Done Deal

The Vermont Legislature has overridden the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill (in case you've been under a rock since yesterday). So, the people's elected representatives have expressed the people's will over the objections of a single man whose personal beliefs are in opposition. Here's what Tony Perkins (of the so-called "Family Research Council") had to say about that:

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well.”

Somehow, the argument gets thinner and thinner.

The District of Columbia is going the New York route:

The D.C. Council on Tuesday unanimously passed a measure that would recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the District of Columbia, and supporters say it's the first step toward allowing gay marriages in the District.

At-Large D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson introduced the amendment to a pre-existing bill Tuesday. The amendment was signed by all 13 D.C. Council members. Mayor Adrian Fenty released a statement saying he will sign it.

Prediction: Congress will overrule it, because Congress is scared of its own shadow.

And in Iowa, the Court's decision will stand:

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver said Tuesday he will not support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
…
The Supreme Court found that denying gay and lesbian couples marriage is discrimination under the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause. With that in mind, Culver said he is “reluctant” to add a provision to the constitution that was already found “unlawful and discriminatory.”

The Vermont decision, in particular, is being hailed as knocking the props out from under the anti-gay right's "democratic process" argument (to which Andrew Sullivan still adheres). You know what I think of that one: the courts are set up with the power to review legislation against constitutional requirements for a reason, and it's something that applies to state courts no less than federal: the Founders did not trust the whim of the people. Watch for repeal movements in those states with anti-marriage amendments within the next five years, probably starting with California (assuming the Court upholds Prop 8) next year.

As for Perkin's reaction, he goes on to say:

Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage.

Perkins, being the mendacious charlatan that he is, doesn't note that those votes have gotten narrower and narrower -- no more 70% majorities for the fundies -- while the funding has gotten higher and higher and the lies have gotten more outrageous. In that vein, here's a telling comment:



"You've already lost."

That sort of says it.