Vermont’s House needed 100 votes to overrule Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of the same-sex marriage bill both legislators passed. And they got it (100-49), officially overriding the governor’s veto after the Senate voted this morning 23-5 to do the same thing. What’s it all mean? Marriage equality has, officially, come to Vermont.
Adam
Real nail-biter!! WHOO! And first state to pass via legislative branch, too! That’s the will of the people, right there!
Zach
Two words: fuck yeah.
Alec
I read somewhere that this would be the first override since 1990. Does anyone know when the legislation takes effect?
Great news for Vermont, and the rest of the country. First state to recognize gay relationships statewide, first to legislatively enact marriage equality.
Chitown Kev
That’s #4!
Brian
Fantastic! Gavin Newsom was right: marriage equality is here to stay, whether the bigots like it or not.
Adam, one quibble: The California legislature legalized same-sex marriage twice, and Arnold vetoed it twice. We didn’t have enough votes to override the veto. We got the rights again via the Supreme Court’s decision, and the dissent’s argument that this should be left to the political process was disingenuous because the legislature gave us our rights, and one man took them away. Then the idiotic voters of this state did.
But I agree with the sentiment: marriage equality that comes from the people or their representatives, rather than the Courts, is going to have more power and credibility than judicially-imposed equality. Although I’ll take my rights any way I can get them!
Alec
@Brian: The CA Supreme Court validated Arnold’s veto in its 2008 decision, pointing out that the legislation was unconstitutional because of Prop 22, which passed in 2000. The legislature doesn’t have the ability to trump an initiative.
Mike
@Alec: The legislation takes effect September 1.
Ricardo
I love Vermont (Ben & Jerry’s, maple syrup, MARRIAGE EQUALITY)!
Alec
@Mike: Thanks. Am I also correct in guessing that this legislation didn’t repeal civil unions, so now Vermont is in the unusual position of having a separate but equal arrangement with heterosexual couples on the losing side of the equation? Or did they have the foresight to allow civil unions to terminate on September 1 as well?
Chitown Kev
@Alec:
I asked this question about California. What I was told that senior couples that want legal recognition actually benefit more from the domestic partnership arrangement in California than actually getting married. I would love for a legal eagle to chime in on this question.
GayIsTheWay
Yeah! Vermont is the fifth state to legalize marriage of same-sex couples.
Please keep the ball rolling by contacting New Hampshire and Maine Congresspeople NOW!
New Hampshire House
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/housemembersemail.aspx
New Hampshire Senate
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers.asp
Maine House
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/e_mail.htm
Maine Senate
http://www.maine.gov/legis/senate/senators/email/maillst.htm
rickroberts
Well, fuck me runnin’!
Bill Perdue
Yahooooooo.
Brian
@Alec — I understand that, and Arnold claimed that was the purpose of his veto. My point is only that the California legislature also supports and voted for equality. Whether they had the power to do so is another issue.
And dammit — why does California have to be more like #*($&@ Arkansas than like MA, CT, VT, and IA?!
Kevin@BGFH
@Chitown Kev: I am not a legal expert, but I do know that many seniors (including opposite sex seniors) decline to marry (and sometimes enter a domestic partnership, or sometimes just cohabitate) for financial reasons that specifically relate to retirement benefits (sometimes from a deceased former spouse) that could be affected by remarriage. It’s not an intrinsic thing with being a senior so much as the specifics of that person’s retirement situation.
Alec
@Chitown Kev: I’ll chime in. The situation with domestic partnerships is very interesting. The initiative didn’t reverse the CA Supreme Court decision in its entirety, which applied strict scrutiny to sexual orientation. So now there’s an open question as to whether or not it is unconstitutional to deny domestic partnership benefits….to heterosexual couples.
As far as the benefits, yes, because of social security retirement. The age is set at the age of retirement for social security purposes, but if elderly couples remarry they lose the benefits from their deceased spouses. Since that doesn’t hold true with domestic partnerships (because of DOMA, among other things), it is pretty much a win for them.
I think that the design is similar to what NJ did, although I can’t be certain.
Jamie
Civil unions will no longer be available in Vermont, but previous ones will still be legal. I have to check, but I don’t think Norm & I can get married for a few months still. Paperwork and all of that. I’ll check. (if they approve my comment, that is.)
Chitown Kev
@Kevin@BGFH:
Yeah, that’s what I heard; financially, seniors (same or opposite sex) can benefit more from domestic partnerships or civil unions than civil marriage.
Kevin@BGFH
As a Californian, I was proud of our Legislature for marshalling the votes to pass same sex marriage, knowing that it was challengeable and could be overturned but hoping to at least provide legal standing to participate in a case before the California Supreme Court.
But to marshall 2/3rds of each house of a state legislature on such a polarizing issue is truly an astonishing political feat. While I don’t expect 2/3rd supermajorities in other states any time soon, it truly is a benchmark for how far we’ve come just this decade.
Chitown Kev
@Alec:
Thanks!
CHIP
Manchester, Vermont is a beautiful place to get married!
Rob
@Alec: Starting September 1, Vermont will continue to recognize existing civil unions, but no new civil unions will be granted.
Amber LeMay
This is something to SING about!!!
http://houseoflemay.blog-city.com/going_to_the_chapel_and_gays_will_get_married.htm
And I happen to “know” a very available Justice of the Peace!!
Bill Perdue
I wonder if the Obama will change his mind again about same sex marriage?
Chitown Kev
@Rob:
Interesting.
Are the civil unions in Vermont strictly for same sex couple or are they for opposite sex couples, too?
John in CA
Talk about a dramatic ending. The Speaker had to cast the deciding vote (half of 99 would’ve been 49.5 – we needed every vote).
I’m rarely impressed by parliamentary maneuvering. But this is an amazing bit of it by the Democratic leadership in Vermont.
Wow indeed. Bravo.
fern
@Brian: Of course he was right, and what’s even better he may have caused prop8 to succeed. I knew there would be a backlash and so far it has been beyond my expectation, I’m sure in the next ten years plenty of people will say “thanks to prop8’s success…” keep up the good fight.
rogue dandelion
is there video of this history making?
Amber LeMay
The Burlington Free Press has a link for the video of the proceedings…
http://burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016
emb
I’m sure the mormons are already on their way to Burlington.
InExile
Thank you Vermont!!! Two victories in a week??? What is happening?
California should follow the trend!
Rasa
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you to the people in Vermont who are taking a stand for gay rights and civil rights in this way…. Taking a stand for humanity and spiritual evolution! YES!
John in CA
It is very likely New Jersey or New Hampshire will be next. And another referendum is looming in California in 2010. Congress will also vote on hate crimes and ENDA some time this year.
The problem for the right wing is they’ve created a considerable backlash with Prop. 8. Even if we assume Connecticut and Massachusetts are irreversible at this point, they STILL have to fight a war on 5 to 7 fronts.
The timing couldn’t be worse for them either. With the economic crisis, the churches don’t have quite as much money as they did before the 2008 election. The Republican Party – their natural allies – hasn’t been this weak since the events of Watergate in the 1970s. And there are simply too many things happening at once.
petted
@Alec: september
bigjake75
Nicely done. That governor is a fool. And why can’t Obama just come out for us, and push for equality on the national level? in the military? Lets keep up the pressure!!!
Erick
Ok, Im gonna stop crossing my fingers now.
Fantastic news!
Jason in WV
Woo hoo! Go VERMONT!
Bruno
Impressive.
Rob
@Chitown Kev: Civil unions in Vermont are only for same-sex couples.
Chitown Kev
@Rob:
Thanks.
eg
as a resident of Iowa…Welcome Vermont! and without a court. Whose next?????
Brianna
Congrats Vermonters! I hope this keeps up.
Someone I know has it in his head that if half our country legalizes SSM that all of the marriages will become recognized federally. Is this true? I doubt it, myself.
The Gay Numbers
re NJ
It’s unlikely to happen I think this year given the governor’s polling number. NY is stalled for similar reasons.
Bawney Fwank
I thought I lived in the US, guess I really live in Europe…the land of Poofters and cowards.
Well, nice try to the governor of Vermont.
dgz
and this is why i so prefer representative government to ballot initiatives.
and congrats to the gays in vermont! all 10 of ’em.
DonG90806
@John in CA: I’m not so sure about New Hampshire. The House passed the gay marriage legislation by a vote of 186-179. The Senate will take up the bill soon (the Senate is composed of 14 Dems and 9 Repubs). The problem is with the Governor. John Lynch, a Democrat, signed the civil unions bill, but he has said he is opposed to gay marriage. However, he has not yet taken a position of the pending legislation. Gays across the country need to contact Gov. Lynch and urge him to sign the legislation.
DonG90806
@DonG90806: John Lynch, the Governor of New Hampshire can be reached at:
http://www4.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp
Let’s get it together, gays & lesbians, and bombard his office with e-mails in support of the legislation.
InExile
SO THE QUESTION IS: WHAT WILL PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA DO? HE MIGHT DO SOMETHING IF WE STORMED DC WITH A MARCH FOR EQUALITY! JUST AN IDEA!
John in CA
@DonG90806: @The Gay Numbers: I didn’t say it was going to be easy, folks. It wasn’t easy in Vermont. I merely pointed out that these two states are still “hot” right now. Success is certainly not guaranteed.
In New Hampshire, Lynch hasn’t actually said he’d veto (yet). And Corzine – despite his dismal poll numbers – is generally supportive of same-sex marriage. Polls show a slim majority of New Jersey residents are for it too. So, those two states are still up for grabs.
New York is “cold” until at least after 2010 because of the Smith-Diaz deal in the state senate. Similarly, a reversal in California is doubtful. The voters there have made it clear they don’t care whether we think they’re bigots or not. And based on that disasterous hearing in March, the state supreme court will probably rule that voters get to define what constitutes “human rights.” It is a cowardly, crap argument. But there you have it. Though hopefully, the costs of another election campaign out West will drain some of the right wing’s resources in other states. If there’s a silver lining to the Not-So-Golden State, then that’s it.
GayIsTheWay
Man + Man = Love and Marriage
Woman + Woman = Love and Marriage
Chad
Here’s Maggie Gallagher’s personal email address in case anyone wants to congratulate her. She’s the talking head you always see speaking out against marriage equality.
[email protected]
Forrest
We really do need to get CA back on track. I love to visit Vermont and ski. I love staying at The Equinox and going to Stowe and Burlington and Killington and Stratton etc etc.
But next we need a state with a more temperate climate. I just can’t deal with midwest and northern winters! Maybe part of the reason equality does well in these places is because people are too busy running to get back inside to warm up. And don’t care about anything else, BRRRR
The Gay Numbers
@John in CA: Chief problem with CA is that it has a) a conservative pop that’s invisible until something like gay marraige comes up (I was once told that there is a heavy contigent of people from conservative states who live outside of LA and SF that no one ever thinks about until a prop 8 comes along) and b) it has a screwed up legal structure that encourages impulse voting rather than voting that’s more deliberative. On gthe later I remember after my second election there, not even voting on iniatives, etc because it was insane what they expected me as a voter to understand on the ballot and address.
Paul From Vermont
The legislation takes effect on Sept 1.
Civil Unions in Vermont are legally identical to marriage, save the name and that they must be between people of the same sex.
Having a civil union in Vermont gets you no fewer or more rights than a marriage, but the issue of portability to other jurisdictions is different. For example, Canada, New York, and Massachusetts will recognize same-sex marriages, but not civil unions.
Paul From Vermont
Oh, also there is no voter-initiative system in Vermont to enact or repeal laws or amend the constitution. A constitutional amendment can only happen with 2/3rds approval of both houses of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. That ain’t gonna happen folks.
Not like those crazy western states who ammend their frickin’ constituion with a simple majority in one vote. You can convince most people of anything for a day. For example, Oregon’s is the most amended constitution on the planet with all sorts of stuff like speed limits, zoning laws in it, not to mention wholesale revocation of citizens’ rights. Why have a constitution at all?
Thankfully, in the east, we’re not so rash.
Vermont is a closed case.
John in CA
@The Gay Numbers: Having lived in suburban California for many years, I can affirm that this is a far more conservative state than most Americans realize. Los Angeles, in particular, isn’t even remotely left leaning. And the San Francisco Bay Area is bitterly divided between radicals on the left and on the right. Everyone knows about the anti-war protests in San Francisco. Less publicized are the regular anti-abortion protests that take place there. These have ttracted as many as 30,000 folks. There are also plenty of ex-gay ministries operating in the city.
Before the mid-1990s, California was a solid red state. And I think that Clinton era shift only happened because the rise of the “New Democrats” allowed Californians to switch parties without actually becoming any less conservative.
The impulse voting is also a big problem. California voters largely created thier own economic meltdown – independent of anything happening in Washington – by constitutionally mandating spending on all sorts of extravagant pet projects. It has gotten to the point where there’s no “discretionary funding” left for the legislature to tap whenever tax revenues are low. The masses then proceed to blame lawmakers for their budget binge (as if they had nothing to do with it themselves). California is a great example of why direct democracy doesn’t work. I don’t think we needed Prop. 8 to prove that. The marriage ban was only the latest in a long list of stupid “dumbocracy” decisions.
The Gay Numbers
@Paul From Vermont: NY will recognize civil unions or marriage as far as I understand from my friend who elected to go to Connecticut rather than NJ.
The Gay Numbers
@John in CA: I read eleswhere that there is a movement to call for a Constitutional Convention to change this because others realize the problem is the system in California.
John in CA
@The Gay Numbers: You’d need a 2/3rd vote in the Legislature to call for a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, the Republicans would never allow it.
Ironically, while the voters won’t elect too many GOPers anymore, they have passed many of the party’s policies – eliminating affirmative action, banning same-sex marriage, freezing property taxes, repealing rent control, restricting immigrant rights, and so forth – through the ballot initiative process. This lowest common denominator populism is the only leverage the Republicans have left. And they’re not about to give it up. It doessn’t matter if the state has to declare bankruptcy or not.
It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that they’d value their own prosperity above others’ livelihood though.
John in CA
@The Gay Numbers: My gut feeling – and it is only a feeling – is that California will still be “down and out” many, many years after the rest of the country had recovered. The problems are not external. I won’t say that Wall Street and Washington haven’t added to the woes. But the system of governance in California is completely broken and dysfunctional. It was already going to hell before Sept. 2008. And it will be decades before any semblance of good governance is restored.
This state certainly isn’t in my long term plans. If it becomes possible to leave California with my assets largely intact (and a reasonably secure job elsewhere), I would do so with no reservation.
The Gay Numbers
@John in CA: I had thought about moving from Brooklyn back to Los Angeles, but, frankly, because I do not have a job, I decided against it primarily because the recent situation has reminded me of how much of a mess it is there. NY is not much better. Indeed, this country is generally fucked because of its mind set. I was reading this guy, Ezra Klein, who spoke about Europe not being as responsive to passing a stimulus package because they have a stronger welfare state (healthcare, pension, cheap educations, etc). It just reminded me that this country is so backwards.
Rather than the masses supporting programs that will policies that will help us achieve our long term financial interests we choose the illusion of politicians telling us what we want to hear. This is usually a “something, for nothing- get rich through no having a long term stable system” plan.
California seems to be just the a clear example of that. The very notion one would turn the equal protection clause on its head was more than enough to make me pause. I am still hating on Brooklyn, but for all its flaws, I think it is probably better than Los Angeles for right now. Better the devil I’ve lived with for 6 years than returning to the one I left.
fern
@John in CA: from Belgium.
We have SSM on the same basis as MASS., CT, VT and IA since 2003. It is my belief, that Cal has more freedom with the ballot system and the ability to change the constitution, this is the closest thing to “power to the people” one can be, for a second just think in reverse, what if the VT government had decided homosexuality was criminal? The real problem lies with education and social environment, as a good percentage of the “yes” came from the poor and uneducated, then the churches misleading, lying, instilling the fear of God in the “faithful” being led by honest people like chuck Colson a crook for Nixon now a crook for God or Ricky Warren.
Religion is on the wane on the east coast the reason to this is that there is such a thing as the east coast intellectuals and science is the natural enemy of superstition. The church said “the earth was created by God and is the center of the universe” and they almost burnt Galileo because he disagreed.
I understand your deception with the vote in Cal, I was shocked too, but I also knew the churches made a mistake here by imposing their warped beliefs into the constitution they woke up an entire nation who loves equal rights, without the “yes” success IA and VT would not have SSM yet. Remembering my younger days I would say “don’t cry, scream”.
MadProfessah
@Paul From Vermont: Exactly. I have a 2000 VT civil union and a 2008 CA marriage license AND a 1999 CA domestic partnership.
John in CA
@fern: There are institutional barriers that prevent the Vermont government from recriminalizing homosexuality (e.g. the Democratic Party, the Supreme Court, legal scholars, business interests). That’s my entire point. When you have voter initiated ballot measures, and you place those laws constitutionally above the ones passed by the legislature (as California does), the masses can do whatever they want without any real inhibition. They become impulsive, fickle, and irrational. The institutional barriers do not exist.
And I think the history of legal reform in this country would back me up on this. For instance, with regards to sodomy laws:
Number of state sodomy laws invalidated by U.S. Supreme Court: 13
Number of state sodomy laws invalidated by State Supreme Courts: 10
Number of state sodomy laws repealed by State Legislatures: 27
Number of state sodomy laws repealed by awesome “power to the people” ballot initiatives: 0
Generally,”the people” have an extremely poor track record when it comes to civil liberties. If the voters were given the option to decide on racial segregation in the 1950s (or women’s rights in the 1920s), the historical record suggests they almost certainly would’ve made the wrong decision.
fern
@John in CA: “The poor track record by the people”. Yes you are right and I agree, but it is a wonderful tool provided the masses were better educated.
“recriminalizing homosexuality” You didn’t catch my drift here, my point is that a government is way more subtle than this. Being Belgian I have a different perspective on governments ex.: we have to vote, if we don’t, we risk a fine and other problems so who do you vote for when your choice is a crook, a thief or a liar?
Now let’s look at prop8 and its 52%, if its proponents hadn’t lied, mislaid and manipulated the uneducated the way they did in their campaign do you believe they would have got them 52%? The other factor is that the LGBT thought no on 8 was a done deal, after all SF is the Mecca of the gay world and California is the beacon of progress and I was stunned by the outcome like many others, but I knew that wasn’t the end of the story, not by a long shot. Had no on 8 succeeded everybody would have said “what d’you expect from Cal, a bunch of weirdos out there” and the fight for equal rights for gay would be back on the backburner.
Now their success is their downfall and I’m so proud of America again, I was 20 in 1968 and you make me feel 20 again. keep up the good fight.