Passed last night. Governor vetoed, overridden easily in the senate, 100-49 in the house. It looks like 5-6 of the people that voted no decided to vote to override the veto, but the votes cast are not out yet.
I speculated in the Iowa thread that this veto would end Governor Douglas’ career in VT politics, but since it was overridden, it will be “less” of an issue come Fall ‘10. 40% of Douglas’ support came from Obama supporters…
I was personally against spending the time to debate the issue, as we had civil unions. But once the debate was inevitable, I was happy to see it passed, so we can move on and stop talking about it (I think that it has ~70% statewide support).
Veto Text:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S.115, An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, without my signature because of my objections described herein. I do so recognizing that this is an issue that is intensely personal, with strongly held beliefs and convictions on both sides. But I am charged by our Constitution to act on this legislation and by its return, I have fulfilled that responsibility. The question of same sex marriage is an issue that does not break cleanly as Republican or Democrat, rural or urban, religious or atheist. The decision to support or oppose is informed by an amalgam of experience, conviction and faith. These beliefs are deeply held, passionately expressed and, for many legislators, infinitely more complex than the ultimate ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ required to fulfill the duty of their office. On such an intensely personal issue as this, all members must do as their individual conscience dictates, with the best interest of their districts in mind. It is for those reasons that I have not sought to lobby members of my own party, or asked opponents to sustain my veto.
This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents. Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same sex couples married in Vermont. This bill will not change that fact.
Vermont’s civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Our civil union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
I hope that when the legislature makes its final decision, we can move our state forward, toward a bright future for our children and grandchildren. We still have a great deal of work ahead of us to balance our budget and get our economy going again and Vermonters are counting on us to work together to get the job done.
There was a lot of talk about that when we passed civil unions, but there was no effect. I would doubt that it will have any effect at all. Its interesting, 10 years ago the civil union debate was nasty. This debate was civil and I think that VT is the first state to pass same-sex marriage without being forced by the courts…
Like I mentioned above, the debate was entirely different this time. Over 10 years, many opponents realized that it had no effect on their life. There was almost no fear-mongering.
One thing I don’t understand. I heard it mentioned that since this was passed by the legislature, it would make for a stronger challenge to the DOMA. I’m not really sure why that would be the case, or why it would matter how the law was passed. Any thoughts?
The only thing I can come up with is federal preemption. In other words, because the feds legislated in this area, any conflicting state laws might be preempted by the federal law. It is a fairly complex area and often times quite fact intense because of the differences between express and implied preemption.
That “Veto Text” is hilarious. He vetoes it because of “objections” that will be “described herein.” So what are his objections? Well, first he points to some things that the bill doesn’t do. (One would think that if one opposes something, it’s because of what it would do rather than what it wouldn’t do.) Then he adds that he “believe(s) that marriage should remain between a man and a woman”–which amounts to saying: He opposes gay marriage because he opposes it.
I was disappointed to see that the governor vetoed the bill without a better explanation. This issue screams for a legislative resolution and while the power to veto is part of the legislative process, I am not sure that if I were the governor I could veto legislation with which I disagreed by essentially saying, “just because.”
The dominos are falling, and over the next 10 years it will just acclerate through the states…Here is a game, what are going to be the next 5 states, and what will be the last 5 states…
1st 5…Hawaii, California, New York, Oregon, Nevada
Last 5…Texas, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio
I think that the Legislature was a bit pissed off that he vetoed it. A number (count isn’t up yet) of people who did not support it, voted to override their veto with quotes like “I am personally against it for religious reasons, but the Governor is showing no respect for the Legislature… or the legislative process”.
I do think that his stance was respectful, in that he didn’t push his party or its members, and he remained civil. The same could not be said for Ruth Dwyer back in ~98, there was some nasty rhetoric…
Interesting footnote; I just had a sandwich at a local shop in a pretty small town (actually the country’s smallest city) and the local news came in and interviewed a table full ~6 of old ladies (70+). It was pretty interesting/surprising that they were all happy with the vote. I think that even though VT is viewed as very liberal, many are really “Yankee Conservatives” which is similar to libertarian, small government that does not concern itself with your personal life. But its this group that is very turned off by the “social conservatives” that seem to have the power in the national Republican party, and have in turn put in place a very liberal government…
The dominos are falling, and over the next 10 years it will just acclerate through the states…Here is a game, what are going to be the next 5 states, and what will be the last 5 states…
1st 5…Hawaii, California, New York, Oregon, Nevada
Last 5…Texas, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio
Ohio?
It seems like a laundry list of states will fall after Ohio. I’d start with Utah who I’d think is likely to be last.
My own conspiracy theory is that he is happy that it was overridden. Following the money, I don’t think that not vetoing was an option… Although 40% of his support came from Obama voters, I would guess that 90% of his campaign contributions and volunteers came from people very opposed to the bill.
His initial opposition was that it made no sense to debate the issue as it would not bring any new “tangible” benefit (only a change in terminology, which I understand is “tangible” for some.) We have a pretty short legislative session, so this bill, in his opinion, distracted the legislature from focusing on the major issue facing the State this session. That said, by vetoing, he just caused more time to be taken…
Florida’s a bit of an interesting case- not terribly interested in gay rights per se, but there are some structural issues with the ‘marriage preservation act’ from last year that could cause some unintended consequences for straight unmarried cohabitators (who are frequently elderly couples who don’t want to formally marry because they’d lose widow benefits from a previous marriage) and if that happens, I could see a repeal as a possibility.
Vermont has been historically socially liberal because what your neighbor does is none of your business. They really don’t want anyone telling them what to do, especially the government. The state is also quite environmentally aware and progressive.