Burnt Orange Report


News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas







Support the TDP!





May 18, 2004

The Lessons of Vermont

By Byron LaMasters

For those of you looking for more coverage on the gay marriages in Massachusetts, check out the special section of the Boston Globe. There's tons of great stuff.

One thing caught my eye yesterday. It was an op-ed piece on the issue by Howard Dean. He's got a great point. In four years I'll bet Massachusetts will wonder what all the fuss is about, because that's what Vermont is saying right now:


IN THE SPRING of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union not only to recognize same-sex partnerships, but to make sure that every single right outlined in the Vermont Constitution and Vermont laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual Vermonters. Every right but one. Gay and lesbian Vermonters do not have the right to call their unions marriage. The fallout was the least civil public debate in the state in over a century, since the "wets" and "dries" battled in the middle of the 1800s. Death threats were made, epithets were used, not only on the streets and in the general stores but on the floors of both the Senate and the House, as the bill was being debated. Otherwise respectable church leaders railed against homosexuals and not so respectable ones organized political action committees vowing to oust any legislator who voted for the bill. Five Republican members of the House lost their seats in primaries. In the general election, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 14 years, as the Republicans piled up nearly a 20-vote majority. My own race, for a sixth term, was the most difficult in my career.

Four years later, we wonder what the fuss was all about. Civil unions were never an issue in Vermont in the 2002 election and will not be this fall. The intensity of anger and hate has disappeared, replaced by an understanding that equal rights for groups previously denied them has no negative effect on those of us who have always enjoyed those rights. My marriage has not become weaker.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at May 18, 2004 10:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Not exactly on point, but an "old timer" told me the other day an interesting spin on anti-miscegenation laws. He says their real purpose was not to discourage blacks and whites from procreating as many have suggested. He said they were to "protect" white philandering men from the embarassment of having to marry their black mistresses when they got them pregnant. Interesting perspective. n'est pas?

Posted by: WhoMe? at May 18, 2004 11:18 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?








March 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    


About Us
About/Contact
Advertising Policies

Donate

Tip Jar!



Archives
Recent Entries
Categories
BOR Edu.
BOR News
BOR Politics
Linked to BOR!
Polling
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
In the Pink Texas
Inside the Texas Capitol
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
Texas Monthly
Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
TX GOP Blogs
Daily Reads
College Blogs
GLBT Blogs
More Reads
BOR Webrings
Election Returns
Texas Media
World News



Powered by
Movable Type 3.15