule means Congress can do what the hell it wants. The only thing stopping them from completely running roughshod over the Council is fear of how it will make them look.

[anelith.livejournal.com]

Aw, that's too bad. You're always hearing conservatives talk about "states rights" and of course D.C. isn't a state but I thought there might be some small bit of that principle at work here.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

It's not a state, and the Republicans don't want it to become one, because something like 80% of the residents are Democrats.

[keever.livejournal.com]

Hey, just wanted to thank you two for the Easter card! It's currently brightening up my desk with its springy goodness.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

You're welcome!