Vermont
Promising to Veto Gay Marriage, Gov. Jim Douglas Stalked by Gay Marriage Advocates
“Gay marriage supporters have been shadowing Gov. Jim Douglas since his announcement last week that he intends to veto same-sex marriage legislation if it reaches his desk. Roughly 200 protesters greeted the governor and his wife when they showed up at Green Mountain College for a maple sugaring event Saturday. The crowd watched quietly, sang or chanted while Douglas used a hand-cranked drill to tap a tree in an arboretum decorated with rainbow ribbons. Douglas did not address the crowd or respond to the protesters. He has said he believes marriage should be the union of a man and woman and complained that lawmakers were being distracted by the issue from addressing the state’s reeling economy and budget woes.” [AP]
So, because HE believes marriage is limited to man/woman, and HE happens to have power to enact by virtue of canceling out what others want, he gets to do so. Hmmm. I don’t call that elected government…I call that dictatorship.
I will never understand this need to impose a singular vision and restraint on only a segment of our supposedly free population. Must be nice to be on the “other” side and not have to concern yourself, dude.
The drive isn’t over…it’s only just begun.
we should do this to every veto happy governor.
Very lucky indeed, he is, that the gay rights folks are so docile.
If he vetoes it he should see flying shoes.
what I still don’t get is his whole “Waste of time” b.s. Which, in the end, is nothing more then B.S. I mean, if we want to talk about wasting time, let’s talk about vetoing a bill that has already passed, and therefore already shows a good deal of support and, if vetoed, will probably have to be dealt with again . . and again.
Or the asshat could just get it over with, not waste any time and sign the fucker. Unless, of course, he’s using that as an excuse for bigotry. . .
Stalking? Really? Because I’m not sure I’m comfortable with stalking?
@jay: “I will never understand this need to impose a singular vision and restraint on only a segment of our supposedly free population.”
In many countries the head of state doesn’t hold a veto for exactly this reason.
It’s sickening when an individual believes his views can override the views of the majority, just because he has some power.
@Alexa: What about Prop 8? The views of the majority was “marriage is for breeders only”. Should the views of the majority also be respected in that case?
@Attmay: I was talking about ONE PERSON deciding on their own to abuse their power and impose their personal views on people, not about a legal challenge that goes through the courts.
My honor to read the right opinions. That sounds very good.by Air force one