that something is done:
The Vermont Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to legalize same-sex marriage, potentially setting the stage for a high-profile legislative showdown and breaking a new political barrier in the state that made history in 2000 by becoming the first to approve civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
If the bill becomes law, Vermont will become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without being forced to do so by the courts.
The bill, which passed the 30-member chamber by a 26-4 margin, moves to the Vermont House, where it is also expected to be approved. Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, however, has said he doesn’t support the bill.
As you might have guessed I’m not a fan of Gay marriage but if a state’s representatives choose to vote for it and passes it through normal legal procedures then I don’t have a problem. When elected representatives act for the will of the people and if the people don’t like them they can be voted out. If this is what the people of Vermont want then until and unless they change their minds so be it.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
I would have to agree with you, this is the best way of doing things, it runs through the proper channels, creates no constitutional innovations along the way and settles any unfortunate ambiguities that might arise along the way. But Vermonters seem to be pretty level-headed about the way they run their state in general, so go figure.
The problem in California, with the initiative system is that everything is mutable. One can pass an amendment to the constitution one year just to have it removed the next. The laws put forth for consideration by the electorate are often badly written, and passed on the tide of public outrage, which rarely stops to consider the long term consequences. While it is a pure expression of democracy, it also verges on mob rule, something the founders expressly sought to avoid.
same-sex partners should get equal rights and acceptance in the society
What do you define as “acceptance”? Do you mean to say that people should be made to like something that they consider sinful or wrong?
If you mean by acceptance, I have to say that it is good and teach my children likewise, that isn’t equal rights, that’s fascism or actually a secular theocracy.
It would be very easy in legislation to give same sex couples all the visitation, inheritance rights etc etc etc without trying to redefine what marriage is. If you are unwilling to make both polygamy and incest legal then you can’t logically say that gay “marriage” should be legal.
The argument for gay marriage is pure narcissism, but all that being said, if a state legislature vote it and a governor signs it then a free people has decided the issue and it has to be accepted as law. One can choose to disobey it and face the results of civil disobedience but in a free society law needs to be respected.
Acceptance cannot be legislated. Full equality in legal status can be. Laws govern behavior, but the governance of hearts and minds is left to the individual, as it ought to be. Whenever legislation attempts to do so, it fails and breeds considerable resentment in its wake. Marriage rights will not convey normalcy, because normalcy cannot be legislated.
I’m actually not a real big fan of the initiative system as a whole. It’s a necessary reform when you have a legislature gone amok but the proper solution would be to vote out said legislators.
As long as people keep voting people in who are off the people bear the primary responsibility for nonsense.
You’ll have little argument from me on that. I would just as soon have the initiative system abolished, it’s been the source of more bad law in California than any 10 legislatures combined.