NationStates Jolt Archive

Here you are (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hesb4aHbI1j_7LkIVzStq6u_hqbgD97DMT400). This is pretty cool, particularly as in this case the judiciary wasn't involved at all (Vermont has had separate-but-equal civil unions for gay people since 2000, due to the judiciary finding that gay people were entitled to the same protections as straight people regarding the rights attendant to marriage). So the usual hue and cry over "judicial activism" cannot apply here!

Also interesting is that the House's vote of 100-49 is sans one vote from Rep. Sonny Audette (Linkies! (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10143110&nav=menu183_4_21)) who abstained on the grounds that the Governor's veto was "interference", despite opposing gay marriage.

It seems to me that the wheels of progress are spinning faster now, what with Iowa and all. I linked FiveThirtyEight's analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) of when states were likely to vote against a gay marriage ban in the Iowa thread, and indeed Vermont is right at the top of the list.

Good one for you, Vermont!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont

And the fourth state to legalize gay marriage (very soon after Iowa) is... Vermont. My kudos to Montpelier and to its legislature.

By the way: Voted by the legislature. So, obviously, the people who screamed "judicial activism" will NOT be able to do so this time. Surely, they support it, since "the people" voted, right? Riiiiiiiight?

Kyahaha!

Here you are (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hesb4aHbI1j_7LkIVzStq6u_hqbgD97DMT400). This is pretty cool, particularly as in this case the judiciary wasn't involved at all (Vermont has had separate-but-equal civil unions for gay people since 2000, due to the judiciary finding that gay people were entitled to the same protections as straight people regarding the rights attendant to marriage). So the usual hue and cry over "judicial activism" cannot apply here!

Also interesting is that the House's vote of 100-49 is sans one vote from Rep. Sonny Audette (Linkies! (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10143110&nav=menu183_4_21) who abstained on the grounds that the Governor's veto was "interference", despite opposing gay marriage.

It seems to me that the wheels of progress are spinning faster now, what with Iowa and all. I linked FiveThirtyEight's http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.htmlanalysis of when states were likely to vote against a gay marriage ban in the Iowa thread, and indeed Vermont is right at the top of the list.

Good one for you, Vermont!

Oh, come on, in the same MINUTE? :p

Already posted.;)

Good one, indeed, but I believe the governor has said he will veto the bill. Do we know if the bill has enough support to override that?

Ooh, not just has another state adopted gay marriage, but has done so by overriding a Republican governor!

*cackles*

Epic double thread

Already posted.;)

In the same MINUTE I posted mine. Ah well.

Good one, indeed, but I believe the governor has said he will veto the bill. Do we know if the bill has enough support to override that?
Already there, hun.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

Good one, indeed, but I believe the governor has said he will veto the bill. Do we know if the bill has enough support to override that?

They've OVERRIDDEN it.

Excellent.

Already there, hun.

Cool. I need to pay more attention.

In any case, the Republicans might as well just accept it. Gay marriage is reality, like it or not, and I will be glad when the day comes that the scum who run the GOP today lose this as an election-time wedge issue, the whole thing is over and done with, and we can move on to other issues.

*Cheers*

EDIT: Oh great, make me look like I'm a retard by combining the 2 threads.

i'm still going to blame this on activist judges. who elected them to the legislature?!

Yay! And it's nice to have an example of a legislature doing this.

So, how long before the "judicial activism!!1!1ONE" crowd comes out in SUPPORT of this, since it was done by the "people"?

Clearly, the liberal media has elected activist judges to the legislature. I think it's time for us all to panic.

Clearly, the liberal media has elected activist judges to the legislature. I think it's time for us all to panic.

i'm still going to blame this on activist judges. who elected them to the legislature?!

I love you both.


How much you want to bet people (a certian poster, to be exact) will still claim that judges "overrode the will of the people"?

How much you want to bet people (a certian poster, to be exact) will still claim that judges "overrode the will of the people"?

*Ahem*

*Charges into a cave full of WoW monsters*

JUDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIAAAAAAAAAL AAAAAAAAAAAACTIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISM!!!

JUDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIAAAAAAAAAL AAAAAAAAAAAACTIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISM!!!

Sigged.

http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=70

Sigged.

Awww! I love it when that happens! :D

We really should sent the Mormons and other rightwingers some nice muffin baskets or maybe a cookie bouquet in thanks for Prop 8. I really think that kind of overt drive to discriminate gives a boost to progressive measures.

So with Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont, the Gheys now have history, corn and Ben & Jerry's -- not too shabby!

We really should sent the Mormons and other rightwingers some nice muffin baskets or maybe a cookie bouquet in thanks for Prop 8. I really think that kind of overt drive to discriminate gives a boost to progressive measures.

That's just irony-coated irony with ironic filling. Love it.

We really should sent the Mormons and other rightwingers some nice muffin baskets or maybe a cookie bouquet in thanks for Prop 8. I really think that kind of overt drive to discriminate gives a boost to progressive measures.

Well, if Prop H8 is undone in California soon, we could.

We really should sent the Mormons and other rightwingers some nice muffin baskets or maybe a cookie bouquet in thanks for Prop 8. I really think that kind of overt drive to discriminate gives a boost to progressive measures.

I think we should send them a fruit basket (lulz pun) every time a state legalizes gay marriage.

Someone should redub Howard Dean's 'freak out' speech from the 2004 primaries to name off the states legalizing gay marriage.

So with Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont, the Gheys now have history, corn and Ben & Jerry's -- not too shabby!

Don't forget Connecticut, which has been marrying gay people since November 12 last year.

I think we should send them a fruit basket (lulz pun) every time a state legalizes gay marriage.

Why should we give them a manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruits_basket)?

(Yeah, yeah, I got one joke sigged, I get to make a bad joke.)

So with Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont, the Gheys now have history, corn and Ben & Jerry's -- not too shabby!

Connecticut, too.

Though, technically, it's not legal yet in Iowa or Vermont.

Connecticut, too.

Though, technically, it's not legal yet in Iowa
No, but its not illegal, which by default makes it legal. Iowa is marrying em now.
or Vermont.
Erm...yes it is?

No, but its not illegal, which by default makes it legal. Iowa is marrying em now.

Erm...yes it is?

Strictly speaking, gay marraige in Iowa will be allowed starting April 24, 2009, and in Vermont starting September 1, 2009. If you attempted to have a gay marriage in either state as of today, you would be denied.

What Sdaeriji means, I am sure, is that the Vermont bill comes into effect on September 1st, and the Iowa ruling comes into effect on April 24. So any same-sex marriages conducted in those states before those dates won't be legally valid.

Glarp! We seem to be echoing each other, Sdaeriji. Whups. :P

Strictly speaking, gay marraige in Iowa will be allowed starting April 24, 2009, and in Vermont starting September 1, 2009. If you attempted to have a gay marriage in either state as of today, you would be denied.

Oh, ok. Fair enough.

I think we should send them a fruit basket (lulz pun) every time a state legalizes gay marriage.

If I were in a homosexual relationship and I got married, I would send a special set of glossy wedding photos to the Mormon church. I'd send em photos from every anniversary, too.

By the way, using my talents as a linguist, I just realized, through some skill at ethymology, what expression is it that "Judicial activism!" was a while ago!

"Segregation forever!"

If I were in a homosexual relationship and I got married, I would send a special set of glossy wedding photos to the Mormon church. I'd send em photos from every anniversary, too.

Awesome.

I would do this, but Id also pay some kid $20 to pretend to be my adopted child for every photo as well:D

If I were in a homosexual relationship and I got married, I would send a special set of glossy wedding photos to the Mormon church. I'd send em photos from every anniversary, too.

I'll supply the envelopes! :p

Can I entice anyone to get the stamps?

Awesome.

I would do this, but Id also pay some kid $20 to pretend to be my adopted child for every photo as well:D

Mind you that it has to be a kid of a race OTHER than the one of the happy couple.

By the way, using my talents as a linguist, I just realized, through some skill at ethymology, what expression is it that "Judicial activism!" was a while ago!

"Segregation forever!"

Before that it was this classic:

"STATES RIGHTS!"

To be fair, I should admit:

It's not really my idea. Rather, Himself came up with it a few years back. Every year on the anniversary of the first time we had sex (out of wedlock!!) we take a nice picture together (appropriately dressed and politely posed), write a short note about ourselves and how our sinful, ungodly, unwed relationship is going, and mail copies to Focus On The Family, The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Pat Robertson.

It's kind of romantic, really.

To be fair, I should admit:

It's not really my idea. Rather, Himself came up with it a few years back. Every year on the anniversary of the first time we had sex (out of wedlock!!) we take a nice picture together (appropriately dressed and politely posed), write a short note about ourselves and how our sinful, ungodly, unwed relationship is going, and mail copies to Focus On The Family, The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Pat Robertson.

It's kind of romantic, really.

:hail:

To be fair, I should admit:

It's not really my idea. Rather, Himself came up with it a few years back. Every year on the anniversary of the first time we had sex (out of wedlock!!) we take a nice picture together (appropriately dressed and politely posed), write a short note about ourselves and how our sinful, ungodly, unwed relationship is going, and mail copies to Focus On The Family, The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Pat Robertson.

It's kind of romantic, really.

Wait, you're a lesbian? o_O

And you REALLY do this? :D

I was the calendar/wire editor at The Diamondback, the University of Maryland's student newspaper when Vermont approved civil unions back in 2000. I remember how radical many people considered Vermont's act, even before our newspaper weighed in on the vote.

Then I was one of the people in the editors' meeting when the subject of what stand to take came up. The funny thing? The other editors came to a quick consensus that civil unions weren't enough, and that same-sex marriage had to happen eventually. I expected to have to fight for that position. I barely got a word in.

At least I got to write the editorial.

Nine years later, Vermont has marriage.

Which state will be the next one to offer same-sex marriage?

Which state will be the next one to offer same-sex marriage?

Oregon or Washington; one of the western states probably. Or that obscure state no one ever remembers, like Delaware.

Sarzonia: Could be California, depending on how the Supreme Court there decides. Outside that? Somewhere else in New England, probably.

Wait, you're a lesbian? o_O
No, but we figure that being an unmarried atheist couple is damage enough.


And you REALLY do this? :D
Only for the last two years, but this September will make it three.

Seriously, it's actually kind of a nice anniversary thing to do. We get a nice picture of the two of us, we go out to a nice dinner, and we spend the evening writing a brief letter about the past year of our relationship together.

The part about sending it to the religious right wingers is just an added bonus because we're a pair of snarky mofos.

The part about sending it to the religious right wingers is just an added bonus because we're a pair of snarky mofos.

Do you make sure to note that you're unmarried atheists every time you send that stuff in?

The part about sending it to the religious right wingers is just an added bonus because we're a pair of snarky mofos.

If you ever leave the lucky bastard, call me. ;)

Do you make sure to note that you're unmarried atheists every time you send that stuff in?
Of course. :)

Sarzonia: Could be California, depending on how the Supreme Court there decides. Outside that? Somewhere else in New England, probably.

Currently, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have bills introduced to recognize gay marriage. New Hampshire's has passed the House, 186-179, and is now going to the Senate.

Of course. :)

:hail:

Those bastards, legislating from the legislature.

Epic. Go Vermont, the second most-awesome state.

those bastards, legislating from the legislature.

:D!a

OH NOES! teh eb1l gheyz r winning!!!!!1111shiftone

Seriously, though, good for Vermont. Hopefully this sets off a "domino effect," that ripples across the United States, until each and every state affords LGBT individuals with the equal rights they richly deserve.

Washington, DC, my current home, has just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It's not full legal equality but it's still really cool!

By the way: Voted by the legislature. So, obviously, the people who screamed "judicial activism" will NOT be able to do so this time. Surely, they support it, since "the people" voted, right? Riiiiiiiight?

:rolleyes: Well done H2

Here's a snippet from Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who gave a speech on the State Senate floor to say why he will not support an effort to amend the state's constitution to reverse the recent unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa.


"One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and, in her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage—they were talking about discussions going on across the country—and my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."

I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And I've talked with other people about it, and that's what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I don't think that's so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife—you know, I've been married for 37 years—I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you."


It's true in Iowa, it's true in Vermont, and it's gonna be true in a Town Near You(tm)!"

It's true in Iowa, it's true in Vermont, and it's gonna be true in a Town Near You(tm)!"

I'll believe that when I see it.

If you ever leave the lucky bastard, call me. ;)

Hey! Get in line!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1255/1338172369_3371b27689.jpg

...got some playing cards?? :tongue:


Here's a snippet from Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who gave a speech on the State Senate floor to say why he will not support an effort to amend the state's constitution to reverse the recent unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa....

I can haz linky??

I'll believe that when I see it.
Fine by me, I love attitudes like yours because they give me opportunities to break out my sequin-encrusted rainbow suit with I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO spelt out in LED lights across the back.

Fine by me, I love attitudes like yours because they give me opportunities to break out my sequin-encrusted rainbow suit with I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO spelt out in LED lights across the back.

Actually Bottle, if you can show me anywhere on this forum where I have said anything against homosexuals or gay marriage I will declare that you are the ruler of NSG and will bow down to your greatness.

I was actually making reference to our PM (who is the leader of the left wing party here) who has come out and said he will not be allowing gay marriage in Australia.

I am actually in support of gay marriage because it is in line with my liberal beliefs but whatever.

But I would like to see you in that suit. :wink:

Here's a snippet from Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who gave a speech on the State Senate floor to say why he will not support an effort to amend the state's constitution to reverse the recent unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa.


It would be a pointless effort. By the time they could get an amendment proposal to the people, Iowa will have existed for years without collapsing from homosexual marriage and no one will care any more.

Actually Bottle, if you can show me anywhere on this forum where I have said anything against homosexuals or gay marriage I will declare that you are the ruler of NSG and will bow down to your greatness.

I was actually making reference to our PM (who is the leader of the left wing party here) who has come out and said he will not be allowing gay marriage in Australia.

I am actually in support of gay marriage because it is in line with my liberal beliefs but whatever.

But I would like to see you in that suit. :wink:
I wasn't saying you're anti-gay marriage, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm really just a profoundly petty person who likes to say I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO whenever I call something and people totally don't get on board.

It would be a pointless effort. By the time they could get an amendment proposal to the people, Iowa will have existed for years without collapsing from homosexual marriage and no one will care any more.

Bingo.

That's what went down in Mass, too. At first there was all this uproar and people were gonna march on the capital and all this nutty shit. But the longer gay marriage was legal, the less strength there was to oppose it because everybody could see that life was fine and there wasn't any particular reason to take equal rights away from gay citizens.

I wasn't saying you're anti-gay marriage, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm really just a profoundly petty person who likes to say I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO whenever I call something and people totally don't get on board.

Well alright then, but I still stand by my statement that I will believe it when it t I will see it in m town with both major parties against it

Washington, DC, my current home, has just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It's not full legal equality but it's still really cool!

You probably already know this, but for those who do not: they have the votes for full legal equality already (easily), but they're waiting until they're convinced Congress will let them and no city initiative will take it away.

DC is one of the places to watch.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Well, you will, so....

Bingo.

That's what went down in Mass, too. At first there was all this uproar and people were gonna march on the capital and all this nutty shit. But the longer gay marriage was legal, the less strength there was to oppose it because everybody could see that life was fine and there wasn't any particular reason to take equal rights away from gay citizens.

That's how it would have worked in California, where it made the most sense, if its Constitution hadn't been all pansy ass.

Well, you will, so....

So....?

So....?

So you'll believe it, and this argument about whether or not it will happen will be moot.

So you'll believe it, and this argument about whether or not it will happen will be moot.

True but I'm not arguing if it will happen or not I'm just saying it is unlikely to happen here in the near future.

One step closer to the 6 in 10 goal (all six New England states by 2010)...and CT and MA have both defeated measures to make changes to their constitution.

So with Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont, the Gheys now have history, corn and Ben & Jerry's -- not too shabby!

And Connecticut. So they have daddy's house on the vineyard, and his yatch to get there. And a golden retriever.

So with Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont, the Gheys now have history, corn and Ben & Jerry's -- not too shabby!Rachel Maddow last night started off her story about it: "I now pronounce you Ben and Jerry!"

Rachel Maddow last night started off her story about it: "I now pronounce you Ben and Jerry!"

*rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com)* :p

A sense of humor is never a bad thing, eh?

I was actually making reference to our PM (who is the leader of the left wing party here) who has come out and said he will not be allowing gay marriage in Australia.


Fair go, that was at the "Fer crissake don't say anything that would lose us the election we're almost there I can taste it" stage of the campaign.

The ACT's already tried to legalise it in Canberra, Clover Moore's "Partnership Registry" has been running in Sydney for yonks, and the Social Security register-for-de-facto-benefits thing will start working in June or July.

We'll be legalising gay marriage long before the ALP gets around to being genuinely left wing again.

Fair go, that was at the "Fer crissake don't say anything that would lose us the election we're almost there I can taste it" stage of the campaign.

The ACT's already tried to legalise it in Canberra, Clover Moore's "Partnership Registry" has been running in Sydney for yonks, and the Social Security register-for-de-facto-benefits thing will start working in June or July.

We'll be legalising gay marriage long before the ALP gets around to being genuinely left wing again.

I thought it was only last year he said it.

As for your last sentence that is probably correct.

I thought it was only last year he said it.


It was. But he said it last year because he promised it in 2007, and he promised it in 2007 because Howard did a neat piece of footwork that was designed to set up Labor as the ebil pro-gay, anti-family mob. A good solid "Hell no, we won't legalise [in our first term, anyway]" was the only way they could get around it.

Funny, Kevvie's been in politics all these years and he still hasn't woken up to the realisation that what's said in the election campaign, stays in the election campaign. He seems to think you've actually got to keep the promises.

But once the polls start showing that there are more votes in it than votes lost because of it, someone will find a graceful way round it. Even if the dear lad is personally opposed to it.

It was. But he said it last year because he promised it in 2007, and he promised it in 2007 because Howard did a neat piece of footwork that was designed to set up Labor as the ebil pro-gay, anti-family mob. A good solid "Hell no, we won't legalise [in our first term, anyway]" was the only way they could get around it.

Funny, Kevvie's been in politics all these years and he still hasn't woken up to the realisation that what's said in the election campaign, stays in the election campaign. He seems to think you've actually got to keep the promises.

But once the polls start showing that there are more votes in it than votes lost because of it, someone will find a graceful way round it. Even if the dear lad is personally opposed to it.

Well if it is ever shown to be popular it will be the first piece of legislation to be draw up.

All is needed is the media to pick up the story and start talking about how much it is needed.

I notice the most vocal homophobes have not yet commented on this thread?

Maybe because all they ever have to contribute to this conversation is whines about 'judicial activism'.

I notice the most vocal homophobes have not yet commented on this thread?

Maybe because all they ever have to contribute to this conversation is whines about 'judicial activism'.

Now, now, let's not be hasty.

Maybe they simply devolved past the point where they lost their ability to read.

Here's a snippet from Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who gave a speech on the State Senate floor to say why he will not support an effort to amend the state's constitution to reverse the recent unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa.


"One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and, in her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage—they were talking about discussions going on across the country—and my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."

I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And I've talked with other people about it, and that's what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I don't think that's so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife—you know, I've been married for 37 years—I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you."


It's true in Iowa, it's true in Vermont, and it's gonna be true in a Town Near You(tm)!"


Thats pretty awesome.

Washington, DC, my current home, has just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It's not full legal equality but it's still really cool!

At the least it is a start.

Don't forget Connecticut, which has been marrying gay people since November 12 last year.

Okay, so:

Massachusetts (fish, basketball, history)
Connecticut (expatriate New Yorkers, Revolution-era quaintness, nutmeg?)
Vermont (Ben & Jerry, dairy, hairy)
Iowa (corn, obstinacy, more corn)

and potentially:

California (produce, entertainment, (oddly enough) gay people)
DC (history, gridlock, guns...wait...no guns...no...wait...guns)

I love you both.


How much you want to bet people (a certian poster, to be exact) will still claim that judges "overrode the will of the people"?

*Ahem*

*Charges into a cave full of WoW monsters*

JUDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIAAAAAAAAAL AAAAAAAAAAAACTIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISM!!!

Vermont is also going to change its State Flag to join the others that have legalized gay unions:

http://flagspot.net/images/f/ficomord.gif

Vermont is also going to change its State Flag to join the others that have legalized gay unions:

http://flagspot.net/images/f/ficomord.gif

that would be an improvement...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Vermont.svg/750px-Flag_of_Vermont.svg.png

that would be an improvement...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Vermont.svg/750px-Flag_of_Vermont.svg.png

I've puked up all over my keyboard. I'll see you in the apologies thread.

I've puked up all over my keyboard. I'll see you in the apologies thread.

It's not my fault, I didn't choose or design the flag.

It's true in Iowa, it's true in Vermont, and it's gonna be true in a Town Near You(tm)!"

I wish I could share that kind of optimism, but living in the bowels of hell (aka Texas), I am reminded on a daily basis that this sort of thing is two steps forward, one step back a lot of the time.

Then again, I suppose I could just move.

I wish I could share that kind of optimism, but living in the bowels of hell (aka Texas), I am reminded on a daily basis that this sort of thing is two steps forward, one step back a lot of the time.

Then again, I suppose I could just move.

It's not going to get legalized by Texas anytime soon, but I don't think we have too terribly long to wait for the inevitable federal ruling.

Okay, so:

Massachusetts (fish, basketball, history)
Connecticut (expatriate New Yorkers, Revolution-era quaintness, nutmeg?)
Vermont (Ben & Jerry, dairy, hairy)
Iowa (corn, obstinacy, more corn)

and potentially:

California (produce, entertainment, (oddly enough) gay people)
DC (history, gridlock, guns...wait...no guns...no...wait...guns)

Funny story...nutmeg is a tropical plant that can't be grown in Connecticut. My favorite theory of why it is the "nutmeg" state is because Yankee Pedalers who would sell wooden balls coated with nutmeg dust to unsuspecting customers.

Washington, DC, my current home, has just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It's not full legal equality but it's still really cool!

Wow, I didn't realise you were that close by. I'm in one of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Congress would still have to approve the law (which I doubt they will). But it's nice on D.C.'s part.

vermont is also going to change its state flag to join the others that have legalized gay unions:

http://flagspot.net/images/f/ficomord.gif

rolfmao!!!

Funny story...nutmeg is a tropical plant that can't be grown in Connecticut. My favorite theory of why it is the "nutmeg" state is because Yankee Pedalers who would sell wooden balls coated with nutmeg dust to unsuspecting customers.

Hence the question mark -- thanks for the back-story!