Late Monday afternoon, the Vermont Senate voted 26-4 in favor of a gay marriage bill that’s quickly made its way through the Montpelier capitol. If passed, the state would begin issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians beginning Sept. 1. The state already recognizes civil unions, and couples who have them would be able to retain their unions, though the state would stop issuing them after Sept. 1.
If passed, the Vermont marriage bill would mark the first time a state legislature enacted gay marriage. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts marriage occurred with court intervention, and a marriage bill passed by elected officials would take some wind out of the sails of gay marriage opponents, who have characterized gay marriage as the result of the intervention of ‘activist’ courts. Don’t pull out your wedding bouquets just yet, though. The last mile is the hardest and Vermont marriage, while in tantalizing reach, still isn’t a sure thing. Here are three scenarios of how things can go.
Best Case Scenario
Tomorrow, the marriage bill will get a third reading and vote in the Senate, a motion that’s essentially a formality. The result will be a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate. In a perfect world, what would happen next is that the House would vote and pass the bill by a filibuster-proof majority as well, at which point it would go to the Governor’s office. Republican Governor Jim Douglas has said he doesn’t support gay marriage, but with filibuster proof majorities, his choices would be limited to a protest veto that would be overturned by the Vermont Congress, accepting the political reality and signing the bill or simply allowing the bill to come into law without signing it.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Betting odds: 1 in 25 chance
Most Likely Scenario
The bill passes the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and passes the House, but not by a margin wide enough to overturn a veto from Douglas. In this case, all eyes will be on the Governor. Douglas hasn’t indicated what he would do if a gay marriage bill crossed his desk, but if the decision to allow gay marriage in Vermont wound up on his shoulders, every Republican in the country will be calling him demanding he veto the bill. Of course, Douglas doesn’t work for Republican operatives. He works for the voters, and Vermont’s brand of Republicanism is nearly unrecognizable from mainstream America’s. Douglas has also shown an evolving attitude towards gay and lesbian rights: In 2007 he signed a landmark nondiscrimination bill into law after he had vetoed it earlier. The question is, does Douglas want to go down as the first Governor to veto a gay marriage bill?
Our guess is yes. In which case, supporters will have to find votes in the House to overturn the veto. Perhaps the angry marchers and protesters that would inevitably arrive would help.
Betting odds: 1 in 5 chance.
The Way It Definitely Won’t Happen
While we’re not there yet, we should take stock that legislation allowing gays and lesbians to marry has never come as far as it has in Vermont—and so quickly. The Vermont Congress should be applauded for refuting the argument that gay marriage was too difficult an issue to tackle in the current financial environment. Instead, in less than a month, they had hearings, discussions and meeting and have put the issue up to a vote. The result is that we will shorty see the Vermont Congress a bill that will legalized gay marriage. It’s hard to believe we can make this kind of statement with such confidence, but the one thing that won’t be happening is that the bill will fail, either in the House or the Senate. That’s pretty incredible, no matter how you look at it.
Betting odds: Want to but some desert property in Burlington?
Bruno
I think Gov. Schwarzenegger was the first to veto a gay marriage bill…twice in fact.
I think Douglas will let the bill become law.
petted
@Bruno: I believe you are correct.
They only need another 16 votes to pass it the Vermont house of Reps with a simple majority (they have 60 votes in the bag, already based on number of sponsors & VT HoR is 150 seats) but they need a 101 votes in the house to be able to overturn a veto… possible but it will likely get tight
GayIsTheWay
Contact Vermont House members NOW and encourage them to vote for same-sex marriage.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/e-mail2.cfm?Body=H
GayBobVT
This hasn’t happened “so quickly.” The Civil Union law of 2000 came about as a “compromise” to allowing same sex marriage. Since then, thousands of Vermonters (both gay and straight) have worked very hard and deligently to make this year’s process as trouble-free as it has appeared.
Karlito
This makes me sad! I just talked about the same thing on my blog today at http://www.gayvolt.com. Is this guy really going to stop the fucking process of the congress with a veto? If he does, that would BREAK my heart. The thing is, all this legislation now that is half supported and half not supported by the general public. All this legislation in regards to gay rights is only going to shift towards gay acceptance over the next few years and even more so decades. For example, Prop 8 passed by a few percentage points. In a decade, that will be unimaginable. The youngsters, gay and straight, wont discriminate like this. They are more modern and more accepting. I HOPE HOPE HOPE the gov doesn’t veto. As a community we deserve some good news.
spb
He won’t veto. The bill is too popular, and he’s a Republican in Vermont counting his lucky stars.
atdleft
@Bruno: Yes, you’re right… Or at least about Arnold vetoing the CA marriage bill. However, I think it may only have passed the Senate first in 2005 before failing in the Assembly. I know for sure the second time around, in 2006, it passed both houses before Arnold vetoed it.
Dammit. Now, I’m sure Arnold would do a flip-flop and sign it. But alas, CA has Prop H8 and we must now wait to see if the court will agree to protect our rights or if we must fight for them ourselves in the next 18 months.
atdleft
@GayBobVT: How very true. Please thank the civil rights activists in VT for us. They may very well make VT the next New England state to allow full marriage equality. 🙂
MadProfessah
What does this mean for my Vermont Civil Union? I may go from being married in NO state to being married in two (California AND Vermont)!
Schwarzenegger could have let the bill become law without his signature as well, but still vetoed it twice (2005 and 2007–after he would never face the voters again!)
I’m hopeful that Douglas is a different breed of Republican governor, but I’m not very sanguine.
Chris
@Bruno:
Japhy, dude……..how could you not know that?
Gov S. vetoed it and looked what happened, a big mess! I think Douglas will let it become law without signing it. He said something recently like “if it’s coming let’s get it over with”. He knows that the legislature will just pass it a veto-proof majority in the next session or the session after, so what’s the point of the veto? He’ll never be a republican national figure in this GOP even if he vetos the bill.
Andrew W
“The Vermont Congress should be applauded for refuting the argument that gay marriage was too difficult an issue to tackle in the current financial environment.”
Heck, they’ve probably realised that legalising gay marriage in the state will open the door to lots of lovely gay lucre. The law would come into effect September 1st, you say? Pefect! That gives plenty of time to plan a beautiful Vermont fall wedding. This looks to me like a very savvy economic move.
Jon B
@MadProfessah: Connecticut?
@Japhy: Sorry, you should have known that Ahnold vetoed gay marriage twice.
John K.
Regarding Arnold’s vetoes: Arnold said he was vetoing the bill because it as unconstitutional, i.e., the legislature could not pass a statute that repealed a statute passed by the people through the initiative process (2000’s Prop. 22). He turned out to be right. In the same decision in which the state Supreme Court struck down Prop. 22 as unconstitutional, it also said that absent such a ruling from the Court, the legislature could not have overturned Prop. 22 without referring the question back to the people. This is a peculiar feature of the California Constitution that treats simple statutes passed through the initiative as having a higher status than simple statutes passed by the legislature.
People, including myself, vilified Arnold at the time, but again, he turned out to be right, and he may have actually moved the process along by being right. Had he signed the bill into law, perhaps the constitutional case would have been dropped as moot, then the right-wing would have issued a challenge, the marriage equality law would have been struck down, Prop. 22 would have been reinstated, and we would have had to start all over again with the constitutional challenge to Prop. 22.
Douglas could become the first governor to veto a PROPERLY ENACTED gay marriage bill.
Timothy
As John K stated, Schwarzenegger vetoed a marriage bill twice, clearly stating his reasons. And he was right. He also has called on the courts to find the Constitutional right to equality in marriage, and again was right. He’s now calling on them to overturn Prop 8; let’s hope he’s right a third time.
Aslo, a “filibuster-proof majority” is not the same thing as a “veto-proof majority”.
A filibuster-proof majority is the number of legislators that it takes to cut-off debate and vote. Usually this is around 60%. If over 40% feels so strongly about an issue that they are willing to tie up all movement on all bills to drone on and on and on, then a filibuster can be employed.
A veto-proof majority is the number of legislators that it takes to override the veto of the executive branch. Usually this is around 2/3 (67%).
The House is made up of 3% Progressives, 64% Democrats, 1% Independents, and 31% Republicans. Even with a party-line vote, there would be a veto-proof majority. And in the Senate, half the Republicans voted for the marriage bill. It is not at all unlikely that 2/3 of the House will support marriage equality.
If the marriage vote has veto-proof majorities in both houses, it’s not likely that Douglas will veto the bill. He’ll just let it become law without his signature.
Jeff in Silver Lake
FYI…….there is no such thing as the “Vermont Congress”. The US has a congress, the states have legislatures.
Bruno
Let’s make something a little clearer though. Arnold vetoed those 2 marriage bills because they would have actually been in conflict with proposition 22 which was enacted by voters in 2000. He was actually correct on that, though he could’ve not vetoed it to give himself a sterling civil rights reputation.
This would be the first veto of an actual state legislature-enacted, viable law. And I honestly don’t think Douglas will veto this if it’s getting almost 90% support in the senate, but I guess we’ll have to see.
MadProfessah
@Jon B: I was talking about ME personally. I got married in Los Angeles on 08/08/08 and I got a Vermont civil union on 08/08/00 in Burlington.
Do civil unions automatically become marriages? [Doubtful]
HYHYBT
@Jeff in Silver Lake: Congress is also a legislature. They have different names in different states, as well; I don’t know what Vermont calls theirs, but ours is the “General Assembly”.
boarderthom
I have been sending this out as a meme.
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.?Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married 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.
At first I thought it was geared towards the African-American community (you know, after prop 8 passed) and that it would be controversial. The feedback I have gotten has been 99% positive. The historical truth belongs to us as much as it does to the religious right and I have found it to be incredible empowering to speak it. If Mr. Pillay can mention apartheid, we can too. Politically, it is geared toward anyone with a consciousness, black or white or brown…. I could write a thesis on how it effects people along the broad width of our political spectrum, but I don’t have the time. Though, I would like to conjecture that it puts doubts in my political enemies and it supports my friends; specifically, I can imagine Supreme Court Justice Thomas mulling it over subconsciously while falling asleep and then waking up and thinking “It is true”.
HYHYBT
@boarderthom: “I have been sending this out as a meme.” Yes you have. Do you realize how annoying and off-putting it is to see the same longish comment, word-for-word, all over the internet, especially when it’s only marginally related to the article you attach it to?