# Vermont Legislature Overrides Gov's Veto On Same-Sex Marriage! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254 "2009-04-07T15:11:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/41 "2009-04-07T19:31:08Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Are you referring to the infamous case of _Griswold vs. Wally World_? 😕 You completely panicked me for a moment there. [_Griswold v. CT_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). It is the forerunner to _Roe_ that held that states cannot ban married couples from buying contraceptives. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/42 "2009-04-07T19:31:42Z")
I have a policy that when someone’s cell phone goes off, I do my Happy Dance. As I ready this, two cell phones went off. I got to do my Gay Happy Dance without being asked why! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/43 "2009-04-07T19:58:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > the Iowa court, elected by the people, was _unanimous_ in opposing the ban, unlike the Cali and Mass courts In fairness, the opposing opinions didn’t actually deny that the right to equal protection applied, only that the change that recognizing it would entail was so substantial that it should be dealt with by the legislative process. IOW, not “No” as such, but “Please don’t make us do this, regardless of the merits”. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/44 "2009-04-07T20:03:28Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Yea, who would’ve thought after all this time gay marriage would finally become legal due to spite. > > Not really sure I see the problem they have with the Governor saying he’d veto prior to the bill passing though. Hey, it’s how women in New Zealand got the vote. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/45 "2009-04-07T20:28:33Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > what’s the process for amending the Vermont Constitution? how difficult or easy would it be to propose an amendment along the lines of Prop 8 in California? Nate Silver at [fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com) has done a [statistical analysis](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) of when each state would support a popular vote to approve gay marriage. He found that the three factors affecting the vote on gay marriage were (1) the percentage of adults who say religion is an important part of their lives, (2) the number of white evangelicals, and (3) the passage of time. His conclusion is that the votes in favor of gay marriage bans are decreasing at a rate of 2 percent per year, and that with the passage of suffient time even the most religious of states would vote to permit gay marriage. Specifically, he concludes that Alabama would support gay marriage in 2023 and Mississippi in 2024, with most of the other states able to support it well before that. On the other side, his analysis concludes that eleven states, including all six New England states, New York, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Alaska are at a point where they would vote in favor of gay marriage today. Of those states, Vermont is arguably the most liberal, and it has had civil unions for years, so I strongly doubt that if the matter were put to a popular vote the state would ban gay marriages. Indeed, the overwhelming legislative majority the measure got is a strong indication that the population would support gay marriage if called upon to vote on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/46 "2009-04-07T20:35:11Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > So you’re in favor of anti-miscegenation laws, segergated schools, police gaining (or planting, or manufacturing) evidence by whatever means strike them as fun, questioning oth the accused without counsel, holding all trials at the convenience of the prosecution, the reinstitution of mandated school prayers composed by the school board, compulsory Pledge of Allegiance in schools, the criminalization of extramarital sex in all forms and oral and anal sex whether extra- or intra-marital, the prohibition of birth control, states depriving homosexual people of access to the courts, making disagreement with the President a criminal offense…? Please specify which of the above you disagree with, and why the courts should not have found as they did in the relevant cases. Thanks. Seriously, and not to overuse a SDMB phrase, I thought you better than this. I’m not in favor of anti-miscengenation laws, **Polycarp** , but that doesn’t mean I wish to see them corrected by kidnapping the children of state legislators and threatening to subject them to sexual abuse by lepers (the legislators, that is) unless they vote to remove those laws. In other words, it’s perfectly possible to be in favor of a result, but not approve of the way the result was reached. I believe this very discussion was launched by such a feeling on my part: while lauding the result and the method in Vermont, I mentioned favoring the result but not the method in Iowa. Why you would then choose such a puerile and juvenile question as “So then you favor [terrible social policies]…” is beyond me. I don’t remember ever saying a harsh word to you before, but this is so unworthy of you that I’m stunned. > [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Yup. Not that it matters, because **Bricker** has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to this area. He’s stopped opposing gay marriage, but apparently the judicial branch of the government is not equal when it comes to the law. > > Also, does it mean nothing to you. **Bricker** , that the Iowa court, elected by the people, was _unanimous_ in opposing the ban, unlike the Cali and Mass courts? Actually, it is relevant that Iowa judges are elected. But because this was not the thrust of my comment (although now, naturally, the conversation has left my laudatory words about Vermont far behind, and is instead focused on the Pure Evil I have in my heart for Iowa’s situation). So, to explain further: As I hinted, I was less than pleased by Iowa’s result, because, even though Iowa’s judges are elected, they do not run in the same way that Iowa’s legislators do. They have “retention elections” with no opponent, and even if removed, replacement judges cannot simply initiate a change; they must wait for a case. And it’s far from clear what such a case might be: a same-sex couple wishing to marry but unable to legally do so clearly has standing to sue to change the law, but who might have standing to sue to reverse such a decision? No, no – although the situation differs from the federal sphere, it’s not by any means a true expression of democratic will in the way Vermont’s decision is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/47 "2009-04-07T20:38:27Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > How does a state legislature constitute a “self” vis-a-vis the gay community. Gays had been waiting all this time for _someone else_ to remove the barriers to them excercising their rights. The legislature governs by the will of the voter. Every citizen 18 and over has a vote. That’s what “self-” means. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/48 "2009-04-07T22:00:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not in favor of anti-miscengenation laws, **Polycarp** , but that doesn’t mean I wish to see them corrected by kidnapping the children of state legislators and threatening to subject them to sexual abuse by lepers (the legislators, that is) unless they vote to remove those laws. He’s got a point, though; there’s no more indication that those who orignally wrote and voted the Equal Protection clause into existence would have approved of the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws in _Loving v. Virginia_ any more than they would have approved of gay marriage. We can’t say with certainty what they would have thought in any given situation - they were different men and of different minds, and it’s not like they were a Greek chorus speaking in unison on any given area of the law. Punishments like flogging weren’t considered “cruel and unusual” in 1789, but our jurisprudence now recognizes that our standard of what consitututes cruel and unusual punishment “is not static…The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” [Trop v. Dulles](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=356&invol=86), 356 U.S. 86 (1958). Instead of trying to divine what the thoughts of dead men would have been in situations that never would have occurred to them and in times that they never could have forseen, what’s wrong with “evolving standards of decency” in our Equal Protection jurisprudence? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/49 "2009-04-07T22:05:01Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > He’s got a point, though; there’s no more indication that those who orignally wrote and voted the Equal Protection clause into existence would have approved of the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws in _Loving v. Virginia_ any more than they would have approved of gay marriage. We can’t say with certainty what they would have thought in any given situation - they were different men and of different minds, and it’s not like they were a Greek chorus speaking in unison on any given area of the law. Punishments like flogging weren’t considered “cruel and unusual” in 1789, but our jurisprudence now recognizes that our standard of what consitututes cruel and unusual punishment “is not static…The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” [Trop v. Dulles](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=356&invol=86), 356 U.S. 86 (1958). Instead of trying to divine what the thoughts of dead men would have been in situations that never would have occurred to them and in times that they never could have forseen, what’s wrong with “evolving standards of decency” in our Equal Protection jurisprudence? Because if the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society are found to mean that every life, from conception to natural death, must be protected, and that therefore abortion is violative of the Constitution… then I suspect many who favor the “evolving decency” standard will sing a different tune. What’s wrong with it, in short, is that it places too much power in the hands of the judiciary, unelected at the federal level and often not meaningfully elected at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/50 "2009-04-07T22:18:42Z")
So, do you then think that the Court erred in _Loving_, _Brown_, and other civil rights cases? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/51 "2009-04-07T22:19:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because if the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society are found to mean that every life, from conception to natural death, must be protected, and that therefore abortion is violative of the Constitution… then I suspect many who favor the “evolving decency” standard will sing a different tune. What’s wrong with it, in short, is that it places too much power in the hands of the judiciary, unelected at the federal level and often not meaningfully elected at the state level. It places power there that you don’t want, not too much power. That’s one of the essential balances between the legislative and judicial: the judicial branch may interpret a law that isn’t the way the legislative branch likes, so the legislators may feel free to pass a new one that explicitly rules out that interpretation. Or, of course, not, if the law was written a long time ago and the current legislators agree with what the court says, at least enough not to do anything about the ruling. My point is, a court decision isn’t always the end of the story. We’ve seen many times that the Supreme Court will issue a verdict and Congress passes a law or a Constitutional amendment undoing it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/52 "2009-04-07T22:20:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, it’s perfectly possible to be in favor of a result, but not approve of the way the result was reached. Can you ever bring yourself to address the position that reaching such results is the heart of the courts’ role, not something to deplore? > [@](#): > > a same-sex couple wishing to marry but unable to legally do so clearly has standing to sue to change the law, but who might have standing to sue to reverse such a decision? Anybody harmed by it, even potentially - such as one of the many straight couples whose marriage has been “redefined” as an institution. That’s the heart of the anti-SSM argument, at least the part that can be articulated in public. > [@](#): > > No, no – although the situation differs from the federal sphere, it’s not by any means a true expression of democratic will in the way Vermont’s decision is. That draws the line between democratic and unacceptably activist between some procedural details. It is certainly as easy for an aggrieved person to think their elected officials in the Legislature are not following their “democratic” wishes as it is to think that of their elected officials in the state Supreme Court, though. So your view remains as opaque, and as redolent of mere rationalization, as it ever has. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/53 "2009-04-07T22:32:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because if the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society are found to mean that every life, from conception to natural death, must be protected, and that therefore abortion is violative of the Constitution… then I suspect many who favor the “evolving decency” standard will sing a different tune. What’s wrong with it, in short, is that it places too much power in the hands of the judiciary, unelected at the federal level and often not meaningfully elected at the state level. Perhaps, but I’m not convinced originalism doesn’t lend itself to judicial abuse any less than any other school of constitutional interpretation. I think Poly’s point was that the exact same originalism criticisms leveled at judicial approval of gay marriage could also be leveled at _Loving_, _Brown_, and a number of other cases vilified at the time that are now generally regarded as societal goods and among the finest moments of the judiciary. Returning to “evolving standards of decency” in Eighth Amendment cases for a second, do you think a judge would be required to approve of legislation that imposed late 1700’s style punishments such as flogging and handbranding? Even Scalia says he wouldn’t, regardless of the framer’s intent: > [@](#): > > But stare decisis alone is not enough to prevent originalism from being what many would consider too bitter a pill. What if some state should enact a new law providing public lashing, or branding of the right hand, as punishment for certain criminal offenses? Even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that these were not cruel and unusual measures in 1791, and even though no prior Supreme Court decision has specifically disapproved them, I doubt whether any federal judge–even among the many who consider themselves originalists-- would sustain them against an eighth amendment challenge. It may well be, as Professor Henry Monaghan persuasively argues, that this cannot legitimately be reconciled with originalist philosophy–that it represents the unrealistic view of the Constitution as a document intended to create a perfect society for all ages to come, whereas in fact it was a political compromise that did not pretend to create a perfect society even for its own age (as its toleration of slavery, which a majority of the founding generation recognized as an evil, well enough demonstrates). [FN50] Even so, I am confident that public flogging and handbranding would not be sustained by our courts, and any espousal of originalism as a practical theory of exegesis must somehow come to terms with that reality. > > [snip] > > Having made that endorsement, I hasten to confess that in a crunch I may prove a faint-hearted originalist. I cannot imagine myself, any more than any other federal judge, upholding a statute that imposes the punishment of flogging. Oh, come on, Antonin, don’t weenie out on us now! 🙂 [Originalism: The Lesser Evil](http://web.syr.edu/~jrkarp/scalia.html) ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/54 "2009-04-07T22:40:21Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Also: will Douglas be thrown out on his ass next year for vetoing this? Eh, possibly, but not likely. It could be a tipping point, but I doubt it’ll lead to a mass exodus of voters. Particularly since we just had our election last fall, and there’s time for this to blow past. > [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > Go Vermont! > > What do you want to bet the real troglodytes among them will still find some reason to complain about how this was done? It was already happening a week ago. People picketing and demanding that their lawmakers were out of line passing this law without a referendum, 'cause that’s how a true Democracy works, by jeezum! Can’t trust the politicians to make the right choices (particularly when it looks like they are en masse going to enact a law I disagree with), so we have to poll the people! This was flawed and faulty because we didn’t really ask the people what _they_ wanted. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/55 "2009-04-08T02:37:55Z")
Two questions: 1. How does Vermont of all states happen to have a **Republican** governor? 2. How is it that 54 posts have been posted in this thread and \*\*not one person \*\*has come on to express moral outrage about the institution of gay marriage in general? ---
**Author:** ![JayRx1981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71e660/32.png) [@JayRx1981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JayRx1981)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/56 "2009-04-08T03:49:16Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > 1. How is it that 54 posts have been posted in this thread and \*\*not one person \*\*has come on to express moral outrage about the institution of gay marriage in general? I had the same thought with the Iowa thread. 4 years ago and these threads would be several hundred posts long by the end of the first day. Even 2 years ago they’d be much longer than they are now. I think it says a lot. And I love it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/57 "2009-04-08T04:05:12Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Two questions: > > 1. How does Vermont of all states happen to have a **Republican** governor? > > 2. How is it that 54 posts have been posted in this thread and \*\*not one person \*\*has come on to express moral outrage about the institution of gay marriage in general? **JayRx** dealt quite well with question #2. Regarding question #1, there was a time, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, when the Republican party actually had a viable liberal wing. And moderate Republicans were a dime a dozen in the Northeast. Some of that remains, mostly at the local level: someone disgusted by the DeLays caused by an Armey of Newts but who has spent all his life a Republican, continues to be one – sometimes out of lifelong commitment, sometimes for moral consistency: there are a few historical principles for which Republicans stood and Democrats did not, as a rule, that are still worth standing for. Unfortunately, anyone under 40 has a hard time visualizing it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/58 "2009-04-08T06:17:08Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. How does Vermont of all states happen to have a Republican governor? Local politics are different from national politics. Every state has variation, and in ever state, each of the major local parties will pick up about half of the local variation. This may mean that they take different positions on some issues than do the national parties. For instance, one of the big issues that keeps Montana Republican in national elections is guns, since national Republican candidates tend to be significantly more pro-gun than national Democrats. But on a local level, it’s not an issue, because all politicians around here, Republican and Democrat alike, are pro-gun, so we can end up with a Democratic governor and two senators. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/59 "2009-04-08T12:08:28Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > We’ve seen many times that the Supreme Court will issue a verdict and Congress passes a law or a Constitutional amendment undoing it. “Many times?” In the nation’s history, there have been 27 constitutional amendments, of which the first ten came in a batch and were not, so far as I recall, responsive to any particular judicial action. (My discomfort over the courts’ interpretation of statue is not nearly as onerous, because Congress alone can cure it – but Congress alone may NOT cure a Constitutional decision gone amuck). Now, it’s true that a few of the remaining 17 amendments over the past 200 years have been motivated by Court decision – Ganz vs. Louisana and the 11th comes to mind without doing any research, for instance, and the 16th for income tax. But even so, I’d suggest that the majority of those 17 were NOT inspired by a Court decision, and the reason is simple: it takes a great deal to amend the Constitution. If the Court ever did find a “right to life for the unborn” in the Constitution, it would be bad news for those favoring choice, and I assume they wouldn’t respond with, “Ah, well, not to worry; we’ll shortly have a amendment ratified by the states.” ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254/60 "2009-04-08T13:37:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, it’s true that a few of the remaining 17 amendments over the past 200 years have been motivated by Court decision – Ganz vs. Louisana and the 11th comes to mind without doing any research, for instance, and the 16th for income tax. You mean _Chisolm v. Georgia.__Hans v. Louisiana_ was the one that expanded the 11th Amendment’s sovereign immunity protection to states from suits brought by their own citizens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vermont-legislature-overrides-govs-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/492254.md?page=4)