Vermont' GOP governor says he'll veto gay marriage
By DAVE GRAM – 57 minutes ago
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Gov. Jim Douglas said Wednesday he will veto a gay-marriage proposal if it passes the Legislature, the first time he has signaled such an intent before final legislative action on a bill.
Speaking at an afternoon news conference, the Republican governor said that he thought Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law, passed in 2000, provided sufficient rights to same-sex couples and that he believed "marriage should remain between a man and woman."
"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," he proclaimed.
By DAVE GRAM – 57 minutes ago
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Gov. Jim Douglas said Wednesday he will veto a gay-marriage proposal if it passes the Legislature, the first time he has signaled such an intent before final legislative action on a bill.
Speaking at an afternoon news conference, the Republican governor said that he thought Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law, passed in 2000, provided sufficient rights to same-sex couples and that he believed "marriage should remain between a man and woman."
"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," he proclaimed.
Read the rest here ... and then let's see what all the "will of the people" folks have to say about THIS one! Or doesn't the duly elected legislature count as the "will of the people who elected them" anymore? AKA: When did we stop being having a representative system of government? (Ken Starr, feel free to weigh in any time!)
15 comments:
Frankly, I'd like to see this issue go on the ballot in VT, because there, we might win and it would be nice to have gay marriage approved by an actual vote of the people somewhere.
Ah, but this is the much vaunted United Statesonian system of checks & balances at work. The state senate passed the measure with more than enough for an executive veto override, now the state house must do the same. Then this Republican governor can veto it and save face with those to whom he kow tows and then the legislature can pass it again and it is law.
Patience, all will be well.
Plus, you do not want Kenneth Starr weighing in with his activist legislator rhetoric! He will say that the only true will of the people is the electorate.
"Frankly, I'd like to see this issue go on the ballot in VT, because there, we might win and it would be nice to have gay marriage approved by an actual vote of the people somewhere."
No, no, and again NO. We don't want a lot of outside money pouring into Vermont, thank you. This state is small enough that we can buttonhole our representatives. We can take over the state house and we do. We can write our representatives and then see them at town meeting.
There are enough looneytunes here that such a measure could be voted down and then where would we be?
The opposition is preaching exactly that: have a referendum. It is not the way to go nor is it the Vermont way to go.
We really have a better chance in the legislature. It's just that we have this dumb governor. The thought is that by announcing this, he can get the Republicans to vote NO therefore creating an override veto proof vote.
David, the consensus seems to be that there aren't enough votes in the House to override, even if the bill passes.
And I didn't say I wanted this thing to go to court, I want it to go to the voters because we have to win one of these elections some day and it looks to me like VT might be a good place to do it. Once the electorate somewhere has said they favor gay marriage, the electorates in other states will begin to fall into line. The first win will be the toughest.
I agree with caminante. having been a victim to the lies the hate and relentless brutalizing attacks driven by the Mormons and the Catholics in CA, there is no way to have a true, fair, state referendum. THere is too much money and too much politics in this system. Referenda are now nothing more than mobs.
Of course, in CA, Ken Starr said that the mob, excuse me, the electorate, could equally eliminate free speech and civil rights, no problem, as long as the majority so votes.
In CA we won the courts. We won the legislature. We lost to the money-ruled mob and their lies and hatred. And the state has been deeply, deeply injured as a result. There is a lot of bitter anger here. It has done damage. Regardless of what the court decides, things will be broken here.
John, the governor thinks there are enough for an override.
From The Atlantic, The Daily Dish
The Vermont governor will veto the marriage equality bill passed overwhelmingly by the state Senate. The margin in the House is also very high, as Douglas conceded:
"I'm sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they did not have the votes to override a veto. I will accept the outcome of their vote either way."
First, I don't know what provision Vermont has (if any) for submitting issues to referendum. Frankly, I hate referendums of any kind and think they're a bad idea generally. All I was saying is that in VT, it doesn't appear there are the votes in their lower house to override a veto, therefore, this isn't going to happen in VT until there's a new governor or until the voters themselves approve it.
In California, we lost the Prop 8 fight thanks to the most incompetent political campaign I have personally witnessed since Katherine Brown ran for governor some years back. We actually raised and spent more money that the bad guys did.
Starr's argument before the Supreme Court, carried to its logical extent would indeed allow abrogation of all sorts of rights, imposition of punishments anyone with a brain would consider cruel and unusual, and all sorts of other horrors. I only regret that counsel for our side failed to point that out to the Court sufficiently.
Another big reason for not having a referendum in Vermont: IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. It's just a ploy of the Republicans to get referendums on the ballot. Again, I say, no, no, and again, no, to a referendum. You cannot decide civil rights of a minority by a vote of the majority. That's why we have elected representatives.
(If this were to go to a referendum, I think it would lose despite support.)
Vermont has no provisions for referenda and may it stay that way.
I suggest that to understand the Vermont mentality one read, 'Fast Lane on a Dirt Road,' by Joe Sherman.
Vermonters are inherently conservative and this sort of debate forces confrontation in way that undermines the prevalent, 'You do your thing and I'll do mine.' Up until 1992 when Dean was governor, Vermont was solidly Republican in the presidential race. The political change is largely from flat-landers (such as myself) moving up there.
I doubt this will make any difference but maybe now that NH has just voted through marriage for all, the Vermont House might wake up to the fact that tourism dollars are going to stay across the border. It's really crass to say this but perhaps money is the only way to get through to some of them who are on the fence.
As I said on the other thread, it passed the House, but by nowhere near the majority necessary to override a veto.
My mistake; I was confusing New Hampshire with Vermont. Still what is the majority necessary to override a veto. If the bill passes the House by more than that majority, we're fine. If not, no gay marriage in Vermont this year.
I'm encouraged that Gov. Douglas is standing up for righteousness even though it's hugely unpopular in this political climate. Sodomarriage is something that God is not pleased with. Sodomarriage is destructive, violent, and very unhealthful to the body. (It lowers the immune system AND defies common sense.) As Believers, our bodies are not our own. We were bought at a price, therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. What ever we 'do' to our bodies, we are 'doing' to God's Holy Spirit. As a parent, would any of you want sodomy for your adult son? even if he chooses it? This is not a rhetorical question.
"Sodomarriage"????
Good God Almighty -- everytime I think the ignorance of the argumentation on the "other side of the aisle" can't possibly sink any lower ... ooops: there it goes!
What if we start taking about "Vaginomarriage?" Does it work for you to reduce the complexity your primary relationship to a specific sexual act -- ignoring the emotional, spiritual, intellectual and all the other facets that make up your relationship with your til-death-do-you-part love-of-your-life?
Not to even get INTO:
1- who does what to whom is none of the state's business when it comes to granting equal protection of civil marriage;
2 - where do lesbians fit into your exclusionary worldview ... or is it just a guy thing?
3 - and are you really naive enough to think there are not a variety of sexual expressions in heterosexual relationships?
(Not rhetorical questions!)
So, LGMarshall, you’ve absorbed centuries of biblical scholarship and rejected it all in favor of a “literal” biblical interpretation (which involves some real mental gymnastics since the Bible wasn’t written in English). You’ve read all of the medical research of the past century on homosexuality and rejected that as well. You’ve evaluated all of the material referenced on this site, you’ve seen all the documentaries, and you’ve spent many hours in conversation with all of your LGBT friends and fellow parishioners and concluded that you are righteous, but they are not.
Finally, you now conclude that the Christian thing to do is to employ denigrating language against LGBT persons, which will convince them to repent from their sexual orientation.
Hey, good luck with that.
"Sodomarriage is something that God is not pleased with."
God speaks to you directly, does she?
The will of the people was made very clear in California. What if the majority of the people don't agree with you? Anybody's legislature or governor is subject to the ones who elected them. So just because the Vermont legislature may think this is a good idea the people also elected their governor. Does he not also represent the will of the people? How is that reconciled?
Post a Comment