You are here: Home / News / Vermont Interrupts My Vacation

Vermont Interrupts My Vacation

Vermont’s Senate Judiciary Committee is currently holding hearings on a proposed bill that will grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Thus expanding their current domestic partnership laws. Of course there are already out cries that Vermont will be sucked into a vortex of evil, simply for thinking about giving us deviant queers rights.

So, here I am on vacation. Laying out by the lake… watching the strapping boys from the Yale Rowing Crew at Lake Lure, NC… Thank you Jesus! When I get a phone call from a friend, Tom.

Tom: I know you are on vaca… but we need your help.
Me: Come on dude… Can’t this wait. I’ll be home in like 2 days?
Yale: Row…2.3.4. Row…2.3.4 Row…
Tom: Well it’ll be over by then.
Me: Fine! What is it? (As I put my drink down and put my robe on… giving the Yale boys one last glance…

Turns out that the debate that has been rumbling in the Vermont Legislation has heated up. The proposed bill (S.115, An Act Relating to Civil Marriage) is now in it’s final stages of debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was both shocked and dismayed. Before I left on my VACATION I was reasonably sure that this debate would get tabled. At least until the next session.

Since the folks in Vermont are pushing so hard, both pro and anti, the debate has spiraled and no one can stop the train. It will come to a vote and it will be decide on. Immediately!

Here’s what you need to know. The bill aims to abolish their current law allowing Domestic Partnerships in favor of removing the all gender specific wording from all other current marriage laws. Giving equal rights and protections to all of Vermont. (link to the full text of the bill below)

What are people so pissed about. Beats the hell out of me, I’m sure they would like to btw ;). The only argument is one of a religious nature. Which shouldn’t matter. Just because your God doesn’t think it’s ok doesn’t give you the legal right to make it law. Otherwise these people would have won their fight over slavery, inter racial marriage and women’s rights. The other argument is that this type of act infringes, somehow  on their freedom of religion. Again I have no logical idea as to why they think this. But to make damn sure that their religious rights are not being stepped on… the bill includes a section stating that no church or priest is required to preform a same-sex marriage or be forced to allow it in their church. There, problem solved, right?

The thing that gets me is the people crying out against this bill are the same people that cried foul over Vermont passing the DP laws. They were just convinced it would destroy “traditional” marriage and pull families apart. Nothing like that happened. Straight people still fell in love and got married. People are still building strong families. So, shut up!

Beth Robinson of VFMTFBeth Robinson, board chair of Vermont’s Freedom to Marry Task Force (VFMTF), said in an interview with tv station WCAX, “It’s just hard for me to imagine that anybody would think that recognizing and respecting their lifetime partnership takes anything away from anybody else.”

If anything Vermont has shown that these arguments that are used time and time again are just goat spit. Vermont has even commissioned a study to see what the impact on families are after the passage of their DP laws. That information will be shared by the Commission during the hearing before the Judiciary Committee. (link to the report below)

Also, Remember the NY Times ran that article talking about the differences between same-sex and heterosexual couples? It showed that same-sex couples were more apt to stay together longer, develop deeper understanding of each other and communicate more often and better than their straight counterparts. Basically… we are more likely to be happier longer.

There is also a study done by the Williams Institute of UCLA which clearly shows the economic gains that are likely to occur for Vermont if they pass this bill allowing full marriage equality. (link to the study below)

Governor, Jim Douglas

So, what can you do to help? Well first you should send an email to Vermont’s Governor, Jim Douglas. Telling him that elected officials are able to multi task. They can focus on the economy and the other issues important to the people around the state. If they truly can’t do this… maybe they should be recalled. (He said that this issue wasn’t important and that the legislation should focus solely on the economy.)

Maybe, take a look at who’s on the Judiciary Committee and send them your thoughts or look at the schedule for this bill. You can share them in person tonight at the Capitol  There will be a public hearing there, signups to speak start at 5pm and run till 6:30pm, So sign-up early.

You can also go to Vermont’s Freedom to Marry Task Force to get more information on who to call/email and what to say. How to organize an information party, to spread the word. Plus other ideas including making a donation to keep the fight going.

S.115 An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage

Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection

Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont

What the other bloggers are saying:



Washington Blade

Do you think that the actions of VFMTF are the best method for achieving marriage equality? How about the religious freedom argument, do you get it? Please help me with this one.

About Bad Evan

I am the one and only...Bad Evan.


  1. Lake Lure? My aunt and uncle have a place there! I’m sure the rowboys are fine.

    Anywayz, my fiancee and I aren’t able to get down to Mount Peculiar tonight, but I’ve sent my thoughts to the Judiciary (House and Senate) members. It’s pretty silly that the opponents are trotting out the same objections they had to CUs: it’ll destroy marriage, harm kids, blahblahblah. Yet the Republic carries on…

  2. I think that’s awesome that gay couples are more likely to be happier together. That makes sense, because heterosexual couples often enter into committed relationships with their heads filled with ridiculous fairytale-inspired expectations and sexist crap and many times have no clue what they’re getting into. I’m guessing that gay people are better parents too because usually a lot of thought and effort goes into the decision to have children. I wish the same could be said of heterosexual couples.

  3. I think you already know that I’m for gay marriage but I’m not sure I’ve ever specificallt said why. In short? Misery loves company.

  4. Hmm, for me what matter most is the emotional bond that me and my partner have. Whether the government approve it or not, its alright for me as long as me and my partner are happy together.

  5. Did you catch Barney Frank on Letterman the other day? He referred to his significant other as his Boyfriend?

    Now, I don’t know the Honorable Barney Frank, nor his “Boyfriend” so I can’t ‘sit’ them in a category like “Partner”, or “Boyfriend” or “Significant Other.”

    Nor will the States. Shit that would make it so much easier.

    So, was the Democrat Congressman from Massachusetts referring to his Boyfriend as his partner? Or am I jumping the gun? Is a Boyfriend the first person to which he can be described in the second? Like my girlfriend and I went to Startbucks today.

    My girlfriend is just a friend. And I have many boyfriends, so that statement gets lost in the syntactical garbage, and we’re left with wondering if his boyfriend is a boy friend, or boyfriend.

    I want a diagrammatical verb for my betrothed. I don’t care if it’s, “The One Who Likes To Insert His Penis Into My Crack” or “The Dude Who Sucks My Wang” as long as I’m left with the boundaries, and perceptions that compliment the story.

    My “Wife” or my “Husband” pretty much sums up the current. So a seven letter description should suffice –and shouldn’t be confused with a noun like ‘boyfriend’.

    And –sorry for you hippies, the world’s not ready for “Life Partner” or “Partner.” That works for lesbians in Florida that migrated from the north and intimidated law-makers with their might.

    But let’s get this straight. (Oops) I need to describe who this fellow is that is sleeping next to me in my bed, and it needs to be legally binding, and shouldn’t be nebulous like the Honorable Franks, “My Boyfriend”.

    I mean legally binding because everything we own is joint property –I think. Both our names are on the heating bill, and both of our names are on both cars –as is our car loans.

    Wait –I’m thinking, if it’s a disadvantage to be gay because we aren’t allowed to phrase, “The man who exclusively pokes me in the morning” then the boundaries of our car loan doesn’t apply, meaning if I perished during my surgical procedure a month ago, marital law doesn’t apply.

    That would be cool if it didn’t apply, because it’s a SAAB AWD. And my “He’s not that good at giving head, but I love him” could draw out the litigation forever.

    You would think in a nation of laws –and definitions, we could get it straight. (Here I go again.) Especially if it requires efforts by tax payers to determine who gets what in the untimely death of a “She licks me good.”

    Oh well, in most cases I think it’s proven that societies who try to diminish a seamless, yet productive member in that society who boasts that they’re the best in societal matters really suck, and fail.

    It’s kind’a like the guy who screams the loudest to God that he’s the holiest has the most illegitimate produce.

    Yeah, it’s just words. But words like “Boyfriend”, “Partner”, “The guy that kneads my gnads” are just words, but these words however composed play a role in the law.

    And that law –as it is recognized by this nation, should be significant, and recognized.

    Now, I’m going to nap.

Scroll To Top