RUTLAND HERALD EDITORIAL: DOUGLAS AND THE GAY MARRIAGE BILL VETO

Rutland Herald

29 March 2009

Douglas driven by the politics

Gov. James Douglas has as much right to veto a bill as the Supreme Court has to declare a law unconstitutional. His power to veto a bill is no less legitimate than the power of the Legislature to pass a bill.

So when Douglas announced last week that he would veto the same-sex marriage bill, should legislators pass it, supporters of the bill faced a stark constitutional reality. The people's representatives were ready to pass the bill, but the people's governor was ready to reject it.

What was disconcerting to supporters was the confusion obscuring Douglas's justification. He could have stepped up and explained his opposition based on the substance of the bill. Instead, he offered a political justification that made no sense and seemed to have been hatched out of raw political calculation.

He said he planned to veto the bill 1) because he believed marriage ought to be limited to heterosexual couples, and 2) because he thought the bill was a distraction from more important business.

Legislators have found themselves in the challenging position of having to articulate the reasons they support or oppose the bill. Opponents have articulated their reasons clearly.

One of the chief arguments is that marriage is meant to foster procreation and the nurturing of children and that heterosexual couples are better suited to that job than gay or lesbian couples. This argument won the support of a Superior Court judge a decade ago before it was rejected by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Others have argued that it is not right to tinker with the language of marriage or traditions that are the foundations of a stable society. Others oppose the bill on the basis of conscience and the moral dictates of religion.

Those who in good conscience hold these views deserve our respect. In the atmosphere of controversy surrounding these issues, it is not easy to take a forthright stand.

But Douglas ducked this discussion. He opposes. He let it go at that. Instead, he argued that the bill was a distraction. This argument is bogus.

It is bogus because by promising to veto the bill Douglas has done nothing to quell the distraction. He has magnified it. Everyone knows that the House will have to summon 100 votes to override his veto, and the question of whether House leaders will succeed in doing so will be a dominant story of this session. If he wanted to avoid distraction, he could have let the House go about its business and give the Legislature several distraction-free weeks before lowering the boom with his veto.

So if his political argument is bogus, why would he say these things? The answer is politics. Because he has promised a veto, Republicans can say that the attempt to push the bill toward passage is a costly distraction and that it is the fault of the Democrats. Further, Douglas has given aid and comfort to Republicans who had more or less been outfoxed on the issue by the Democratic leadership, who had put the bill on a glide path toward victory.

Politics explains Douglas's action, but the fate of the bill will rest on the merits of the case for marriage equality. Supporters of the bill now face the challenge of making a case so compelling that wavering legislators will feel justified in voting against the governor.

The bill is now before the House Judiciary Committee. The chairman of the committee, Rep. William Lippert, may find it useful to bring before his committee witnesses who will describe in clear, human terms the costs of inequality. There are devoted couples who have had to live with the limitations inherent in civil unions. There are others who have been married in Massachusetts and who can describe the difference between civil union and marriage.

The most compelling argument in favor of same-sex marriage has always been the love and commitment of gay and lesbian couples. Humanity trumps ideology. Members of the House are now approaching a political test made all the more challenging by the governor's announcement. They ought to keep in mind that it is no distraction to work toward the fulfillment of the Constitution's promise of equal rights for all.