Public Hearing 3/18 | Vermont legislature forces Neutered Marriage Bill on Citizens

vermont S. 115 civil marriage

Vermont Crosses Out Marriage

All this week, Vermont is considering a bill (S. 115: An Act Relating to Civil Marriage) which would legalize the neutering of marriage. They are planning on passing it by the end of the week.

Even though according to this article, the number of civil unions in Vermont has gone from 1,876 in 2001 to 262 in 2008.

Vermont was the first state to recognize civil unions, but Rep. Tom Little says that same-sex marriage legislation is "a better course" for Vermont because the terminology (civil union v. marriage) is unfair.

The situation in Vermont is an excellent example of how civil unions work. They are a stepping stone to marriage access—which people openly hope will grant the homosexual lifestyle more social acceptance. However, in the mean time, it literally strips marriage of its core meaning: the unification of opposite genders for the benefit of society.

As a society, we do not give benefits to citizens because of their love, sexual orientation, or for social acceptance. Opine-Editorials has an excellent discussion of this topic here and here.

If you live in Vermont:

1. Check out this Facebook group.

2. Call, email, or write the legislators at the Vermont State House and tell them "No" to gay marriage. And contact Governor Jim Douglas and encourage him to not sign a gay marriage bill if it passes and comes to his desk.
The State of Vermont Legislature
Gov. Jim Douglas (R-VT)

3. If you can, attend the the public hearing on Wednesday night. Bring written comments, or prepare talking points if you want to testify (written comments will be accepted).

If you don’t live in Vermont:

1. Email this to your friends who do live there. Post on facebook/blog/twitter. Get the word out.

–Ruby Eliot



  1. Zoey said,

    March 17, 2009 at 1:52 am

    I hope you don’t mind- I posted this on my site (gave you credit, of course). I just don’t have time this week to write my own version…

  2. Dave C said,

    March 17, 2009 at 1:56 am

    Our government leaders seem like mobsters or gangsters not listening to what the people want and only doing what will help their friends or get them a payback later. This government power grab over our constitution is getting way out of hand.

  3. rubyeliot said,

    March 17, 2009 at 2:11 am

    totally fine zoey.

  4. Pearl said,

    March 17, 2009 at 4:55 am

    Yes it is, Dave C. Yes it is.

  5. sun said,

    March 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    I just wanted to point out recent Canadian repercussions since the passage of gay marriage there–,2933,481308,00.html
    “Canada Man Charged With Polygamy to Use Gay Marriage Defense”

    Now the door has opened, it’s hard to say how far the legal definition of marriage will eventually be stretched there…Recently, there has been news of a gene that is said to control “fear of commitment”.,2933,415042,00.html
    While a polygamous individual might seem at first glance to have no problem with commitment, I suppose someone could argue that polygamous marriage allows those with this condition to not feel fear of committing to a relationship: the option of other possible spouses helping to allay this genetic fear?

  6. beetlebabee said,

    March 18, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Sun, good point. Once you move the boundary for marriage away from what is scientifically proven to be best for children and society to something based on someone’s idea of fairness, all boundaries are moved. Anything is possible.

    The Canadian story is especially damaging to those who are promoting “diversity” in marriage definition. They know that if polygamy were on the table, equally acknowledged, there would be no chance for any other alternative “marriage” to succeed.

    The whole argument about “fairness” misses the point on marriage. Marriage isn’t about fairness…it’s about efficacy. It’s not a gay/straight equation, it’s a marriage vs. everything else equation.

    No other living arrangement works as well for the stability of children and families as a loving lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.

    That is the true case, and that’s why gay “marriage” will never be equal.

  7. wandap said,

    March 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    They just passed the bill.

  8. March 23, 2009 at 1:00 am

    […] blogged about the Vermont marriage situation here and here, but here is the latest […]

  9. March 23, 2009 at 1:49 am

    […] blogged about the Vermont marriage situation here and here, and most recently […]

  10. stella said,

    April 3, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    please please govenor veto gay marraige

  11. beetlebabee said,

    April 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    He’s promised a veto, but now they’ve got to keep the votes to hold the veto in place. Monday night it’s supposed to go in for the last vote. They’ll be pressuring our guys all weekend. Give them a call, support our guys on the ground down there. It’s amazing that it’s come down to the votes of just two or three guys. Go Vermont!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: