House votes 95-52. Governor Douglas Has Vowed To Veto The Bill
After a 26-4 vote last week in the Senate, the bill moved to Vermont’s House Judiciary Committee, where it was approved 8-2 on Tuesday. The House has been is session debating the bill, which was expected to pass by a wide margin until Vermont’s Republican Governor, Jim Douglas, in an unprecedented statement, threatened to veto the bill should it come to his desk.
In advance of the vote, hundreds of Vermont’s citizens, who are in favor of gay marriage by a 58% to 39% margin, have swarmed the Capitol steps in Montpelier. One Legislator speaking to the House tonight, said he had been deluged with letters, emails, and telephone calls, 90% in favor of passage. The Governor is in the minority of those who oppose gay marriage. There is strong support for gay marriage within the business community, and within the state legislature. Supporters of the bill believe they have the two-thirds majority of votes needed to over-ride the governor’s veto.
In a move similar to the out-of-state efforts of the Mormon Church supporting California’s Proposition 8, the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage contacted Vermont residents yesterday, asking them to call their legislators and urge them to vote against the bill.
One legislator stated, ”I will vote against this bill, and it’s on religious grounds. This comes down to my religion.”
Many in favor of the bill referred to friends or family who are gay, and they spoke eloquently of how they wanted them to be equal. One legislator, in tears, stated, “I do not like standing here and asking my colleagues if I can get married.”
Vermont was the first state to approve civil unions for gay couples.
The bill will move to the Governor’s desk after reconciliation tomorrow with the Senate version.
(photo: mattindy77)
Related posts:
- BREAKING NEWS: Vermont House Votes 8-2 To Advance Gay Marriage Bill
- Vermont House Votes On Gay Marriage Bill Today
- BREAKING NEWS! VERMONT APPROVES GAY MARRIAGE!
- Vermont Governor Will Veto Gay Marriage Bill
- BREAKING: Maine House Passes Gay Marriage Bill 89-58
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 23 comments }
Yes!
Thanks for the updates, David! I'll be keeping my eye on this space to see what the homophobic Douglas does and what saner minds do in response.
It's so wonderful to get so much good news in these troubling times.
Lee
Thanks, as always, Lee, for your support and positive thoughts!
If you are so all about the numbers and percentages, why the reluctance to put it to a referendum? You know the votes will NOT bear you out. You have ALL the legal protections afforded married couples with the CU law, let it go, get a life!!!
Cochin, with all due respect, you are incorrect. From the federal government's General Accounting Office:
"our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
Additionally, civil unions are available in only a few states. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.
Lastly, the majority of the citizens of the state of vermont DO want gay marriage.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
I find it funny that someone who is getting so upset over my personal life is telling me to get a life. Perhaps you should evaluate what is missing in your own life that makes you spend time thinking about ways to keep me from being happy.
Why can't *you* let it go and leave us alone?
Touché!
You want to remove the distinction of my relationship by muddying its meaning. I would like to not have to explain to what or whom I am married, when I tell someone that I am married. Exactly what don't you have under the law, with civil unions. If it is acceptance, forget you will never entirely get that no matter what the law. I can accept homosexuals as human beings, and believe it or not, I do. I know a number of them some are couples some are not. Please don't try to dilute who I am by joining me as a married person.
why would you have to explain who you are married to. when on an application for anything or filling out paperwork they ask for a name and sex and nothing more. ignorance is what fuels people like you in todays society thinking that homosexuals are a different enitity all together. face it. these are your own beliefs with no actual iron standards on which they are placed. you dont need anyone diluting anything that you are…. you do that enough yourself by your arrogance.
I don't want or need your acceptance. You're simply not relevant to my life beyond your inexplicable desire to make my life worse. I don't particularly accept you either, so we're equal on that one.
As for what we don't have under the law, see David's response which uses facts instead of emotions (like you and I are using).
If my marriage will dilute yours, then, again, I ask that you look inward and see what is missing in your life or marriage that makes it so fragile that I have any effect on you whatsoever.
davidbadash, Well, Feds or not I am at the point of disolving my marriage if this goes through. I don't really care if the government considers me married or not. I made a covenant in front or my friends and family 22 years ago. What matters is that I am committed hell or high water to my spouse, ours is a COVENANT regardless of any recognition of a governing body. I don't need government sanction of my relationship, and I am willing to kiss any tax incentives – regarding that- goodbye!
That's your choice. I, for one, support your right to make it.
leewaters, first, I never said that I didn't accept you, I said you will never get complete acceptance regardless of the law. I know a number of people who are homosexual, I can treat them respectfully and relate with them in a civil manner, if they were to ask me about my take on their lifestyle, I would confirm my opinion that it was wrong, I don't focus on what is wrong with people we are all gone wrong in one way or another. Second my marriage will not be diluted by yours, only its definition, I would like clarity in what I mean when I say that I am married. That is why I willing to chuck it, if needed, to make it clear…see my response to davidbadash.
That's fair, cochin. I do hope you realize, though, that I find your lifestyle wrong. So, again, we're equal there.
I prefer to think that most people have good qualities rather than that "we are all gone wrong in one way or another". There's too much beauty and kindness in the world for me to feel as you do.
I also would like clarity in what I mean when I say I'm married. Right now, it's a bit confusing, but once we have marriage equality across the United States, it will be perfectly clear what "marriage" means.
There are many good qualities in everyone, yes, and I celebrate those as well, but sadly our hearts have all gone astray – or worse – in this world, we need only observe and it is quite obvious as I am sure you would agree. It is unfortunate that this subject is so maliciously polarized, but my opinion of it is unchanged. I feel we are at an impasse regarding our thoughts on the clarity of the term marriage. I only know that someday we will all know the truth, and we will all be amazed at where we missed it – myself included – but at that point if will only revelatory, and it will be too late to act upon it. God shall reveal our hearts, and we shall all be sorrowful.
No, I wouldn't agree. There are certainly evil people in the world, but they are far, far outnumbered by the good and the kind among us. Unfortunately, the cruel and selfish get the most press. Why report on someone who shelters the homeless when a report on murder will sell more newspapers?
I am truly sorry that you have such a dire outlook on the world and its future. I see it as full of wonder and majesty, and I can't wait to find out what diseases we'll cure, how much hunger we'll rid from the world and how much love we'll share some day. I'm really excited to be alive right now.
You are not at all bothered then, by the broadening of the definition of marriage having the effect of me being excluded?
I don't agree with the premise that giving marriage equality excludes you in any way. I *am* sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand why you would.
I am, however, bothered by the narrow definition of marriage which has the effect of excluding so many nice and loving couples across this wonderful country.
I'm currently working on a piece, the essence of which is this:
In my opinion, Conservatives see the world as a zero-sum game. There can only be so much of "this" or "that". They never see that life is greater than the sum of its parts. Take the housing bailout. They couldn't understand that helping their neighbor stave off bankruptcy would increase the value of their own home. Win-Win.
Liberals see the world as having room for everyone. If more people get married, it actually enhances the institution. Marriage is not money. There's plenty of it to go around. The beauty of marriage is that, when practiced well, more people want to take part in it.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was a conservative, I hate labels anyway. Conservative, Liberal are really such meaningless terms with tons of baggage attached to them. I don't know how one might label me, but really I'm neither.
Well, gentlemen I must call it a night, I appreciate the opportunity to have this exchange. I would like just to say for the record… I am not a hateful, spiteful person, I am strongly opinionated, and frequently share said opinions. I daresay that you might actually like me if you met me, as most likely I would you. I am at this point unmoved in my position, but it is good to talk honestly with one another. Cochin
Have a good night.
For the record, I don't see your posts as hateful or spiteful. I don't care to socialize with people who view me as inferior, so I doubt we would get along in real life, but I appreciate civilized discourse and thank David for providing this space.
Lee
Just noticed your reply as I was heading up, please think about what you just said. I didn't use the word inferior, and I hope that I didn't imply it. If my children do something that I disapprove of, and I correct them, I am not making them to be less, rather I make it known to them out of concern for them and what I believe to be right. I realize now that I opened this whole thing up in a rather inflammatory tone, sorry.
No, you didn't use the word "inferior".
I hope that you will one day come to understand that by holding a straight relationship up as something more special and more worthy than a gay one, you're implying that individual gays are less special and less worthy, thus inferior.
I appreciate that you are holding this civilized conversation, but consider: to me, what you said is the equivalent of me (as a white male) telling a black man that he should drink from a different water fountain than I do, but, "don't worry, I think we can be friends". I would have no respect for a black man who wanted to be friends with me after I said such a horrible thing.
And to address your second point: I am not your child, and you should no more be telling me how to live my life than I should be telling you how to live yours.
Comments on this entry are closed.