The Vermont legislature made it official today! By a 23-5 margin in the Senate, and a 100-49 margin in the House, legislators overturned Governor Jim Douglas’ veto this morning, making Vermont the 4th state to legalize gay marriage.

Perhaps the comment below from a reader of the Burlington Free Press sums up the feelings of gay marriage opponents…

A sad, sad day for the state of Vermont. I am so ashamed of Vermont I never want to admit I grew up and lived there for over 50 years. I moved out of Vermont for economic reasons several years ago, always knowing I’d be back. But NEVER to that liberal cesspool ! The filthy perverts and leftist fools that run the state are welcome to it.

I think Vermont will be just fine without you.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal spoke eloquently today when he refused to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal Iowa’s newly decided marriage equality bill.

Minority leader Paul McKinley who offered the new legislation to ban gay marriage accused Gronstal of “pure obstruction,” while former state legislator Chuck Hurley, who is now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center had this to say:

“He is denying 2.1 million Iowans of voting age of the right to vote on an issue of great importance to 550,000 schoolchildren … Mike Gronstal needs to humble himself and listen to the people.”

Sorry, a little bit behind on the news today… A new job will do that to you.

Republican Vermont governor James Douglas has vetoed the gay marriage bill that recently passed both legislative houses. From his office…

“This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents. Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied , federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same sex couples married in Vermont. This bill will not change that fact.

Vermont’s civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Our civil union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.”

From WCAX in Vermont…

The Senate is expected to override the veto tomorrow morning. It is unclear what the House will do, and is currently shy the two thirds majority required to override the veto. The 11 Democrats who originally voted against the bill now support it, unhappy that the governor announced his intent to veto the bill before they had passed it.

Over at Gay Patriot, a conservative blog that I, unfortunately,  sometimes frequent, the following was featured in a post that I took some offense too…

Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression. Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition. It’s that simple. Now you know why.

The idea that my marriage to my partner  was out of a desire to destroy traditional marriage forced me to respond…

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. In the wake of marital bliss since the passage of Prop 8 I had forgotten the true motivation behind our marriage: to cheapen, denigrate and ultimately destroy the institution as revenge for years upon years of oppression. And that it had nothing to do with being head-over-heels in love with my partner with whom I’ve enjoyed a faithful 9-year relationship.

I’m sure that the 16 thousand same-sex couples who were married in California last year were similarly motivated, their desire to “warp” the institution of marriage central to their vows of matrimony.

While I encourage and welcome open discourse, featuring Asphenaz’s comment so prominently here, giving it an air of credibility, speaks volumes. And the labeling of those of who dissent as fascist seems de riguer for this site.

Please, don’t generalize and paint with broad strokes my reasons for supporting gay marriage, as I will not generalize that most visitors here are self-hating homosexuals, bent over and enjoying a reach-around by the social conservatives who drive the agenda for their party/movement.

What do you think? Is the gay community’s desire for inclusion in the institution of marriage a want to redefine it  to allow open relationhips with multiple partners? Doesn’t that happen in the straight community as well, and by that argument aren’t they redefining it already?