RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/02/2009

Breaking: By civil vote, VT votes to upgrade our unions. But the sweetness is bitter.

by Jeremy Hooper

vermontBy a vote of 95-52, the Vermont House has joined the state Senate in passing marriage equality. However, since it was only by a simple majority, it is susceptible to Gov. Douglas' veto threat.

Is a change of heart in store, or will gay hearts once again be crushed? More to come.

**UPDATE: Okay, so if Gov. Douglas does veto, some "no"-voting House Democrats have indicated that they would vote for an override. So all may not be lost, even in the (likely) event of a veto.

*MORE: From The Burlington Free Press:

The bill will be brought up again Friday for final approval, then return to the Senate, where changes to language must be approved. Should the Senate OK those changes, the bill will head to Douglas’ desk and a promised veto. That veto — which Douglas declared last week he would deliver — would not kill the legislation. Instead members of the House and Senate will try to override the veto by securing a two-thirds majority of support in each chamber. The Senate would need 20 votes; the House would need 100 with all members in attendance.

**MORE: HRC's Joe Solmonese says:

This vote marks a significant step forward in the advancement of equality,” ...“The right to marry should be extended to all couples who are in a loving and committed relationship. We congratulate Speaker of the House Shap Smith, the other representatives who voted yes, and the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, on this strong statement of support for equality.

I hope that Governor Douglas will re-consider and decide not to veto this legislation, which simply ensures that all couples and all families in Vermont receive equal dignity and full equality under the law,”... “If Governor Douglas does veto the law, I hope that legislators will override his veto.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

As I understand it too, it's of 2/3 of those PRESENT and VOTING, so if someone can convince a few of those "no" votes to take the day off, we could possibly squeak by.

Posted by: tjc | Apr 2, 2009 9:41:00 PM

Yea, tjc, I believe that's accurate. Although I have heard conflicting things (both in regards to who votes and if they need 99 or 100 votes).

Our best hope seems to be is in the "no" Democrats who have indicated that they might vote in favor of an override.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 2, 2009 9:45:20 PM

If I were the Governor, I would VETO that mess without any regrets! I wouldn't care if I was never reelected, I would stand on my heartfelt convictions and values, not on popularity, and I plan on writing an e-mail encouraging him to do just that!

Posted by: Wayne | Apr 4, 2009 2:05:02 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails