The Latest from
@AmplifyTweets:
Facebook
On Monday, the Vermont State Senate voted in favor of gay marriage with a vote of 26-4. The bill moves to the House for consideration later this week. I watched the live video stream of the discussion and the vote. It was very exciting to be a part of. Several Senators has such wonderful, passionate, and inspiring things to say. I wanted to share some of what was said with you.
(I hope I’ve gotten the names of the Senators correct. If not, I’ll edit this to correct it/add to it.)
Senator John Campbell
“To me, I look at what marriage is [as a] commitment. It’s about love.”
“Marriage, to me, should be inclusive.”
“Opponents of this bill will say that traditional marriage brings stability. If it brings stability, then we should me asking more people to be involved in marriage.”
“I will not just stand by and let someone tell me that just because of someone’s sexual orientation, they can or cannot be a good parent.”
“Close our eyes to sexuality. Too many people are hung up on the sex thing here. If you talk to a lot of them and you look through them and you have the conversations with a lot of these opponents, what it really comes down to is what is going on in that bedroom. You know what? As a state, it’s none of our business.”
“The infringement on religious institutions, again, Mr. President, I think it’s very clear that the one section here which says that if a church or religious organization or institution does not want to recognize or to perform a marriage ceremony, that there will be no civil cause of action resulting.”
“We defend the Bible in church. We defend the Constitution here.”
“One of the major opponents referred to it as, we are on the ocean, on a cruise ship… and that’s all the married couples, the heterosexual married couples. And then, behind it, are the gay people in their dingy. And the gay people, they want to get out of their dingy, and they want to come on our boat, they want to come onto our ship, and they don’t care if it sinks because of that. When I heard that, I was really surprised, because I, to me, that makes the argument right there. There is some inequality. There are second-class citizens in certain people’s eyes. And that brings me to the last factor. The “they” factor; which, as a human being, I really found offensive. It seemed that whenever the opponents were talking about this bill, it was always “they.” “Those people have enough rights.” “Those people shouldn’t have what I want.” “Those people are given things that they shouldn’t have already.” Even one person went so far as to say, “Those people should be arrested because that lifestyle should be criminal.” Do you know who else they people are? They are our policemen. They are our firefighters. They’re teachers. They’re garbage men. They’re the guy who plows the street. They’re our children. Our sisters. Our brothers. That’s what they are. They are human beings, and as such, and as it’s said in this bill, they should be treated equally.
Senator Richard Sears (?)
“Is it every time we have a tough decision to make, we’re gonna ask the people, when that’s our job, to make tough decisions? That’s why they elect us.” (about an amendment to the bill to include a referendum- which was ultimately voted down)
Senator Richard McCormack
When this country gave women the [right to] vote, that did not change the definition of electoral democracy. It expanded the population entitled to participate. When this country abolished slavery, it did not change the definition of freedom. It made more people free. But there are those who will say, who is part of the definition, here? So, one man one woman is the traditional definition. I would answer that any reading of the history of western civilization shows that we have constantly changed the definition of marriage. Today, we define marriage as a mutually respectful, loving relationship, between two equal partners. […] I read in the book of Genesis, the description of marriage as a union between one man and as many women as he could afford. […] I look at marriage in Medieval Europe, as a property alliance. I look at marriage in early United States, in which a married woman could not sign a contract, own property, inherit property from her own parents, or retain custody of her own children. I was a Vermont Justice of the Peace, and I had a pamphlet from the Secretary of State’s office with the recommend marriage ceremony, in which the groom promises to love, honor, provide for, and protect his wife, and the bride promises to love, honor, and obey her husband. We changed the definition of marriage. […] It’s only within the last few decades that the government has been involved in itself in a right of a married person not to be beaten by his or her spouse. We have changed the definition of marriage repeatedly; I don’t think we’ve done the institution harm; I think it’s because of those changes that we now have the definition by which my wife and I define our marriage- a mutually loving, mutually respectful partnership, of two equal partners. That definition would not exist if we were not willing to change the definition of marriage. If we must call this changing the definition of marriage, it is changing the definition of marriage to be more just, and frankly…kinder. The people we’re talking about are our neighbors and our friends. This is the right thing to do.
~Samantha
I particularly appreciate the comment about the boat. As a supporter of gay marriage (which I often like to call 'garriage' for short) I want to be clear that I'm not trying to support queer couples becoming just like hetero married partners. The way that Senator Campbell changed the parameters of the debate about the boat to highlight inequality and dehumanizing language was skillful and right on.
I am a little confused about Senator McCormack's comment on definitions, but ultimately impressed by his words. The confusion for me comes from his argument that giving women the right to vote didn't change the definition of democracy (etc.) but I would argue that those changes did change the definitions. His argument does recognize that we are changing the definition in a positive way, and that's what I want to do too.