Vermont Overturns Veto, Fourth State to Impose Gay 'Marriage'

MONTPELIER, Vermont (LifeSiteNews.com) - Vermont's House of Representatives accrued just enough votes earlier today to overturn Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of Vermont's same-sex "marriage" bill. The vote made Vermont the fourth U.S. state to extend the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, days after Iowa's Supreme Court imposed same-sex "marriage" in the Midwest.

The Senate voted 23-5 to overturn the veto, and the House voted 100-49, achieving the two-thirds majority needed to push the new definition of marriage as "the legally recognized union of two people" into law.

Gov. Douglas had vetoed the bill immediately upon receiving its final draft yesterday. However, Douglas said he would not urge legislators to comply with the veto, but only "to do what their consciences lead them to do, most importantly to do it quickly and get on with the business of the state."

Vermont is the first state to approve same-sex "marriage" through the legislative process, as opposed to activist court rulings.

Concerned Women for America's President Wendy Wright issued a statement today condemning the bill's legislative supporters for "vainly redefining marriage."

Noting that Vermont was the first state to create same-sex civil unions, Wright said: "As pro-family leaders warned, and despite claims by homosexual activists, this debate is not about benefits. That was merely the wedge to demand more, to require that everyone in society accept what cannot - by nature - be, that marriage can be something other than one man and one woman."

"The decision by Vermont legislators to attempt to redefine marriage creates an urgency for other states and officials to protect marriage," said Wright.

Iowa's Supreme Court Friday set off a firestorm after it unanimously agreed that Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act "violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," and therefore the court had a "constitutional duty" to impose same-sex "marriage" on the state.

Critics accused the court of ignoring Iowan's authority over the law through the democratic process, and called for immediate debate of a constitutional amendment.

However, the prognosis that such an amendment would undergo consideration in the Democrat-ruled legislature looked grim Monday. Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal said he had "no intention" of taking up the issue, and the House Majority leader Kevin McCarthy was hesitant to announce his intentions.

The imposition of same-sex "marriage" may also be drawing near in New Hampshire, where it has passed the House, as well as in Maine and New Jersey, where similar legislation is under debate.

Daniel: Yes, but more accurately, properly ordered sexual activity.
Jim: The argument for keeping marriage between one man and one woman is that this is the only relationship that properly balances both procreation and bonding between the spouses AS LONG AS the spouses are not using contraception. If a marriage couple is using contraception, then they are causing a distortion of the purpose for the sexual activity and not respecting both natural outcomes of sexual activity...they are thwarting the procreative aspect of it. So basically, contracepting couples are enjoying the pleasures of sexual activity and rejecting the procreative part, much in basically the same manner that homosexual couples do.

Just because someone is born homosexual doesn't make homosexual activity moral, and just because someone is born heterosexual doesn't make contracepted sex moral. If you think contracepted sex is moral, then you need to logically accept homosexual activity as moral, it is as simple as that. If persons of good will out there are reading these stories and getting alarmed about the state of marriage in the U.S., they need to first look at their own marriages and ask themselves how they have distorted the meaning of marriage by accepting contraception. Then we will start to make some headway against these efforts to redefine marriage.

KHanley | 4/8/2009

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, antisocial behavior such as "spamming" and "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will not be posted on Catholic Online. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of service. While Catholic Online invites robust discussion, we maintain the right to not print material that is patently false in its claims concerning the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, overtly anti-Catholic or which, in the opinion of the moderator, are intended to mislead readers as to what the Catholic Church teaches. Comments DO NOT necessarily reflect the opinion or views of Catholic Online.

| Politics