Vermont law makers are rallying support for a bill that provides full marriage equality for all of their citizens, and they are prepared to vote this bill into law this legislative session.
Here's a link to the video news coverage provided by WCAX.
For those of you who prefer you can read the whole story here at the source.
One of the things in this story that caught my eye was this comment:
"We are changing the definition of marriage,"said Craig Bensen, who opposes gay marriage.
I have to ask readers, what is the compelling interest in this point? Does it outweigh the attempt to place a social cast on an entire group of people that have only their sexuality in common? No, it does not.
"It is not a positive social good to create a permanent class of motherless and fatherless children,"
Huh? I marry my partner of 15 years and suddenly it causes "motherless and fatherless children"? The obvious assumption is that all people want children, which is entirely untrue even in straight marriages. This goes along with the claim that marriage is about children, which is clearly untrue as demonstrated by the amount of people who marry and cannot have children.
In some states where equality was considered inevitable opponents had tried to put an obstacle in it's way by claiming that marriage was for straight people, the GLBT should consider civil unions not to upset traditionalists. Vermont was the first state in the nation to offer any form of equality to same sex partners. After having almost ten years to consider their position, five of which were spent with their neighbors in Massachusetts having full marriage equality, most Vermonters are ready for what they consider "The next most logical step."