Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Vermont deliberates over gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. You can believe that the Right Wing Religious Republican Charlantans will be working to prevent the passage.

    Religion is a study in Hypocrisy. One of the purposes of organized religious institutions is to promote terror, hate, bigotry, prejudice, intolorance to anything other than their obhorrence.

    Religion demands complete control of thier members mind, thoughts, beliefs and judgment. religion depicts gays as abominable, evil, wiked, immoral, malevolent, sinful, vile, foul, deproved, malicious, etc… but exactly the opposite is true. Unfortunately, they are instigators in the beating and murder of gay victims.

    Through Fear and Deception Religion Legislates and Legalizes Discrimination and prevents legislation that would give Equal Rights. Just assess what happened in California with Prop 8 and in Florida and Arizona the last election. Examine what is happening accros the U.S.

  2. Leo,
    It saddens me that you view everyone opposed to gay marriage, or who holds religious beliefs, as hateful and bigoted. I oppose gay marriage, but feel the same way towards the issue as I do opposing my 4-year-old’s desire to eat ice cream all day. I still love my children and respect them, but when they want something they can’t have, they get really upset and mad at me, not understanding my motives for denying them what they want. It might surprise you that most people are good-hearted and want you to be as happy as possible. Perhaps tring to understand the objections to gay marriage might convince you that not everyone “hates” homosexuals.

  3. Jennifer, I agree with you that hate is a counter-productive and unjustifiable human emotion and that we should all seek to understand the beliefs and values of others who may not agree with our point of view. However to compare the basic human right of marrying the person they love and wish to share their life with, with your 4 year old’s desire to eat unlimited ice cream is an insulting comparison which wholly undermines your standpoint.

    The crux of the issue is that you are seeking to deny a basic human right that you can chose to enjoy but wish to withold it from other couples just because they are of the same sex. This is just the same as a white South African 30 years ago or a white Virginian 50 years ago believing that they have the right to vote or sit at the front of a bus or send their children to the best schools, but deny their black countrymen the same right. It is quite simply an indefensible prejudice and an intolerance of an inhuman and deeply unpleasant nature. You need to sit down and think carefully what it is in the depths of your mind that convince you that you have the right to elevate yourself above others and deny basic freedoms purely on the basis of another’s different race or sexuality.

  4. Jennifer, the difference is that you are adamant this specific group of people do not deserve the same rights as you do, just because they love people of their own gender. This is completely unfair. How would you feel if it were the other way around, homosexuals were the majority and refused to allow heterosexuals to marry? You do not have the right to act as though your relationships are so much more valid than ours that you deserve the institution of marriage and we do not. Honestly, people like you are the worst kind of bigot. You feed us this ‘I still love you’ crap whilst denying us and our partners basic legal protection, based on your own arbitrary standards. Ridiculous. The WBC make more sense than you.

  5. Jennifer, the difference here is that you are adamant we as a group do not deserve the same legal protection or recognition as you do, based on your own arbitrary standards. This is completely unfair. You should not under any circumstances be allowed to impose your entirely subjective principles on the lives of total strangers, who just want to marry the person they love. How would you feel if it were the other way around, heterosexuals were denied marriage rights by homosexuals? Why exactly do you get to decide that your relationships are so much more valid than ours? Honestly, you are the worst kind of bigot. You feed us this ‘I still love you’ rubbish whilst denying us and our partners basic legal protection and recognition. I’d rather have dinner with the WBC any day, at least they are honest. I hope your child never becomes gay – it’ll be a lot worse for them to be treated by their own MOTHER as a second class citizen.

  6. I feel there are justifiable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, and one is not because I think I am better that anyone else. It comes down to my belief that homosexual RELATIONSHIPS will never be equal to heterosexual RELATIONSHIPS in their ability to provide both a mother and a father. By having our government reward the two kinds of relationships equally, they are endorsing the myth that children’s interests are served equally without one or the other genders as a parent. I believe every child deserves to have a married mother and father, and all our laws should encourage this ideal. We can see our government rewarding companies that practice environmentally friendly behaviors. Does that mean every other company is hurting the environment? No. Similarly, children will not be necessarily harmed by less-than-ideal households, but most recognize the need and benefit of promoting the ideal parental environment for our children. We should always put children’s interests above those of adult’s. That’s why it is justifiable to ask for stricter divorce laws and tougher penalties on behaviors and substances that destroy marriages. Abstinence education and welfare reform can be options for discouraging single parenthood.

  7. Hi Jennifer, I will be praying for you and celebrating everytime another state or nation legislates for same-sex marriage and other equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgender HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!

  8. Jennifer, MANY people get married with NO intention of having children. For your conclusion to be sound, your premise has to be valid, and in this case it certainly isn’t.

  9. Wait a minute!? Access to Social Security befefits? How? This headline should be in all the papers! (Or is the reporter just misinformed?)

    These are Federal benefits, which would be prohibited by the Defense of Marriage Act! Is the State of Vermont including a challenge to DOMA in this bill? Or, are they including the funding to provide from State funds, the equivalent benefits to same-sex married couples?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all