Vermont’s House and Senate both passed a resolution for marriage equality, however, the governor has promised to veto that resolution.  Kind of defeats the “it should be up to the legislators” argument doesn’t it?  So if you live in Vermont, try to convince the governor that it really isn’t worth using his veto power on.  If the resolution survives, Vermont would be the first state to have marriage equality imposed by the legislature rather than by the courts.

Iowa’s Supreme Court has “all justices concur” to pave the way for marriage equality in the nation’s heartland.  My favorite part of the court ruling is thus:

“Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained — even fundamental — religious belief,” the court said, before adding that religious views are nonetheless mixed on the subject. “As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.”,8599,1889534,00.html?iid=tsmodule

  Interestingly enough, the current Iowan legislature appears satisfied to let the ruling stand (unlike California) and also has stricter requirements for amending their state constitution (unlike California).  If it were to go to the ballot, it wouldn’t be any earlier than 2012.