Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I'm happy to leave you alone -- I have not, you will notice, in any post or any way suggested that Vermont was wrong to choose what its laws of marriage should be. I believe strongly in states rights and in Vt's absolute right to do whatever it wants as long as their actions are consistent with the Constitution.  

 

And equally, I'm sure that  Vermonters will not want to interfere in what Washington or California or any other state might decide that their laws of marriage should be.  I'm sure you will leave them alone as you want others to leave you alone. 

 

And I love that your local businesses are jumping to take advantage of the economic boom that this decision may bring.  Go capitalism!   

 


Vermontcozy wrote:
Thanks Deb,I can't take all the credit,but we are a very OPEN STATE...Eman It would've passed by the people as well..so leave us alone.....and be Happy.. Some Inns here are owned by Gays(one couple we are friends with) have a Package Deal for all that would like to Marry Here. Spring in Vermont,its just a wonderful time of year...must go now and go skipping(not really) but very happy for all that have waited so long..VTC 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
Vermontcozy
Posts: 5,279
Registered: ‎10-20-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Thank you for taking the time to respond..Its good to have you back..Kinder,gentler,but always a spark ignites you..VTC( Sale Days at Orvis)
Kindness,I've discovered,is everything in life...Issac Bashevis Singer
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I use to love Orvis.  But my outdoor days are sadly mostly behind me.

 


Vermontcozy wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to respond..Its good to have you back..Kinder,gentler,but always a spark ignites you..VTC( Sale Days at Orvis)

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Jon_B wrote:

I can see why you think the issues should be argued seperately and to some extent that strategy makes sense.  But I also think it might be beneficial if there were a larger "marriage rights" cause that simply avocated for the right of consenting adults everywhere to enter into whatever kind of relationship they please - instead of focusing on one or the other specific type of relationship.  But maybe our culture isn't ready for that sort of thing or maybe the different groups that fight for recognition of the legitimacy of their relationships oppose each other too much.  

 

 

That is a good point Jon. Gay rights issues are essentially a struggle for equality under the law, just as black and women's rights were and of course religious freedom which includes polygamy/polyandry is part of that struggle.  

Personally, I'm for gay marriage because if the government is going to recognize a heterosexual marriage and call it that, it should do the same for homosexual couples as well.  But ideally I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all for gay, straight, or any kind of relationship.  

 

But who else but government could sanction homsexual partnerships under the law if the church is unwilling to do so Jon?  As marriage is tied up with other rights under the law, there is a need to give married homosexuals some legal protection.  In previous centuries only the church could marry people but when the right to divorce was introduced and the church refused to recognise divorcees, it became necessary to introduce laws to protect their rights.  The current government involvement in homosexual marriage rights is similar.

 

It could be argued that marriage ceremonies themselves are unnecessary and that all that is necessary is for two consenting adults (or more) to agree to live together but this in turn affects their individual rights about inheritance, property, child custody and so on.  There has to be government (or local government|) involvement to settle any disputes which arise from these issues.  Even when couples just co-habit they often need to have recourse to some sort of legal framework sanctioned by government.  

 

What does seem to me to be at odds with modern western society is the church's involvement in legalising marriage.  As they no longer have the right to make dispensations about 'inheritance, property, child custody etc.', their role in legally marrying people seems superfluous and should perhaps be reduced to a religious ceremony, like a 'blessing', for those who desire it in addition to a legal civil ceremony.  In Sharia law, of course, Muslims still recognise the right of their religious leaders to judge these matters but we long ago moved away from this concept.  As couples are increasingly choosing civil marriage ceremonies over church ones it would seeem that people are recognising the superfluity of church involvement and voting with their feet, as it were.  In due course governments may take away the legal rights attached to church ceremonies but I think there will always be a need for government involvement which protects an individual's rights within partnerships/marriages.

 

(I hope this makes sense - I have come down with a bad cold and my brain is sluggish today!)                   

 


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

But who else but government could sanction homsexual partnerships under the law if the church is unwilling to do so Jon? 

 

 If Churches were authorized to marry anybody they wanted to, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Metropolitan Commuity Churches would be celebrating gay and lesbian marriages from day one.  And they are only one of many gay church groups.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Well New York made end up being added to the list.  We can cross our fingers anyway
"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I think NY has a good chance

Ryan_G wrote:
Well New York made end up being added to the list.  We can cross our fingers anyway

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

What is going to be most interesting, at least from a legal standpoint, is how states which do not accept gay marriage will deal with couples married in other states who move to the non-accepting states and seek marital privileges there. 

 

One might think that full faith and credit would require recognition of the marriages, but it's not that simple; states do not have to give full faith and credit to acts which are contrary to that state's laws.

 

Family law is certanly getting more interesting in this area!

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
Vermontcozy
Posts: 5,279
Registered: ‎10-20-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Especially when it comes to health care and child custody....When our New Health Care (government backed) will they recognize the unions, marriage.....across the board.I have a friend that works for Orvis Corporate and his partner of 15 yrs is covered by BCBS.Each state must have these really difficult Health Care  laws....Lots of reasearch to be done.Vtc You will post your findings?

Kindness,I've discovered,is everything in life...Issac Bashevis Singer