In fairness, California's legislature was the first to vote to allow all consenting adults to marry, but the Governator vetoed it. So, Vermont is the first to vote for marriage equality and for that law to take effect.

Woohoo!

The tipping point nears.

Dang! Just as Iowa was going to become the "gay marriage mecca."

Way to go Vermont. Very proud of my adopted State as well.

hats off to Vermont & to leaders with actual courage!

They probably made the baby Jesus cry, but God did give us free will, after all.

Prouder than ever of my home state!

Darn activist judges, always overriding the will of the people -- oh, wait. Darn legislators, overriding the will of the people! They should have left it up to the courts to decide!

Hmmm... I suspect the real reason is Vermont's proximity to Canada.

wow! somewhere in america, a legislature decided that it is legal to love the person you, well, love.

how extraordinary!

hey gandhi, there's hope for western civilization yet!

I suppose congratulations are in order, but, as when Connecticut allowed gay marriage, for me this is an economic issue. If any two consenting adults can get married just anywhere, then what's the incentive for them to come spend their wedding dollars here on Cape Cod?

This is a very unfortunate development that, if it becomes a trend, constitutes a major threat to my local economy. I can only hope the forces of dimness rally in time to stanch the flow of fairness in time for wedding season.

I suppose this means we will start hearing complaints about activist legistators.

Way to go Vermont!

Zadig is right. So far social conservatives have been able to curry favor with the crowd by playing the populist card and blaming "judicial tyranny" for pro-gay rights rulings they claim offend popular sensibilities. Now that the people's representatives have weighed in we will see if the anti-gay crowd will accept this popular verdict or find some other way to suggest the vote does not reflect the will of the people.

Don't look for Iowa to hang in very long. A do-nothing governor who might be a leader if he knew what to do, and a nervous legislature crippled by the one-two of declining revenues and years of Republican tax cuts, will likely vote to override the court in order to save their jobs. And those are the liberals. On the other hand, it's said that about the only thing that can unite Dems, who range from the middle to a very disappointed left, is the prospect of Steve King using the issue as an excuse to run for governor. Way to bring us together, ya nutball.

Good news indeed!

And yesterday, there was a little bit of progress in Missouri when Columbia adopted a city ordinance allowing for a domestic partnership registry. Although it is less than civil unions and a far cry from marriage, it does give rights to partners in that city, in a state that passed an amendment to the state constitution in 2004 that outlawed gay marriage. Clark at Show Me Progress has the details.

We love you, green mountain friends! Way to go!

Ericfree, Iowa can hang long enough for public opinion to shift away. As long as the Democratic majority in the state can resist (and Gronstal's already done so for this session), the legal ruling will stand and Iowans will see no fire and no brimstone raining as a result. The earliest a constitutional amendment can come up is far enough away that it probably won't.

I'm sitting here choked up and teary eyed. To me, as a 56 year old gay man, I'm still having trouble comprehending what just happened. In my younger days, I'd never have believed that I could get married. I'd never expect that elected officials would vote to let me get married.

My partner just called with the news. He said after 33 years together, it's time we finally get hitched. Now, we just have to decide whether to go to Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Vermont.

Very good news.

ericfree: I don't think you understand how things in Iowa work. There is no danger of gay marriage leaving the state.

Eeyore, come to Massachusetts. We were first, we've got the best support system, and we've got better beaches.

The thing that's so amazing about this is that 9 years ago, when civil unions were enacted in Vermont, there was a huge public uproar, with the opposition mounting a "Take Back Vermont" movement. In just 9 years, the public here in Vermont has come to accept gay marriage, and there's been no major opposition.

How wonderful that people do change and learn to accept those who seem different. I'm so proud of my legislature.

Trevor, I'm with ya, but we'll see. My confidence in Gronstal, who once told a party of voter-funded election lobbbyists to go f- themselves in front of a class of schoolchildren, is somewhat less than yours. Population and demographics are on the side of the libs, but the overall view of the state changes the farther west you go. Any legislature that can't get the manure off the ground is unlikely to embrace more sweeping reforms, but you're right, entropy can be a powerful force. Which also accounts for the manure.

Congratulations eeyore!!!! I am so happy. My partner and I are not same-sex, but he's an Iowan, so we plan to marry there (rather than in our state of residence) because I would rather have a marriage license from a state that will let you marry your partner than from my eeeevil home state, which is one of those that stuck an anti-marriage amendment to its constitution.

Congrats to Vermont. May the rest of the nation join the 21st century!

Neil, come on man, don't be a buzz kill. Save it for later. Besides, what you describe is not the Vermont way....beautiful foliage leaves, charm, and independence is what brings people to Vermont.

Whoops, my chagrin should have been directed to Cap'n Chucky (not Neil). Apologies on this fine day....

Congratulations to Vermonters.

But I can't wait for the inevitable wingnuts to challenge it -- in the courts!

I'm curious if the Supreme Court ruling in Iowa had any effect on some wavering Vermont legislators.

I really wished you hadn't made such a big deal about how the legislature did this, as I think it feeds into right wing talking points. Rights are rights and if you rights have been denied, i dont see how its "better" to have them restored by the legislature rather than the judiciary.

Civil rights were restored to black americans thru the courts and at the time, the right wing was making the same false charge about legislating from the bench. We should be pushing back on this meme, not giving it credit.

Allen's right. Judicial rulings are also valid. They are one of the main branches of government and should serve as a crucial check against the tyranny of the majority. In Massachusetts and Iowa's case, their state supreme courts had to rule on the Constitutionality of the issue.

In MA's case, they told the Legislature that if they wanted to pass the law, they'd have to make an amendment because any basic anti-gay marriage law would be Unconstitutional. The Legislature then, twice, defeated the amendment process -- and more pro-marriage Representatives were elected. This was also a democratic affirmation of gay marriage.

Judicial rulings are of course valid, but they also have the feel of governmental fiat in a way that legislative action does not. One person -- or nine people -- saying "screw the public, you are way wrong" gets peoples' backs up like nobody else. One hundred people -- a clear, solid, and definitive majority -- representing the state directly, coming together and saying "We recognize the right of gay men and women to marry"... that is special, damnit.

Well, it was only a matter of time after Vermont legalized Vampire marriage.

Vermont's legislators realized it would work against the state's image to trail Iowa, of all places, in something so culturally correct. (That's not a knock at gay marriage, just at how Vermont likes to paint itself, and how Iowa is incorrectly perceived as a state full of rubes.)

Oh, frabulous day! We WILL drag America into the 20th century (a century late, granted) one state at a time. I don't care WHO makes the decision as long as it happens. Thank you, Vermont. You remain on my list of states in which I might actually want to live.

Here's an update from my adopted home - the District of Columbia. From the WAPO:

"The D.C. Council has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions. Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city. But today's legislation, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes them as married couples.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing gay marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month."

So if Rick and I get married in Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Vermont, we can come back home to DC and our marriage will be recognized here.

Of course, the Congress may overturn the law, as it may overturn the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage for DC residents. But it's still another sign of progress.

I guess I'd better start thinking flowers, color schemes for my groomspeople, bands, and whether my schnauzer will be a good flowerdog.

Way to go, Vermont! I am so proud to be a native of that great state~

Congrats Vermont! It's another small step in the uphill struggle for human rights for sexual minorities. Let's hope America as a nation follows suit at some point, but at this rate of 4 out of 50 states, and Washington being as self-serving as ever, I doubt it will be anytime soon.

I'm an ex-pat American living in Europe with my legally married same-sex spouse, largely because my own country won't recognize our relationship for legal immigration. Even if we married in Vermont, Mass, CT, Iowa, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on as far as America is concerned.

So, have fun, celebrate as you should; but be aware of the total problem in America and the lack of real human rights support from either the left or the right or the middle in Washington.

"The D.C. Council has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions. Domestic partnerships already are legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move the city. But today's legislation, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes them as married couples.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing gay marriage in the District -- and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month."

Oh, those backward GOP southerners on the Hill are going to have a hissy fit over this latest move by the District colonists.

I am ashamed. For the first time as a fifth generation Vermonter, I am ashamed to say it any more. When asked where I'm from? Where was my heritage derived from? I will not say, its too embarrassing to know that I am a part of this abomination.
It is a very sad day when people from outside Vermont can infiltrate so easily and change it to suit their lifestyles. Guess Vermont IS the dumbest or is it too kind and gets walked on because of lending a friendly hand. Doesn't matter any more because we will now never have Vermont back, its dead.

And thanks to you, Steve, for your steadfast support.

As a native New Englander (born in Massachusetts, raised in Connecticut), I salute the good citizens of Vermont. Nicely done. Adding to the smile is the fact that this is the first legislative override of a governor's veto in 19 years. VERY nicely done.

Now to go buy some Ben & Jerry's in celebration. They delivered a giant "Equality" ice cream wedding cake to the Vermont Statehouse last week on the day of the original House vote. Good times.

Judicial rulings are of course valid, but they also have the feel of governmental fiat in a way that legislative action does not.

Remind yourself that the next time a state legislature votes a pay raise for themselves. It's just the popular will!

My point is that the judiciary exists to sometimes thwart the popular will. Comparing that to "government fiat" does nothing but diminish the judiciary's proper role in society.

Jay B: Yes, it does exist to sometimes thwart the popular will. It's it wonderful, though, that for once, the popular will was on the side of what is right and good and brilliant about this country? That's what I find special about this.

I don't discount our judicial branch, but I feel really, really good about the Vermonter legislative branch stepping up here, and I think you guys are being real party poopers by trying to bring us down from this high ;-)

Also: I believe state legislators deserve pay raises like any other job. That they're public and open for scruitiny is something I think would be even more awesome in Corporate America. If only we acted more like our legislatures!

In fairness, California's legislature was the first to vote to allow all consenting adults to marry, but the Governator vetoed it. So, Vermont is the first to vote for marriage equality and for that law to take effect.
Posted by: Anne

We're not there yet. People who desire plural marriages are still denied equal rights. Next thing you know conservatives will want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between two people in a monogamous union.

We're not there yet. People who desire plural marriages are still denied equal rights.

Poor Luther. Tell you what: you get a single person -- boy or girl -- to agree to hang out with you for a whole weekend, much less a whole marriage, and then we'll talk about plural marriage for you.

While I agree that denigrating the irreplaceable role of the judiciary in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the minority is not a good plan legally, ethically or politically, I also understand that the right will use any handy screeching point to fight equality. Screams of "judicial activism" just happen to be their best bet currently.

As more and more state assemblies legislate constitutionally and voters become ever more supportive of equal marriage, the naysayers will have to come up with a new excuse for bigotry. It'll be interesting to see what it is.

Of course, now that a legislature has done it they're claiming that only a referendum is good enough. On a current Washington Post live chat, Brian Brown says:

"The Vermont legislature refused to allow the people a direct vote on the issue. This is why the same-sex marriage advocates are focusing on Vermont and other Northeastern states that don't have initiative or referendum . . . they know they lose when the people have a free and fair vote."

So if the judges do it, they're overriding the popular will as expressed by the legislature. And if the legislature does it, they're overriding the popular will that would be expressed if there were only a referendum process.

Basically, if they don't like the outcome, the process must be illegitmate.

Republicans have been screaming about 'states rights' and now they'll have to scream 'more federal government' for a while. Life's tough for those hypocrites. The wind changes direction so quickly and often.

"Basically, if they don't like the outcome, the process must be illegitimate." Dirty Davey @ 4:42 PM.
Bingo!

Well done neighbours! I'll kiss your soil when I cross the border to visit Vermont this weekend.