Editions: e-Edition | Lite | Mobile | Subscribe | Twitter | RSS
Manage: My Account | Logout

TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Douglas to veto gay marriage bill; Dems call it 'sad day'

5:20 p.m.



Gov. James Douglas announces his intention to veto legislation making same-sex marriage legal in Vermont during a press conmference in Montpelier on Wednesday.

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur/The Times Argus

Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW
Vermont Press Bureau - Published: March 25, 2009

MONTPELIER - Gov. James Douglas said Wednesday he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it comes to his desk.

The four-term Republican governor has never made a veto threat before, but said he worried that speculation over what he would do has become a distraction at the Vermont Statehouse.

“For those reasons and because I believe that by removing any uncertainty about my position we can move more quickly beyond this debate, I am announcing that I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk,” Douglas told reporters during a surprise press conference.

Douglas’ opposition to same-sex marriage was not a surprise - but his veto threat was. His announcement ends weeks of speculation as to what he would do with the legislation, which many expect will pass the Democratically-controlled Vermont House next week. The bill was easily approved in a 26-4 vote by the Vermont Senate Monday.

But his announcement also comes at the start of the bill’s legislative process in the Vermont House. That chamber’s Judiciary Committee began testimony on the bill Tuesday and is expected to vote next week.

Statehouse Democrats were surprised by the governor’s announcement and accused him of trying to influence the legislative process before much of the testimony in the House committee had even begun.

House Speaker Shap Smith, a Morristown Democrat, said Douglas was “subverting the legislative process.” Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said veto threat or not - same-sex marriage won’t go away as an issue until it is approved by the Legislature and signed into law.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, a Windham County Democrat, had some of the harshest criticism of Douglas. He said the legislative hearings have been cordial - until the governor injected politics and his veto threat into the equation.

He urged supportive Vermonters to begin pressuring Douglas into allowing the bill to become law.

“You can’t veto love between two people,” Shumlin said. “You can’t veto two people’s desire to enter into a lifelong, loving marriage.”

Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said same-sex marriage hearings in his committee would continue despite the veto threat. Civil rights for gay and lesbian Vermonters is an issue that touches the hearts of Vermonters, he said, including his own.

“We will continue our work and we will finish our work,” Lippert said. “And we will bring a marriage equality bill to the floor of the House.”

Douglas, who took office three years after lawmakers passed Vermont’s first-in-the-nation civil union law, said Wednesday that he believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

He also repeated his belief that the debate is a distraction for lawmakers, who he says should be focusing on economic issues. But he acknowledged that the bill was moving along the legislative process and said lawmakers should vote their conscience.

“I have Republican friends who will vote for this bill and Democratic friends who will vote against - and regardless of their vote, they will still be my friends and have my respect when this issue is resolved,” Douglas said.

The governor also said Wednesday that he believes Democrats and other same-sex marriage supporters in the Legislature have the votes to override his veto.

That’s not clear, however. While the Senate would likely have the votes to override the veto, House Democrats have never overridden one of Douglas’ vetoes with its loose coalition of party members, Progressives and independents.

Veto overrides require the approval of two-thirds of the legislative body. In the Senate, that’s easy: Democrats hold 23 seats compared with the seven for the Republicans. In the House, Democrats hold 95 seats, the Republicans have 48, the Progressives have five and there are two independents.

Statehouse Democrats on Wednesday would not say if they have counted votes for an override. Smith said they are focusing on the committee deliberations and then a possible floor debate first.

For more on this story, see Thursday's Times Argus.



Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.





READER COMMENTS


Thank you Jim Douglas!!!

Denise Ferrari
-- Posted by Denise Ferrari on Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 2:59 pm EST

report this comment



"The governorbelieves his veto will be overridden and said as much during his announcement; which essentially makes him a spineless, politically motivated tool.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:57 pm EST"

Douglas is extremely dumb. I'll never vote for this hypocrit again.

I agree with you, Walt. He knows the only reason he won the election was to ensure he doesn't put his stamp of approval on this 'Gay Marriage'. By Veto'n he will keep most of his voters happy and not ruin his career.

BUT..... He knows it will pass anyhow through our Congress. So, let's do the math. He is willing to waste the time of our congress to keep his career healthy. At the cost of wasting more time of our congress.

But he keeps saying that this topic is a waste of time and our economic problems are more important. Hmmmmm.....

Really? If you know this will pass anyhow. And you were really doing your job for Vermont. And if you were really concerned with the amount of time spent on this topic.

Wouldn't you pass this knowing it will pass anyhow?

Why would you purposely waste the time of our congress? When that was Douglas' defense all along? Wasn't it? We need to focus on our economy?

Sadly it is simple... He only wishes to keep his career healthy. That is his only goal in this matter. Keeping his political career healthy. If he really cared about the people and the majority of our legislature's time. He wouldn't waste their time.

Truth = All he cares about is saving face. That's weak. For all of those bible jumpers that always talk about morality. What does god think of the weak?

If he was strong. He would pass it knowing it would pass. Even if he doesn't agree with it, personally. And take the loss of face for fighting for something he keeps saying is more important. Time and Economy!

-
-- Posted by C F on Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 10:20 am EST

report this comment



Mr. McSweeney,
I could not possibly care less if gay couples are joined in civil union or marriage. What I do care intensely about is the conniving manner in which supporters of the initiative are attempting to ram through state law that serves only their own minority interests. They attempt to shout down opposition with cries of civil rights being violated and accusations of hatred towards homosexuals, yet for a decade they have failed to address these supposed civil rights violations in the forum designed for just such a purpose; the courts. Since they have chosen to exploit the most emotion sensitive branch of government, the legislature, the appropriate manner in which to propose the creation of a wholly new right would have been by proposing an amendment to our state Constitution. They chose not to do so as our Constitution mandates a binding popular referendum to approve an amendment, and they have justifiable reason to doubt their opinion is aligned to the majority opinion once you start counting votes east of I89. Those "toothless hillbillies" the other poster complained about. Instead they slipped this measure that will redefine how we as Vermonters define marriage in amongst bills such as "An act relating to aquatic nuisance control" in the hopes they could bully law makers into passing it before anyone rustled up the spine to put a stop to it. I agree that the reasons cited by Governor Douglas for vetoing this measure are weak, however I also believe the veto itself is absolutely the right thing to do. I just wish one of our "representatives" in the Senate and House had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and state that rushing this bill through without public consent was not in the best interest of all of his constituents.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 1:06 am EST

report this comment



Will someone please tell me why they care if someone they do not know is gay and married. If you don't believe that homosexuality is "right", than fine don't be gay, but why do you care if someone else is. You're own beleifs should affect others equality. This is not a real political issue. It's just a way for republicans to get religious zealots behind them. Do Christians care if anyone else eats meat on Fridays during lent? No. Do Jews care if others eat pork?No. So why do people care if people who feel love differently are gay? It is the same thing. The majority argument is silly - the blacks had no majority in the south in the sixties and look at that issue now. This issue will be looked on the same way in a couple of years and those who do not support gay marriage will be embarrassed. The Obama argument is also ignorant- everyone knows that his opinion is merely just to keep an even standing politically....a presidential canidate pro-gay marriage would be suicidal. Gov. Douglass you are the one with no morals (and his economy statement is a cop-out). It will cost you the next election. Everyone else, just mind your own business. This does not affect you in any way shape or form. This is not your problem.
-- Posted by Liam McSweeney on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 11:10 pm EST

report this comment



"Nobody knows because supporters of the initiative have perverted our system of government in order to avoid both the courts and constituent input."
I have to disagree with you on both. If this issue currently went to the courts, I am sure most would be complaining that it is judicial activism where the court is trying to make laws. The whole concept of a representative democracy means that the proposed law does reflect constitutent input; people elect representatives to represent them and make decisions. I hope that no one is claiming that VT is an true democracy. If you don't like the decisions the representatives make, don't elect or re-elect them.
And don't worry, if allowing same-sex marriage really is unconstitutional or breaking some law (as many somehow seem to think), then the court will review it.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 11:06 pm EST

report this comment



Ohhhhh Cashman, get real.
World of Warcraft? Oh that's rich.
Your huffing has me quaking in my boots...
I think you've been watching too much "Law and Order."
-- Posted by AJ None on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 10:31 pm EST

report this comment



AJ,
Listen kid, I am sure that in World of Warcraft you are a real kick-butt Warlock or something. That's a nifty accomplishment and I bet you really rule over orcs, or gremlins or whatever the heck they have, but threatening people in the real world is an actual crime. Any reasonable person reading your below posts to Ms. Ross would have to interpret your listing of her address and subsequent calls for "people knocking on her door to hold her accountable" as a threat or at least an incitement to violence.
For extra credit, find a single post from myself that states whether I am "pro" or "con" on the actual issue of gay marriage itself, vice the perverse route being used currently, and I will give you a bright shiny nickel.
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 9:59 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Moss,
That's two, how many more? Nobody knows because supporters of the initiative have perverted our system of government in order to avoid both the courts and constituent input. This is not a civil rights issue, the civil rights aspect was solved with the Civil Union legislation that satisfactorily answered the court's decision, borne out by the complete lack of challenges to that solution in the court. Instead this is a matter of opinion as to how Vermonters want to define marriage. This is a question that should be put to all Vermonters.

"AJ" - This is a joke, right? Some sort of social satire intended to point out the hypocrisy, or plain stupidity, of claiming to hate people who hate people?
-- Posted by Patrick Cashman on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 9:01 pm EST

report this comment



Oh Walt, grow up. As I said, the time for civil discourse has passed. As Kathy see's fit to deny an entire group of people a basic civil right, people that have never harmed her, she deserves to have people knocking on her door to hold her accountable. This isn't some philisophical argument, Kathy and her ilk are screwing with people's lives for no other reason than she hates them. If you want to play patty cake with these folks Walt, go right ahead. I think it's time to get serious.
-- Posted by AJ None on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 8:45 pm EST

report this comment



Kathy, you should read Michael Warner's letter in today's BFP if you think multi-generational Vermonters don't want this. Or Stan Baker's my turn a few days ago in the BFP.

Douglas has placed himself on the wrong side of history, just like Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Back then too people had "deeply held and passionately expressed beliefs." Their grandchildren (me) are ashamed of those beliefs. Douglas's grandchildren will be ashamed of his position, too.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 8:18 pm EST

report this comment



However vehemently we may disagree with someone, posting personal information or home address should be completely off limits.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 7:50 pm EST

report this comment



Under Vermont's proposed gay marriage law, can three lesbians marry? Or are equal rights for all limited to couples?

Hey, I'm Jest Askin'
-- Posted by Jest_Askin on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment



Be careful what you wish for AJ NONE -- taking this "to the streets" may not yield the results you hope for. By the way, your argument would be more credible if you would stop the name-calling -- it makes you sound like a child. Because people are opposed to this does not mean they are hillbillies or toothless or homophobic idiots -- I'm sure that many are good and decent people -- they are simply stating their beliefs and feelings - like you.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 6:07 pm EST

report this comment



Actually Walt, according to the recent articles on line, experts are predicting that the California Justices will uphold Prop 8. We'll see.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 6:02 pm EST

report this comment



Stefan:
"good decent Vermonter's did not want that either but it was forced down our throats by the state supreme court"

Good and decent Vermonters are not opposed to the bill and werent opposed to CU's. Mumbling, slack-jawed, hillbilly, toothless Republicans like yourself may be in opposition but "good and decent" people are not.
I'm not afraid to say that I HATE republicans and homophobic idiots, why can't cowards like you admit that you hate gays instead of hiding behind the "I dont hate gays but..." line.
The time for civil discourse is over. It's time for the gay community and all of it's supporters to take to the streets and mimic the civil rights riots of the 60's. Enough namby pamby talking. It's time to fight!!
-- Posted by AJ None on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:58 pm EST

report this comment



Kathy - The California vote on Proposition 8 is currently under review by the state supreme court to determine if it was constitutional to begin with - legal scholars believe it was not. Such a vote - I think - is in itself discriminatory given the majority-minority status of the people involved. The larger issue for me is that given its vast unpopularity with a segment of the population, gay marriage will do nothing to anyone. Its impacts in other states has been less than zero. In five years we'll wonder what all this was about.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:42 pm EST

report this comment



Well Walt I disagree but that's what makes the world go 'round. Something this divisive should be vote on by the public as it was in California. It was my understanding that civil unions satisfied the Supreme Court's ruling by providing the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as a marriage. Furthermore, because of the Civil Rights Act, there cannot (legally) be discrimination based on gender, religion, etc. By the way, I found an article on line dated March 18 that said Gov. Douglas told the Legislature he would veto any same-sex marriage proposal. Just had to get that in!
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:27 pm EST

report this comment



Thank You Gov. Douglas. Its about time someone stood up and have some backbone.
-- Posted by mk on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:11 pm EST

report this comment



KR - I don't think whether or not any minority has equal access should be subject to a "majority-rules" vote. Unpopular does not equal unworthy. And not to put too fine a point on it, the legislators may have known a veto was coming but if they knew that, they also knew that they would eventually override it and I think this makes their effort far different from a symbolic veto. Their effort was based on the belief that Gay Marriage would become law. If they knew their vote was meaningless - as the governor knew his veto to be - that would have been a charade. In this case that's just not an accurate comparison.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment



Compare and contrast; one of me high school english teachers drilled that one.
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slave marriages were not legally honored either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, "That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all".
Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 5:02 pm EST

report this comment



Well Walt, I disagree. The legislators knew he would veto this; anyone who works in the Pavilion or State House knew that. So the charade is really being performed by the legislature. Again, as I have stated, why not put this on a public referendum and let the people vote; then the chips will fall as they may and we'll live with it.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:59 pm EST

report this comment



Kathy - Not really, because the legislators supporting the bill - particularly the Republicans are taking a huge political risk. Douglas - on the other hand - is avoiding a risk by making it look like he's doing something - stopping the bill - that he's not actually doing. His knowing this is what makes it a spineless charade. I believe the legislators who overwhelmingly approved the bill did so because they believed in what they were doing. What would have taken courage on the Gov' s part would be vetoing the bill if the veto actually had a chance to stand - which he'd never have considered. (see "spineless charade") There is a difference.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:37 pm EST

report this comment



Walt I don't understand your rationale -- if there is any. (Sorry for the typo - tool/fool are pretty much the same in this instance). The members of the legislature knew the Gov would veto this bill. Politically, they have done the best themselves by taking a "stand" when they knew it was essentially pointless, except to throw a bone to the liberal base and make themselves look good. It's a little CYA charade which then allows the legislators to suggest that the time it will take to override - their fault - will become the responsibility of the bill's supporters. Transparent and yes, spineless. Amazing how this train of thought works isn't it?!
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:18 pm EST

report this comment



"Tool" ....... certainly not a fool. Politically, he did the best he could for himself by taking a "stand" when he knew it was essentially pointless, except to throw a bone to the conservative base and make himself look good. It's a little CYA charade which then allows him to suggest that the time it will take to override - his fault - will become the responsibility of the bill's supporters. Transparent and yes, spineless.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:13 pm EST

report this comment



It's about time that the governor had the backbone to veto this bill. To you others voicing your opinion on the civil unions debacle remember that the majority of good decent Vermonter's did not want that either but it was forced down our throats by the state supreme court. The liberal democrats who seem to be running this state now are making us the laughing stock of the country. WAKE UP!!!! Vermont. This Liberal agenda is sending us to hell in a hand basket.
-- Posted by Stefan Golebiowski on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:13 pm EST

report this comment



Walt: Because the Governor uses his constitutional power to veto a bill, even though it may be over-ridden, doesn't make him a spineless fool. If that is your standard, then if the bill is not over-ridden, then I guess the legislators are spineless fools.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 4:02 pm EST

report this comment



The governorbelieves his veto will be overridden and said as much during his announcement; which essentially makes him a spineless, politically motivated tool.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:57 pm EST

report this comment



I honestly don't understand the opposition to this bill. I didn't understand it when Civil Unions went through and I don't understand it now. What is wrong with two people who love each other getting married? If you look at history you'll see that living in a society where any of us can marry for love is very much a modern privilege we should treasure. What right do we have to take that away from people?
I am ashamed that Governor Douglas does not agree. I am ashamed that there are still people who are willing to take away from others the freedom for which this country stands. How can we claim to be a free country when people are all but persecuted for an emotion - love - which we usually find laudable?
And as for the statements I have been seeing about "Vermont values"....well, I have lived in Vermont for my entire life. Perhaps I am not from a "multi-generational" Vermont family, but I have never felt at home anywhere but in Vermont. I am proud to be from Vermont because I have always felt that the people here have cared more about what is right than what is easy. And whatever the case, equality is right. That, to me, is what "Vermont values" are, and if they aren't...well, Vermont isn't the great state that I have always said it is.
-- Posted by Christie E on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:56 pm EST

report this comment



Can't Stand Ignorance == it must be very burdensome for you to be so righteous. I think you are going a bit overboard. No where in my post did I say I was for OR against this legislation. My point was simply that all Vermonters should be allowed to vote on this very important issue. It is clearly dividing people and I believe it would advantageous to allow Vermonters to vote; thus their voices would be heard and then we could all deal with the results.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:49 pm EST

report this comment



How is he "undermining the legislative process" by exercising his constitutional right to veto legislation???
-- Posted by R. U. Kidding on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:39 pm EST

report this comment



Heidi and Kathy you win prizes - for the most ignorant responses I've heard today!!!!! YEAH FOR YOU....now as women, you will not be allowed to come on stage to get your award, you must send a man because you're not worthy - do you not remember that's how it used to be and I sure hope you aren't anything but white....you won't be allowed in the front door if you are.....move on ladies - it's 2009...EVERYONE deserves all the same exact rights...even you possibly non-white women.
-- Posted by Can't Stand Ignorance on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:36 pm EST

report this comment



Issac, this is TRUE equality -- the majority of Vermonters (especially those who are multi-generational; unlike the three who brought this issue to the Supreme Court in 1999) do not want this to pass. It is unfortunate that the Legislature refuses to allow the public to vote on this which violates OUR civil liberties; the right to vote.
-- Posted by Emile Lacasse on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:18 pm EST

report this comment



I am so proud of Governor Douglas! Finally a someone who has enough judgement to use some common sense. Finally someone who knows the difference between right and wrong. Finally someone who stands on principles and shows enough courage to just say no. Governor Douglas apparently knows what Vermont values are and isn't afraid to stand up for the people of Vermont and for the traditions that we hold dear to us.
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 3:07 pm EST

report this comment



I don't understand. For a guy who wants us to move on to other things, he's purposefully dragging out the discussion on gay marriage. The work has been done; the house and senate both agree this is important. Civil unions obviously aren't enough, Mr. Douglas. Get your head out of the sand and allow for TRUE equality.
-- Posted by Isaac Demers on Wed, Mar 25, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout