Another State Goes For Gay Marriage

Mark Ambinder has the details:

A great day for the gays and the federalists: for the first time, gay marriage has been legalized in a state through the formal legislative process. Vermont's House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to override Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of a gay marriage bill. On September 1, gays will be allowed to marry in Vermont. That brings to four the numbers of states where gay marriage is legal; Iowa's Supreme Court authorized same-sex unions on Friday; SSMs are also legal in Massachusetts (thanks to a court) and in Connecticut (court-ordered, too). Opponents of gay marriage have been fearing this very day for years. They're going to have to change the way they respond to the issue because they can no longer argue (only) that courts are imposing gay marriage by fiat. In the case of Vermont (and in the case of California, twice before), duly-elected state legislatures affirmatively gave consent to expand or revise the definition of civil marriage. (California's two legislative efforts were vetoed by the governor.) Gay rights activists now have a new paradigm too.

While I don't share Mark's enthusiasm for the decision, I do think if you're going to have gay marriage in your state this is how it should happen. It should not be imposed on the state by judges who overrule the will of the people as happened in California, but should be enacted through the will of the voters or their elected representatives.

It should not be a federal issue in the form of a constitutional amendment or national law. Abortion should also have been handled this way. There was no reason for abortion to be a federal issue, but Roe v. Wade changed all that. If there's any good reason to dump Roe it's to return the decision making power to the states.