Does money matter?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 1:56 PM GMT
    On April 7th, Vermont legislature overrode the governors' veto, and legalized equal marriage in Vermont.
    Based on the latest numbers submitted to to the Secretary of State's office, here is what has been reported as expenses by groups on both sides of the debate, through the end of March. (most, but not all groups have yet reported)

    Total pro-marriage equality: $228,000
    Total anti-marriage equality: $10,000

    Here is why the anti-marriage equality side failed (in my opinion).

    - The tiny amount the anti-marriage side raised shows how little support they actually had with Vermonters. Without large amounts of out of state money coming in, they were not able raise money or mount a successful campaign. They had zero ads on TV (while the pro-side had many).
    - Their main expense, a state wide robo-call effort, backfired, once it was disclosed it came from the National Organization for Marriage group in Virginia. People here really hated that and it generated more support for the bill, than opposition. (I got one, and immediately contact my legislators yet again to reaffirm my support for the bill.)
    - Despite polls that showed that a large majority favored equal marriage, they deluded themselves into thinking that they had majority support and that people would rise up and pressure their legislators to vote no (the opposite happened).
    - They never got their act together. They were out spent, out organized, out maneuvered and never had majority support among the voters.

    I think lessons can be learned from this and applied in other states.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 3:38 PM GMT
    Another way to see it is that married people should not have to spend money to protect their rights from the government. What happened to "unalienable rights'?

    I have no problem with whatever gays want to do to legalize their relationships but it should not be done by attacking and modifying every marriage contract in the US. That is like Hitler nationalizing jewish private property.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 4:03 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidAnother way to see it is that married people should not have to spend money to protect their rights from the government. What happened to "unalienable rights'?

    I have no problem with whatever gays want to do to legalize their relationships but it should not be done by attacking and modifying every marriage contract in the US. That is like Hitler nationalizing jewish private property.



    Not sure if I read this correctly. Are you saying that equal marriage rights for same sex couples somehow had any effect on existing opposite sex marriages? Not one single existing marriage contract was modified in any way what so ever.
  • gsh1964

    Posts: 388

    Apr 29, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
    I don't really think this is a bad thing.
    I'm sure it would of passed anyway, due to the amount of money involved. This just confirmed it in the legsilature that the non-equality didn't have that much support.
    Just take the ruling and don't over analize it. Trust me, we will have tougher battles down the line.
    Just take this one and say "thank you" and walk away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 6:40 PM GMT
    OutdoorMutt said
    Alpha13 saidAnother way to see it is that married people should not have to spend money to protect their rights from the government. What happened to "unalienable rights'?

    I have no problem with whatever gays want to do to legalize their relationships but it should not be done by attacking and modifying every marriage contract in the US. That is like Hitler nationalizing jewish private property.



    Not sure if I read this correctly. Are you saying that equal marriage rights for same sex couples somehow had any effect on existing opposite sex marriages? Not one single existing marriage contract was modified in any way what so ever.


    "Civil Rights" and contracts are not the same thing. Retroactively changing private contracts is kinda scary...just as eminent domain is. Yes, changing the definition of marriage changes the "contract" of everyone that was married since the definition of marriage is retroactively changed. A change in the state constitution is required to "take " this right away from the people that contracted when marriage was between a single man and woman. .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 8:00 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidAnother way to see it is that married people should not have to spend money to protect their rights from the government. What happened to "unalienable rights'?

    I have no problem with whatever gays want to do to legalize their relationships but it should not be done by attacking and modifying every marriage contract in the US. That is like Hitler nationalizing jewish private property.


    Normally I like your posts Alpha13, but this one is absolute BS.

    First, legalizing gay unions is NOTHING like what Hitler did in Germany in the 1930s. My family had all its property stolen by HitlerĀ“s government. We never got it back (I think we have a silver sugar spoon somewhere...). Who is going to lose all their possessions as a result of gay marriage? Making that sort of comparison is either absurdly stupid or you are trolling.

    Second, I think that marriage should be abolished as a state sponsored institution. Individual faith groups can have a church/synagogue/temple wedding and they are free to define that as they like. The civil/state part should give equality to all citizens. Your stuff on "redefining marriage for the rest of us" is pure National Organization for Marriage. I understand the point (the civil union part was originally defined as being "man and woman", not "two consenting adults"), but on that logic nothing can ever be changed.

    With friends like you who needs enemies?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2009 9:10 PM GMT
    I used to work for an MP in England. He wasn't influential at all, but the one thing I learnt is that democracy really, really holds government in check.

    MPs are 100% motivated by what they think is popular. Lobbying doesn't really have as much effect as you might think.

    For me, the main tension isn't between money and democracy, but democracy and inalieniable rights.

    Which is why human rights should never be put to the ballot.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 29, 2009 9:20 PM GMT
    It is awesome that the right wing was out spent and out smarted in Vermont. That is because your pro marriage forces had their act together and knew of a massive onslaught from the religious right and countered them before they could try to influence any state legislator. People of Vermont are very independent and progressive minded for the most part so the loony right did not have a chance in Vermont which is great. Now lets see the same successful events unfold in as many other states as possible. Hopefully people in California are paying attention and taking notes on how to make gay marriage the law of the land. Hopefully both New York and Pennsylvania will see successful passage of gay marriage into their laws in the near future that is if we can duplicate the Vermont success in both states. That remains to be seen.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Apr 29, 2009 9:41 PM GMT
    'Yes, changing the definition of marriage changes the "contract" of everyone that was married since the definition of marriage is retroactively changed. A change in the state constitution is required to "take " this right away from the people that contracted when marriage was between a single man and woman.'

    Then the definition of marriage was changed when it was defined as only being between one man and one woman to prevent same-sex marriages from being recognized in the last few decades.

    I don't see how that matters anyway (what you stated before) because if the definition of who is allowed to be married or recognized as married changes, that doesn't change the contract of people already married because they are still married, the only thing that might change is how the participants are labeled in the contracts, but the contract itself has not changed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2009 1:46 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    OutdoorMutt said
    Alpha13 saidAnother way to see it is that married people should not have to spend money to protect their rights from the government. What happened to "unalienable rights'?

    I have no problem with whatever gays want to do to legalize their relationships but it should not be done by attacking and modifying every marriage contract in the US. That is like Hitler nationalizing jewish private property.



    Not sure if I read this correctly. Are you saying that equal marriage rights for same sex couples somehow had any effect on existing opposite sex marriages? Not one single existing marriage contract was modified in any way what so ever.


    "Civil Rights" and contracts are not the same thing. Retroactively changing private contracts is kinda scary...just as eminent domain is. Yes, changing the definition of marriage changes the "contract" of everyone that was married since the definition of marriage is retroactively changed. A change in the state constitution is required to "take " this right away from the people that contracted when marriage was between a single man and woman. .


    With all due respect, not one single existing marriage contract was modified, changed, revised or repealed. There was nothing stated in any of the existing marriage contracts that the contract was in anyway tied to, or dependent on, the ability of others to enter into similar contracts. Your assumption that by allowing same sex couples to also create identical contracts somehow changes the terms, roles, rights or responsibilities of existing marriage contracts is completely false. You are misinformed if you believe otherwise. Not one lawyer, even those on the anti-marriage equality side, claimed this to be the case. Sorry, but your argument is unsupported by any facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2009 1:56 PM GMT
    Have to agree with outdoornutt. Cannot see how legalizing gay marriage in any way alters existing contracts. Lostboy is correct in that civil marriage ought to be completely separate from religious marriage. In France I believe marriages are customarily performed twice (assuming parties want a religious ceremony), once in the local city hall, once in a church or mosque or synagogue or temple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2009 1:57 PM GMT
    Lost_And_Found saidI used to work for an MP in England. He wasn't influential at all, but the one thing I learnt is that democracy really, really holds government in check.

    MPs are 100% motivated by what they think is popular. Lobbying doesn't really have as much effect as you might think.

    For me, the main tension isn't between money and democracy, but democracy and inalieniable rights.

    Which is why human rights should never be put to the ballot.



    You worked for a Monkey Penis?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2009 2:01 PM GMT
    Retroactively redefined pre-existing opposite sex marriage contracts?

    Same as Loving vs Virgina modified and attacked pre-existing same race marriage contracts by overturning anti-miscegenation laws.