Minutes ago, the Vermont House of Representatives voted to override the Governor’s veto of a bill that would extend equal marriage rights to all Vermonters. There were 100 votes to override — exactly the number required. The outcome in the Senate was never in doubt (there were always enough votes there to override).
This is a huge development — the first time that marriage has been extended to same-sex couples by a state’s legislature, rather than by judicial decision. Congratulations to Vermont!!
Please share widely!
is long, but it bends toward justice.”
– Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one… And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”
<
p>Parker was an active abolitionist. Which I suppose proves his point.
Interestingly, the original bill passed with only 95 votes. Add in the speaker to get 96 – in VT, the speaker doesn’t vote on normal bills but does for overrides – and then four legislators switched sides. Why?
<
p>They were apparently on the fence, and were upset that the Governor announced his intention to veto before they had passed the bill to begin with. They saw that as a slap in the face, and when he did in fact veto, they reacted accordingly.
<
p>Now, it’s a shame that it took this slap in the face to get them to do the right thing, but a great day for everybody because of it. Thank you, Governor Douglas, for your hubris!
i’d be feeling differently if we had lost this, but because we won AND were forced to win with a veto-proof margin, it’s about as bullet-proof a victory as can be. i can’t wait for the haters to try to make the claim that 75% of the senate and 2/3 of the house are “activist legislators”, lol! just like that unanimous judicial decision in iowa. how many majority opinions do we need before the “activist” tag is laughed down by the average person?
The majority opinions of the legislatures of 48 (I count Massachusetts as legislatively enacted, even if in a backasswards fasion) states plus one Congress.
<
p>I’m very pleased to see this specifically because it undermines the most significant argument against SSM: that when imposed by juidicial decree, it lacks political legitimacy.
<
p>Kudos to Vermont.
If you’d like to see a Democrat as governor of Vermont, support Doug Racine. He was an early supporter of same sex marraige, back in 2000, when Civil Union was controversial. Contribute to him on my page at ActBlue. He’ll be coming to Boston for a breakfast in the next few months. Watch BlueMassGroup for details. If you contribute now, we can credit it towards the Boston event.
This was a difficult issue in Vermont less than a decade ago. A bit of instant history from the Wikipedia entry on Howard Dean:
<
p>
<
p>(Once again, Republicans on the wrong side of history.)
<
p>And now, here we are đŸ™‚
I spent a couple of weeks volunteering in Vermont in the 2000 cycle. I saw first hand the stong emotions that the whole issue of civil union caused. As Bob mentioned we lost the House and barely held on to the Senate.
<
p>I also had a preview of how effective the community that supports the freedom for civil union or marriage can be.
<
p>My time in Vermont was like so much campaign time, just on the phones, dialing for volunteers. I would be handed an outdated list of Town Committee or County Committee members.
<
p>Then someone might hand me a VCU, Vermonters for Civil Union list. My mood would brighten and I would hit the phones again with renewed enthusiasm, becuase they were always good lists!
<
p>It was not a passion for Civil Union that drew me to VT that cycle, but my long time interest in Vermont through the hiking community. I got to know then State Representative Howard Dean, shortly before he ran for Lieutenant Governor.
Wow, what a day! Here’s the Washington Post story (with poll!). Apparently there will be another council vote, and then Congress will have to weigh in. Wonder what they’ll do…
I look forward to the carnage of the Congress deciding what they ought to do w.r.t. the decision. Do “states rights” apply to the district? We shall see…
They’re recognizing marriages performed in other states, not allowing their own marriages. (Perhaps out of fear of congress?)
but every little bit helps, right? The idea is that the norm is clearly evolving to one of tolerance and equality, and every time a new location contributes to this new norm, it rubs off a bit on their neighbors. It doesn’t mean VA is going to go full equality next week, but Maryland will swing eventually, (though likely after NJ, DE, or both), and DC’s recognition can certainly help, especially because more people move in and out of DC than lots of other places.
<
p>Who knows? This may help DC attract more white collar moderate-to-high income employees to live in DC instead of VA or MD. Were I a married gay person, I’d certainly have a great reason to choose DC instead of the suburbs, and Lord knows DC could use the stability and tax revenue that higher income citizens of any persuasion often provide.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe neighborhoods in DC will start to look like the South End demographically as well as architecturally?
Douglas is such a milquetoast governor. He’s more a piece of furniture that got placed inside the governor’s office, and nobody is willing to admit they put him in there because they don’t want to be responsible for taking him back out.
<
p>It’s easy to forget Vermont has a governor with that guy wandering around.
I find it surprising that Douglas is a four term Republican governor in the bluest of blue states (judging strictly by the Obama vote) and consistently gets re-elected with a majority of the vote. He must be doing something right. Also he is actually the populist in this case since the majority of Vermonters want civil unions but also oppose marriage. Perhaps he was being an gradualist and passing incremental change to ensure there was no backlash?
<
p>Frankly I think the characterizations of a fairly middle of the road Republican as an out of touch anti-equality bigot are a little far fetched. When the GOP’s stance is to ban any kind of gay rights federally, it is courageous that the NE Republicans are all in favor of civil unions. John Huntsman of Utah is going in that direction too. Hopefully the GOP will be outright in favor of civil unions in its 2012 platform. Remember if the GOP starts favoring civil unions it’ll be that much easier to fight for full marriage rights since the anti-any kind of equality crowd will no longer have a political home.
is Douglas an in-touch anti-equality bigot?
The anti-Douglas vote was evenly split. Whereas Democrats graciously ceded ground to Bernie Sanders years ago, the favor wasn’t returned:
<
p>2008
Republican Jim Douglas 53.4%
Independent Anthony Pollina 21.8%
Democratic Gaye Symington 21.7%
<
p>And while Douglas did get over 50%, that’s easy enough when your opposition is sniping at each other as much as at you.
Part of the reason Douglas keeps getting elected is that VT has three main political parties. In the last election, the left was split between a Democrat and a candidate from the Progressive party. http://www.progressiveparty.org/ I wonder if anyone on BMG who knows more about Vermont could write a post about the pros and cons of the 3 party system. I somehow doubt it could work in a state like ours, as connected as we are to Democratic party history. But given how few of our elections are contested, its worth thinking about.
See my comment above. What makes it even more problematic is that the governorship is not decided by a plurality, but by a majority. If no candidate gets a majority (50% +1) then it is decided by a SECRET BALLOT in the House of Representatives. I have not heard of any change in the rules, but that doesn’t mean anything. Maybe someone else can speak more knoweldgably, but from my perspective, the three party system has hurt progressive causes in Vermont. Back in 2000, some of my closest friends voted Pollina, even knowing that it was putting the governorship at risk.
Good point sabutai.
A great day. Four down. 46 to go.
<
p>–Leo
<
p>P.S. My memory may be off, but didn’t the California legislature vote twice in favor of marriage equality–only not by enough of a margin to overcome Arnold’s veto?
<
p>