At 12:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bob Sullivan and Bill Slimback became the first same-sex couple to exchange their vows as gay marriage became legal in Vermont.

Dressed in suits, saying their vows under a large wall-mounted moose head, the two Whitehall, N.Y., men promised their love, exchanged rings and held hands during a modest 17-minute ceremony. Moose Meadow Lodge co-owner Greg Trulson, who’s also a Justice of the Peace, presided.

“It feels wonderful,” said Slimback, 38, an out-of-work Teamster who is taking Sullivan’s last name as his own. “It’s a day I’ve been long waiting for, and a day I truly honestly thought would never come.”

Slimback said he and Sullivan, 41, have long wanted to cement their relationship with a wedding, but since they couldn’t legally marry in New York they chose to wed even before Vermont’s gay marriage era officially dawned.

Vermont is one of five states that now allow same-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. New Hampshire’s law takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.

Vermont, which invented civil unions in 2000 after a same-sex couple challenged the inequality of state marriage statutes, was a mecca for gay couples who to that point had no way to officially recognize their relationships.

Since then, other states have allowed gay marriage, as did Vermont, which in April became the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislative decree and not a court case.

Coverage from the local Fox affiliate below:

As of midnight last night, gay marriages performed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, and for a brief time in California, will be legally recognized in the District of Columbia.

Gay activists hailed the development as an historic landmark for same-sex couples throughout the country and noted that it opens the way for the Council to pass a separate law later this year allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.

“I think there’s tremendous significance and opportunity in Americans seeing legally married gay couples treated with respect in our nation’s capital,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, a national same-sex marriage advocacy group.

The recognition entitles gay couples to all the same legal rights extended to straight couples, including inheritance, and spousal immunity benefits.

And Maryland may soon follow. Governor Martin O’Malley on a radio program yesterday said he was open to having his state recognize gay marriage as well.

Pastor Patricia McKinney of the Manifested Glory Ministries Church in Connecticut appeared on CNN to defend the practice of exorcising demons in her church, and in this particular case a homosexual spirit. Excuse me, but what century are we living in?

Oh… maybe it’s this century…

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion late yesterday to dismiss a federal court case which calls for states to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). From SFGate.com:

The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

The case was originally filed last year in California State Court before heading to federal court. It claims violation of a number of federal rights including the right to privacy, the right to travel and the right of free expression under the First Amendment.

The government’s filing said the suit would fail under each of those grounds. While it addressed each argument, it claimed the suit should be dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs to bring the claim in federal court.

What’s more startling, as discovered by John Avarosis at AMERICAblog, the DOJ motion cites cases involving incest and underage marriage to defend DOMA. Relevant cases underlined in passage below:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State’s public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress’s exercise of its authority in DOMA.

It’s deeply upsetting that the DOJ is defending DOMA at all, much less citing cases involving incest and underage marriage in the process. I suspect that many who have been vocal supporters of the President, who have been asking for patience on LGBT issues, are now feeling betrayed… myself included.

We can be loyal only for so long, before we become apologists.

UPDATE: Today happens to be the anniversary of  Loving v. Virginia, which overturned the ban on interracial marriage. Oh the irony. (again from Americablog).