TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

House gives its OK to gay marriage



Rep. Topper McFaun, R-Barre Town, urged his fellow legislators to take the gay-marriage issue to a statewide referendum.

Jeb Wallace Brodeur
Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: April 3, 2009

MONTPELIER – The Vermont House voted 95-52 Thursday evening to approve a bill allowing same-sex couples in the state to marry.

The vote, which saw a majority of House Democrats joined by a handful of Republicans in supporting the bill, falls several votes short of the amount that would be needed to override an expected veto from Gov. James Douglas.

Thursday's five-hour floor debate began in the afternoon and extended into the evening as several openly gay and lesbian House members told their stories and urged their fellow lawmakers to support their bid for marriage rights.

"I want to be married legally and I'm asking for your permission to do that," said Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, during an emotional speech as he described details of his wedding ceremony with his partner. "I don't enjoy asking my co-workers for permission to marry the one I love."

Rep. Suzi Wizowaty, D-Burlington, said she feels sad for people who "must believe that sharing what you have will diminish your happiness." Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said civil unions were a "bold and courageous move, but now it is time for the next step."

Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, said all the doomsday scenarios suggested nine years ago during the civil union debate never came to fruition. He joked that when gays and lesbians move into a neighborhood, the property values go up not because they are good landscapers, but because they are good neighbors.

"I didn't choose to be gay," Howard said. "God made me gay. And I wouldn't trade it for anything."

Weeks after the same-sex marriage bill began in the five-member Senate Judiciary Committee, it came to the end of the legislative road Thursday evening in a vote that saw members of all three parties – Democrats, Republicans and Progressives – voting in support.

But the battle is not over yet: The bill faces a final House vote today, where Republicans are expected to offer more amendments to defeat it, and a veto from Gov. James Douglas, who made the rare move last week to announce he would kill the bill before it even arrived on his desk.

Members of the Vermont Senate are expected to vote on amendments made to the bill in the House on Monday. Depending on when Douglas vetoes the bill, an override attempt could begin as early as Tuesday.

House Republicans made several attempts to kill the bill on the floor Thursday. The biggest push was a familiar one: Send the question to Vermont voters in the form of a nonbinding, statewide town- meeting referendum.

Rep. Robert Helm, R-Fair Haven, said waiting a year to hear from Vermonters is only a temporary delay. House Minority Leader Rep. Patti Komline, R-Dorset, who voted for the same-sex marriage bill, said statewide referendums have been used in Vermont 30 times over the years on issues such as prohibition, women's rights and the lottery.

"They will make the right decision if you give them the chance," Komline said. "You have nothing to be afraid of in asking Vermonters how they feel."

But Rep. Michael Mrowicki, D-Putney, said the rights of minorities should not be subject to the will of a majority.

"When I hear referendum, I think California," he said. "Watch the way that state has been doing its business. I'm not sure we want to start emulating them."

The amendment failed in a vote of 96-52, mostly along party lines.

A letter from former Republican Rep. Peter Brownell, who lost his seat in a primary election after supporting civil unions, convinced Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, to support the same-sex marriage bill.

Wright said he didn't make up his mind on the issue until Thursday. Reading from Brownell's letter, one line resonated, "I don't regret my decision for a minute."

Rep. Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport, was one of the Republicans steadfast in their opposition Thursday night. He said same-sex marriage runs counter to 5,000 years of history and tradition.

"The wellspring of our civil rights comes from Jesus Christ dying on the cross," he said.

Some House members were more apologetic in their disagreements. Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre, said it is "with regret that I vote no." Rep. Albert Audette, D-South Burlington, told members, "I wish I could vote yes."

"I hope my gay and lesbian colleagues and friends don't think I threw them under the bus," said Rep. Scott Wheeler, R-Newport, who voted no. "But I won't blame them if they do."

Contact Daniel Barlow at Daniel.Barlow@timesargus.com.







READER COMMENTS


Steven,

Maybe you could spell it out for me. I'm not sure what personal benefit you are suggesting gay legislators are voting to provide themselves that constitutes a conflict of interest.

As a matter of fact, most opponents of gay marriage have argued that since civil union provides the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriage, there is no need for same sex marriage legislation. Do you agree with that argument? If so, there's no conflict. If marriage does provide some benefit that civil unions do not, then it does sound like civil unions are insufficient under our constitution.

But let me one other observation. Many critics of our tax code have complained about the so-called "marriage penalty." It turns out that under our current tax code, many couples who file joint returns pay a higher tax bill than a non-married couple how file separately.

Now I realize that the proposed Vermont same sex marriage law wouldn't be recognized at the federal level, and that Vermont gays still wouldn't be able to file joint tax returns. There's little doubt that most of them would prefer to have their unions recognized by the federal government, and would love to be able to file tax returns as a married couple, even if it cost them money to do so. So I would argue that a gay legislator who votes in favor of same sex marriage is not doing so in order to achieve any financial gain. They are only seeking to have their partnerships recognized as being equivalent to "traditional" heterosexual marriages.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't see how anyone is harmed by granting gays the same marriage rights that you and I enjoy.
-- Posted by Jake None on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 1:05 am EST

report this comment


Dear Vero
I am not shoving my dogma down your throat at all, and I resent you telling me I hate certain human beings, when in fact I have friends who are homosexuals, black friends,etc.
I do not judge people by what or whom they are, as it appears you are judging me !!!
All I am saying is marriage was created between a man and a woman, as stated by God , to reproduce and benefit society as a whole. Civil unions was created to give rights to homosexuals, and I believe if a statewide referendum was taken, a vast majority, homosexuals and heterosexuals would agree to leave marriage as it is, as God intended
-- Posted by JOHN MAJOR on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 1:20 pm EST

report this comment


Jake read the tenth paragraph.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 9:13 am EST

report this comment


Yes, actually I am. We are talking about a small portion of the state citizens benefiting. Property is a very large portion and that is what makes it different. Check it out and draw your own conclusion. The law is not just for a few.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 8:59 am EST

report this comment


Stephen Deforge,

Are you serious? You're arguing that gay legislators should not be allowed to vote on the matter of same sex marriages because they stand to benefit from the legislation?

By that same line of reasoning, any legislator who is a property owner should not be able to vote on any measure that would affect property taxes, correct? That might cause a bit of a problem...
-- Posted by Jake None on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 1:37 am EST

report this comment


BARREHELP,

You need to brush up on your facts. First of all, Phil Scott is a state senator, not a representative. And you might want to make sure you're sitting down for this bit of news: Phil Scott voted *in favor* of the measure! As did Bill Doyle.
-- Posted by Jake None on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 1:28 am EST

report this comment


I'm sorry Mr. Major, but could you please check your facts about the origin of marriage? Marriage is nothing but a by product of the state, and not the modern (or even relatively modern) state either. If you trace back the history of man to the Neolithic or even to the Mesolithic marriage was nothing but an alliance between nomadic groups or tribes. In the following time, for a prime example the Roman Age, it served a similar purpose. Read up on it, and not in the Bible. One may be surprised at how much assumed knowledge is anachronistic.
Now let's check our chronology: I see no crucifixion in the Early or Late Roman Republic, when the institution of marriage already existed, so stop claiming that Jesus died so you can marry someone of the opposite sex (Rep.Duncan Kilmartin). And if you wish to fight the battle that involves you shoving dogma down my throat, please, remember that there is the right of freedom of religion (legally, one would hope), so stop imposing. I don't need some questionably viable ancient texts to dictate the morals of my modern behavior. I sleep well enough at night knowing that I act decently according to common sense's standards, not those of 92 CE. Nor do I need to accept your a priori sense of deity; I happen to enjoy empirical evidence.
If "Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman," then that's just it- sanctity is a religious affair, where here marriage is one of the state (as it has been since even BEFORE the creation or NOTION of the state), so the union between man and woman, or man and man or woman and woman is a legal affair. So leave the matter where it should be, out of the sanctuary and into the legislative floor. And please remember that when you claim some statement that essentially waves the flag "You don't deserve this because you're wrong," you are talking about real human beings. What would your reaction be if the legal right to marry was taken from you?
-- Posted by Vero Fitzgerald on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 12:23 am EST

report this comment


I looked it up on this site, paragraph 8 is the most interesting and voting procedures in the state of Vermont explicity say that under these conditions they must abstain from voting.
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/oi/default.aspx?act=voting
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 11:31 pm EST

report this comment


Then again, if they call them both marriage, then there should be hetero-marriage and homo-marriage. They are not the same, never will be, hasnt been in thousands of years, and not going to be.
After that we can outlaw separate bathrooms. Free-for-all. men and women can mingle at the same time, once the mroality is broken down with the gay cabals, might as well even out the score.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 11:27 pm EST

report this comment


I do not think a referendum would rig a vote any more than letting gay legislatures vote on this issue. I think some one should look into it.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 11:03 pm EST

report this comment


Barre Help
You mentioned in your message that there are gay's in the legislature and that gave me a question. If any one knows the answer let me hear it.
Why are gay legislatures allowed to vote on this subject when it is very apparent that they have a conflict of interest. They will gain something for their own personal use. It is there own personal agenda. I would think that would be an abuse of there political power. I do not think that they should be able to vote on the issue. The rest of the legislature have nothing to gain. Everyone knows which way they will vote for the purpose of personal gain. How is that legal by the law.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 10:40 pm EST

report this comment


Marriage is a basic human and social institution.
Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from GOD. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by GOD, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unque and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communties and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected...
Traditional marriage supporter:
-- Posted by JOHN MAJOR on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment


For those who have chosen to "judge" me, it's none of your business what I teach my children. In this case as well as other situations, I teach my children morals. And, for the record, I was responding to another person who was asking how "gay marriage" affected my life. That's all.
-- Posted by Normal Person on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 4:55 pm EST

report this comment


As has been pointed out a number of times, civil unions DO NOT allow for the same legal rights as marriage.

Additionally, it is unjust not to allow a certain group the same rights that everyone else has just because the person with whom they choose to spend the rest of their lives is their same sex. If there is a consensual, loving relationship between two adults, they should have the right to join together legally in marriage.

And to those who argue against same-sex marriage because "children deserve a mother and a father", I say that children deserve a LOVING FAMILY, and that loving families can and do come in all shapes and sizes.
-- Posted by E Lang on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 4:39 pm EST

report this comment


Patrick sorry but your argument is a legal contract between two people? This can be achieved in many existing legal ways. Incorporation, partnerships, LLC and Civil Unions.

Beautiful statement of love. Sorry no legality in that. No civil rights either.

So I say lets end this and just outlaw marriage in Vermont Makes as much legal sense as anything else.

Economics may play a factor - Guess that could possibly be an argument for marriages. However maybe the unique nature of no marriages will be a bigger tourist draw
-- Posted by Maryann Williams on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:55 pm EST

report this comment


As we all know, marraige is a legal contract inwhich two people agree to various levels of shared responsibility to each other, their community and themselves. It is also a beautiful statement, expressing the desire to say this is the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with. I don't see why two people who are homosexual should be refused this basic human right.

And don't forget, Civil Unions DO NOT allow a partner to access to medical records or his/her partner, when the person is in the hospital. Imagine having your husband or wife unconscious in some room, and there's nothing you can do! You can't even see your loved one... That is what Civil Unions afford same-sex partners!

I wish people would stop repeating verses written by men, and start educating themselves about the facts of the issue.
-- Posted by Patrick Burke on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:26 pm EST

report this comment


Patrick again - Why have marriage at all for anyone. What is the purpose of marriage. If you can't explain that too me why are we wasting our time with this discussion at all???
-- Posted by Maryann Williams on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment


I'm still waiting for a legal reason why marraige is "supposed to be" between a woman and a man. Sure, I've heard several argumenst for it based on the bible. In fact that's ALL I'm hearing... Isn't there a sane and rational reason?? Hmm, I guess not. You can keep thumping that bible folks but the right for people who are homosexual to marry each other, is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. And the legislation is in the State Capitol, which has nothing to do with your church.
-- Posted by Patrick Burke on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:13 pm EST

report this comment


Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less cost) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well.
Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality. And it seems that the governor is destined to become Vermont's George Wallace who toward the end of his life admitted that he was wrong about segregation.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment


Do you remember as a child playing house. One little girl says to the other little girl, "you be the mommy & I'll be the daddy". It wasn't you be the mommy & I'll be the mommy or you be the daddy & I'll be the daddy. Like normal person said, they are making a mockery of marriage. I also agree with what BARREHELP said. I have gay friends but it doesn't change my feelings about gay marriage. Jim Douglas stand firm and veto this bill. You're doing a great job!!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment


"Normal Person," the instituion of marriage you're describing is a religous one. People who are divorced aren't supposed to get married again in the Catholic Church (without an annulment), but the state will marry them anyway. Some religions ban people of different spiritual backgrounds from marrying, but the state will also marry those couples. Make it clear to your children that your religious insitituion has no tolerance for gay couples getting married, but also make it clear that your relgious preferences have no bearing at all on what the state does. Two consenting adults should be allowed to get LEGALLY married.
-- Posted by Isaac Demers on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 11:37 am EST

report this comment


Normal Person:

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children...

Just to brush you up there.
-- Posted by Pandora box on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 10:55 am EST

report this comment


IN RESPONSE TO:

"It affect my life because I have to ... when I have already told them that God created men and women so they could get married and have children ..." (post by "Normal Person April 3, 2009 10:09 am)

Dear "Normal":

Go back to the book of Genesis. God did NOT create men and women so they could get married and have children. Adam and Eve were NOT married. They had children as a result of their "original sin" and their subsequent eviction from The Garden of Eden.

If you've been telling your children your particular twist, you've been giving them false information.

Children are keenly aware of the world & people around them. They learn from their parents, extended family, and communities. As responsible adults (and parents) we are doing our children a huge favor by offering to them a wide variety of ideas from which they will eventually form their own ideals and decisions about what makes sense in their own lives.

God made men. And God made women. God loves each of his creations equally, at least that's my view from the Biblical teachings.

Our shortsightedness comes from our miserably failed attempts as humans when our neighbor doesn't live exactly as we do, or believe exactly as we do.

No one who is in support of this legislation is expecting or demanding that anyone elses' lives be changed. Their marriages will not be in jeopardy. Heterosexual couples will still have the option of marriage (religious or civil ceremony), as well as merely living together without a legal contract. They can have children or not, adoption or not.

The primary factor in this matter is that people are being denied the same option based soley on their sex.

And that is simply NOT the way a democratic society behaves towards its citizens.
"Teach your children well."
-- Posted by Lea Hatch on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 10:40 am EST

report this comment


I personally am opposed to "gay marriage" because it is a mockery of the true meaning of marriage. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It affects my life because I have to try to find a way to explain to my children that two men or two women can get married, when I have already told them that God created men and women so they could get married and have children. Maybe that reason isn't good enough for Josh, but it's good enough for me.
-- Posted by Normal Person on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 10:09 am EST

report this comment


Josh, If you haven't heard it your not listening.
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 10:03 am EST

report this comment


Josh - I have a question for you. Why have marraige at all for any one. Give me one good reason way marraige is important?
-- Posted by Maryann Williams on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 9:52 am EST

report this comment


I'm personally still waiting to hear a good from the opposition as to why allowing Gay Marriage will effect them or change their lives in any way.
-- Posted by Josh Reil on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 9:33 am EST

report this comment


Get your Veto stamp ready Governor Douglas, and stamp it twice!
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment


Get a new line, How do I Heart Thee!
-- Posted by Pandora box on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:48 am EST

report this comment


Get your Veto stamp ready Governor Douglas!!!!
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:32 am EST

report this comment


I forgot to add that I have gay relatives and that doesn't change my feelings about gay marriage or my beliefs that marriage is between a man or a women.
-- Posted by BARREHELP on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:32 am EST

report this comment


Maybe you feel the Governor is abusing his power. The truth is that the Governor is speaking for the Vermonter's that are not being heard. Thank you my Rep Phil Scott for voting against the bill and the other's that voted no, you stood for what you believe. If we didn't have so many gay people in the legislative community we wouldn't even be dealing with this issue. People call your legislator's that voted yes and let them know your not happy. Hopefully this vote yes will cause a few more empty seats at the State house. We certainly have more important issues to deal with.
-- Posted by BARREHELP on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:31 am EST

report this comment


I hope he does the right thing! Thank you Jim for your promise to Veto this bill!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:31 am EST

report this comment


I sat through the debate last night and I can tell you that it was an emotional and heartwarming experience that ended with a bittersweet victory. I was so moved by the handful of Republican legislators who voted based on what was the right thing to do rather than what will help them get elected. In my mind people like Kurt Wright and Heidi Scheuermann who stepped over that partisan line and did the right thing are true Vermonters and true defenders of the Vermont constitution.

We have a tremendous victory. Both the House and Senate passed this bill with overwhelming majorities. The Governor is truly abusing his power if he overrides the will of the elected representatives. I can only hope that he looks into his heart and finds just a little bit of love for his gay and lesbian constituents and does the right thing.
-- Posted by Paul O'Kane on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 8:00 am EST

report this comment

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

Logout