Drones in Vermont

This is Fucked Up. The State of Vermont is launching drones while debating cutting fuel assistance to seniors.

What can ordinary Vermonters do about this?

Hold the Vermont Legislature accountable.

The Legislature makes the laws, laws that, according to the US Constitution, supersede federal laws.  But not many folks understand this.  So when  Vermont has been pressured to yield up major assets; e.g. our Vermont Guard to the Afghanistan Occupation, our hydroelectric dams to TransCanada and our surface water to Entergy and our groundwater to bottling companies, it is fashionable to blame the governor, especially if the governor is a Republican.

But it is the Legislature who willingly maintain the tax-free status of the entities named above and others.

Hold them accountable.  Demand to know why, demand that they act according to the wishes of their constituents. Vote them out of office!

In reality it is the Legislature that allows, forbids, funds, tolerates, or looks the other way.  An agency carries out policy.  An agency may not make policy.

Vermonters can’t do anything about Monsanto’s control over the USDA and their $149 billion budget, run by a Monsanto insider and lobbyist.  We can’t affect UN’s Agenda 21.  That part of US sovereignty has recently been ceded.  Congress, unless the incumbents are replaced, will continue to pursue an agenda which has nothing to do with the interests of their constituents, no matter who is elected president.

This, domestic surveillance in Vermont, we can do something about.

Gov. Shumlin: Bought and Paid For

Dennis Steele was the only 2010 Vermont gubernatorial candidate who spoke out against the Afghan and Iraqi Wars. Democratic Party winner Peter Shumlin never mentioned them as a candidate. This week Shay Totten writes that ticket sale proceeds from the inaugural parties will benefit the National Guard of Vermont Foundation. While a Governor Steele would have ended immediately the Vermont National Guard deployment, Governor-elect Shumlin and his Democratic corporate movers and shakers support the troops while sampling localvore cheeses and wines.

These corporate big guys and gals - some of whom bankrolled the successful campaign - are now lining up to fund the inaugural bash. That their political bribes are legal doesn't make them less of a bribe.

UPDATED: HERALD DECLARES WINNER|Breathe Deep

UPDATE

The numbers still have to be verified by Montpelier.

RUTLAND HERALD

With 260 of Vermont's 260 precincts reporting, including 73,059 votes, Peter Shumlin won the Democratic gubernatorial primary on the strength of late-reported southern Vermont votes. His margin of victory is 178 votes, with all towns and cities reporting. Deb Markowitz finished 390 votes behind Shumlin. To request a recount, the margin for victory must be within 2 percent, which is true in this race.

Peter Shumlin - 18,244 votes (25.0%)
Doug Racine - 18,066 votes (24.7%)
Deb Markowitz - 17,854 votes (24.4%)
Matt Dunne - 15,100 votes (20.7%)
Susan Bartlett - 3,795 votes (5.2%)

+++++++++++++

When I left the Racine "victory" party at the Burlington Hilton at Midnight, the Vermont Democratic gubernatorial primary results were too close to call a winner. VPR reports they now have 100% or 260 of 260 precincts reporting: Peter Shumlin 18,239 25%; Doug Racine 18,057 25%; Deb Markowitz 17,579; 24% Matt Dunne 15,100 21%; and Susan Bartlett 3,791 5% No numbers are official until the ballots reach Montpelier where they'll be counted by the state for the last time. That could take up to a few days.

Update on LBGTQ Gubernatoral Forum

Even with the pressure on the organisers to make last night's LBGTQ gubernatorial forum more inclusive - it morphed into an event for Democratic primary candidates. I did not attend, but Amber LeMay was there. Dennis Steele - independent candidate for Governor not included in the forum - and Radio Free Vermont have provided us with a podcast of the forum, which Shay Totten of Seven Days moderated. Typical and predictable statements from the candidates affirming LBGTQ rights, but in the long run, will they push their national party leadership to do the same?

Gubernatorial Candidate Forum for Vermont's LBGTQ Community is NOT INCLUSIVE

"Democracy belongs to those who show up . . ." writes Jim Hightower in another one of his essays on civic activism - "Reassembling America's Democracy.".

Since my high school years I have been an engaged citizen and have voted in every election since I became eligible. I was pleased to read that RU12?, Outright Vermont, Vermont CARES, Samara Foundation, Vermont TransAction, and Vermont Freedom to Marry are sponsoring a Gubernatorial Candidate Forum for the LBGTQ Community.

But I have also learned from a friend in the community that this event was excluding independent candidates, i.e. only candidates from the “major” parties were to be invited to participate. This decision was troubling for me, especially since groups like RU12? and Outright exist to give voice to the voiceless and marginalised and work to encourage informed and active citizens.

It wasn't until some of the independent candidates and well known, activist members of Vermont's queer community started asking why the independents were told not to show up that the language for this event was "clarified". If it's now been changed to a "primary candidates forum," how come Republican Brian Dubie was invited? He's not facing a primary. Neither is Progressive Martha Abbott (she wasn't even invited). If the original intent was a primary debate, why didn't the sponsoring groups state that in the beginning? The clarification is in fact a major change.

It just seems hypocritical to me and downright wrong not to include -- Dennis Steele (who has reached out to the LBGT community), Cris Ericson, Em Peyton, Martha Abbott (herself a member of the community!), Ben Johnson, Ben Mitchell or Dan Feliciano -- in a 90 minute forum. (Independent and third party candidates have been included in these forums before.

The sponsors are still getting what they want: a forum with the "major" Democratic party candidates. RU!2? Exec Director Kara De Leonardis writes (the same text appears on all the sponsoring organisations' websites to promote the "clarification"), its "purpose as a forum for candidates facing the primary on August 24th."

The event on July 19 - for all RU12?'s and the others' feigning 'open-ness' - is still a Democratic party event. Vermont Democrats always assume that they've got the Queer Vote, and yet nationally - every time after an election, real LBGT rights and demands are ignored. And this time the premiere Vermont Queer Groups have fallen into that trap.

To write that they'll hold a forum with all the candidates closer to the date of the general election is like throwing the dog a bone hoping he'll be satisfied. Besides, the event is one of the kick-offs for Pride Week, when there will be a captive audience of queer folk assembled in Burlington for all the festivities. Fat chance that people would travel in October for an 'all-candidates' forum.

The correct thing to do would still to have the open forum with all the candidates. Otherwise RU12?, Outright Vermont, Vermont CARES, Samara Foundation, Vermont TransAction, and Vermont Freedom to Marry are not representing the Queer Community at all.

BUMPED UP & UPDATED: Fuckin' Hell! -- NRC/Vermont Yankee Shenanigans!

UPDATE I I - NEW FLASH - as reported by Shay Totten in Blurt/Seven Days, at 1:44 p.m.

Under Pressure, Feds Open Private Meeting on Vermont Yankee

In response to mounting public pressure from state officials and the public, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today reversed its decision to hold a closed-door meeting in New Hampshire with local officials from the tri-state area surrounding Vermont Yankee.

UPDATE I ON 03/30/10: Maggie Gunderson reporting in GMD: Vermont Delegation Calls on NRC to Reconsider Closed-Door Vermont Yankee Meeting
__________________________________________________________
Maggie Gunderson writes in Green Mountain Daily all about the latest bull shit (read: malice aforethought) to be hidden from Vermonters - all planned in secret! Goddamn corporate scumbags and their obsequious government lackeys!

Once again the NRC is up to its old antics of creating secret meetings for the privileged few it deems as stakeholders. NRC's alleged Government-to-Government meeting is in direct violation of federal and state Sunshine Laws, the NRC Chair's commitment to NRC transparency and inclusiveness, and President Obama's promise for Change to the electorate to usher in a new era of openness in our federal democracy.

This is an ace scoop from Maggie! Read it all.

Congress has voted for war, 356-65-9

Only 60 Democrats voted yes to end the war in Afghanistan; among them was Rep. Peter Welch from Vermont!

A plain reading of yesterday's vote on the Kucinich war powers resolution is that an overwhelming majority of the House has authorized the Afghanistan war, including a majority of Democrats. The war now has greater legitimacy. The vote was 356-65-9.

[If Rep. John Conyers had been present, the dissenting bloc would have been 66, including just five Republicans. Few members took the option of abstaining.]

Please call Peter Welch's office - Phones: (802) 652-2450 or toll free at 888-605-7270 - to thank him for his vote yesterday for H CON RES 248 [a privileged resolution introduced last Thursday by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)],directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.

UPTATED: IRV has been repealed in Burlington

UPDATE BELOW

The vote tally has yet to be certified, but unofficial results from yesterday's city election show that citizens voted to repeal IRV by 52% (3,972 to 3,669). Question $5 to repeal lost in all wards except 4 and 7. In Ward 6 it was pretty much a 50/50 split. Here's the breakdown by ward (thanks to Shay Totten):

Ward 1: 405 to keep, 264 to repeal
Ward 2: 428 to keep, 185 to repeal
Ward 3: 510 to keep, 292 to repeal
Ward 4: 1203 to repeal, 606 to keep
Ward 5: 793 to keep, 545 to repeal
Ward 6: 490 to keep, 477 to repeal
Ward 7: 1006 to repeal, 437 to keep

The winning margin is not overwhelming. In fact, it shows there are plenty of citizens who are still split about the way Burlington chooses its mayor. Clearly, the two groups outside Burlington that campaigned against Question #5 are embarrassed; the money they donated to their efforts didn't match up to the grassroots organisaton and enthusiasm of the Burlington citizens.

Shay interviewed Jason Lorber (50%matters) and Sandy Baird (Repeal IRV) for their analysis of the vote on Channel 17's election coverage.

The Lege in Montpelier will have to approve this vote since it is a Charter change.

UPDATE:

Side Note: En route to the Repeal IRV post-election gathering in the NNE, I received a phone call from VPIRG, one of the state organisations opposing Question #5. It was a solicitation phone call for another donation. (I've been a long-time supporter of their environmental activism.) But I thought it was strange that they were phoning on election night and told the nice woman just that. I also told her that I did not appreciate an outside group meddling with a local citizen initiative and that VPIRG should stick to their environmental activism, but not expect another annual contribution from me. "Would you like me to pass on that comment?" she asked. "Sure," I replied, "but I don't think it will do any good."

Town Meeting Day!

From A town meeting lesson, an editorial in today's Rutland Herald:

Vermont is called the most rural state because the highest percentage of its residents lives in small towns and rural settings. Today is the day when this dispersed but civic-minded populace meets in schools and town halls throughout the state to take care of local business. Town Meeting Day is both ordinary and extraordinary — as commonplace as the town's road salt budget, as meaningful as democracy itself.

[...]

One should not underestimate the importance of what to the outsider looks totally mundane. Veterans of town meeting know how townspeople can tie themselves into knots discussing issues that seem small but which are intimately tied to local personalities and to long histories of controversy. Voters are not making decisions in the abstract; rather, they are working out a town's complex and all too human history.

GMD reviews yesterday's historic proceedings

What a vote, huh?

UPDATED - TODAY'S VOTE: the Vermont Senate voted NO on VY!

UPDATE: Vermont's Senate rejected sending VT Yankee relicensure to Public Service Board by 26-4.

Earlier today, my post:

"The state senate is set to deny a request to extend its 40-year life span by an additional 20 years condemning the plant to close in 2012, said Peter Shumlin, the highest ranking member of the Vermont senate."

Watch the Free Press live feed of the debate from the senate chamber here.

TIMES ARGUS: Vermont senators split on funds for Gitmo closing

By Louis Porter VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: May 21, 2009

MONTPELIER — A vote on funding to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center requested by President Barack Obama resulted in the $80 million being stripped out of a war funding bill in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.

Vermont's two U.S. senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy and Bernard Sanders, an Independent, split on the spending provision. Leahy was one of six senators voting in support of funding the closure; Sanders voted against the money needed to shut down the prison.

The New York Times called the Senate vote a "strong rebuke of the Obama White House."

Sanders said he voted against funding to close the facility in Cuba — despite voting differently on a related measure in 2007 — because he wants a clear and thorough examination of why the roughly 240 prisoners there are being held and an accounting of what will happen to them.

"A couple of years ago I was one of the few to vote against a resolution dealing with Guantanamo because I wanted to make it very clear that I believed that (President) Bush's decision to keep Guantanamo open was a disaster for the image of the United States and for our entire foreign policy," Sanders said.

"I agree with President Obama that Guantanamo must be shut down," he added, "and in my view should be shut down as soon as possible. I want to make absolutely certain that torture is never again part of America's interrogation practices and all detainees are treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention."

But before funding the closure of Guantanamo is approved, a commission examining issues such as why the detainees of the camp were taken there, whether their status as enemy combatants is legitimate and what will happen to them should complete its work, Sanders said.

"I think it is prudent to review the plan they develop before we spend $80 million of taxpayers' money," he said. "A number of important questions remain unanswered about the rather complicated issue of not only how you close down the facility — you can close down a facility in five minutes — but what you do with the prisoners."

For similar reasons he will likely vote against the underlying war funding bill when it comes before the Senate, perhaps as early as today, Sanders said.

"I don't believe we are seeing the kind of exit strategy we need for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

"Whether it is George Bush or Barack Obama, my job is to take a hard look at the plans that an administration brings forth," Sanders said. "I happen to be a strong supporter of Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean he is right on every issue."

Leahy was one of the six senators voting with Obama on the matter.

Leahy "believes it would be a mistake to start negating options before we know what the options are," said David Carle, a Leahy spokesman. [Continue reading the Porter article here.]

H/T to Blurt/Shay Totten, who also reports the Sanders - Leahy split.

VERMONT OFFERS STRENGTH & HOPE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY

Dan Barlow in the Times Argus quotes my friend, 'Rev. Nancy Vogel of Saint Paul's Episcopal Church in White River Junction, who served on a legislative commission to study same-sex marriage last year, said some surprise votes on the House floor and one missing Democrat made her nervous that it would not pass.

"I was just so afraid that we wouldn't get those 100 votes we needed," said Vogel, who was joined in a civil union with her partner, Cheryl Elinsky, five years ago. "But now we're planning for a Sept. 1 wedding."'

How the Vermont House voted yesterday.

Beth Robinson, attorney and board chair of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force and Action Committee and Rep. Bill Lippert, Vermont state legislator, chair of Vermont House Judiciary Committee were interviewed on Democracy Now! today.

Also on Democracy Now!: a testimony of Thetford Center resident, Evann Orleck-Jetter, a twelve-year-old with two mothers, which prompted some Vermont reps to vote for marriage equality.

Beth Robinson congratulates supporters, with additional comments by Representatives Mark Larson and David Zuckerman of Burlington, co-sponsors of the marriage equality bill.

VERMONT: HISTORY IS MADE TODAY!

Vermont Freedom to Marry

Vermont's House and Senate made history today, overriding the Governor's veto of S.115 and making Vermont the first state to embrace the freedom to marry through our elected representatives without a court order. Congratulations to all of us!

The final vote in the House was 49 votes to sustain the veto, and 100 votes to override it -- an override by the slimmest of margins. We are deeply indebted to legislative leaders for recognizing the importance of our families and our rights, and to all those legislators who stood by us -- some at considerable political risk. The courage that many leaders have shown over the past several weeks is inspiring, and we've seen the best of representative democracy in action. To our supporters in the Legislature: You have stood up for us, and we will stand with you in the days to come. We urge you to write each and every legislator (House and Senate) who stood with us on the override vote. Let them know you appreciate their support, and what they've been through.

This is a proud day for Vermont and Vermonters. Throughout this three and a half week process, we have engaged with one another with as much civility and respect as possible given the intensity of the heartfelt views many of us -- across the spectrum -- brought into this debate. And in the end, we did the right thing. The forces of justice, fairness and love proved far stronger than one man's veto pen.

And along the way, we built new bridges. The debate galvanized the majority of Vermonters in the quest for fairness and inclusion, uniting the business community, clergy and ordinary folks from the four corners of our state. In our editorial pages we've seen compelling calls for justice, personal stories, and thoughtful analysis. And in communities around the state, thousands of Vermonters stepped up to the plate -- writing your legislators, coming to the Statehouse, knocking on doors, and making phone calls. Some of you have never engaged in the political process before, and some hadn't thought much about the freedom to marry until it hit the front page. But you opened your hearts, heard a better future calling, and dedicated yourself to making our world a more loving place.

And the courage of every single legislator, and the commitment of every single volunteer and donor, has made a difference. We made it over the top without a cushion. Every single one of us has truly mattered.

VERMONT: MORE SURPRISES FROM YESTERDAY'S EQUAL MARRIAGE VOTE

In my limited experience, I'm learning that politics work very strangely in Vermont. Shay Totten (Blurt/Seven Days), tweets today from Montpelier,

Drag Queens heart Republican Kurt Wright

with a link to the Sisters LeMay blog post about one of the most surprising affirmative votes in yesterday's decision by the House on the equal marriage bill.

In last night's (4/2/09) historic vote by the Vermont House of Representatives to approve the same-sex marriage bill, there were a few "yea" votes that were unexpected. And one of them was from Burlington's only Republican representative, Kurt Wright.



While running for mayor two short months ago, during one of the debates, as reported by Shay Totten of Seven Days, "Wright was the only candidate at last week’s Seven Days mayoral forum who balked at the yes-no question: “Do you support same-sex marriage?”

Wright is also known as a surrogate spokesman for Governor Douglas, thus his change in position on the same-sex bill is even more surprising.

I greeted Kurt yesterday in Montpelier, but honestly thought asking him to vote yes was a lost cause, given he's a rabid Republican (especially in Montpelier). It was a personal letter from former state rep and former Burlington mayor Peter Brownell that conviced Kurt to vote yes. Brownell had lost his re-bid to the House due to his support of civil unions in 2000.

Wright said he didn't make up his mind on the issue until Thursday. Reading from Brownell's letter, one line resonated, "I don't regret my decision for a minute."

Photo courtesy of the Sisters LeMay.

IOWA, TOO

Iowa, a new tourist destination? Not really. Every four years, at the start of the presidential campaign, it's a destination for wannabe candidates. But yesterday, on the same day that the Vermont House gave civil unions "a respecful burial" and voted for marriage equality (without a court order, I might add), the Iowa Supremee Court upheld same-sex couples' right to marry, prompting some people to say that midwestern LBGTs now have a place to tie the knot.

VERMONT: FREEDOM TO MARRY BILL PASSES IN HOUSE, 95-52

I was in Montpelier all day, at the State House, sitting mostly up in the gallery of the House chamber, watching the debate and just got home about 20 minutes ago. Long day, the struggle continues: we still need 100 votes to override Douglas' planned veto (but that depends who shows up on next week's vote to override). I'll give updates as soon as I know...and I wanna know which legislators supported marriage equality, especially among the "conservative" Democratic representatives.

Rutland Herald:-- MONTPELIER – The same-sex marriage bill passed the Vermont House tonight by a vote of 95 to 52.

Debate on the same-sex marriage bill in the Vermont House began late Thursday afternoon, one day after a national traditional marriage group opposed to the change blanketed the state in automated calls.

Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, began debate on the bill shortly before 4 p.m. by walking through the 150-member House through the details of the bill, which would make Vermont the third state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

“Civil unions were a bold and courageous move in 2000, but that promise has not been fulfilled,” Lippert said. “We can build on what we did in 2000, now in 2009, by taking the next step for full equality for gay and lesbian Vermonters.”

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.

VT NEWS: GOV. DOUGLAS SAYS HE'LL VETO FREEDOM TO MARRY BILL

(Cross-posted on Antemedius.)

In a presser yesterday Gov. Jim Douglas announced that he will veto S. 115, the marriage equality bill passed on Monday this week by the Vermont Senate. The WPTZ video is here. The process is still incomplete; the Vermont House is holding hearings and will probably vote on its own bill next week.

Shay Totten, political columnist for the Burlington alternative weekly Seven Days has been following post-vote developments.

He stands passionately for very few things, and many find it odd that he would take such a stand when even some leaders in his party — such as House Minority Leader Patti Komline (R-Dorset) — support it.

She's taken plenty of heat for it, but she firmly believes the GOP in Vermont shouldn't be on the wrong side of history on this one, or any other issue around civil rights. So has Sen. Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland) who supported the measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee and again on the Senate floor.

For weeks Douglas has emphatically stated he does not support same-sex marriage and believes it a distraction for lawmakers. He'd rather see them tackling economic issues, rather than issues of civil rights, er, same-sex marriage. However, he's been cagey on if he'd veto the bill, or let it go into law without his signature. No longer.

What is clear is that Douglas is in the minority when it comes to Vermont's elected officials when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Even a majority of Vermont's Congressional delegation supports same-sex marriage. Rep. Peter Welch (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) are in favor, but Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) is mum on the issue, saying he doesn't want to involve himself with the Legislature.

"While the question of whether Vermont should legalize gay marriage is a state issue, Congressman Welch does personally support legalizing gay marriage," said Paul Heintz, Welch's spokesman.

"Senator Sanders has long believed marriage is a matter of state, not federal, law. Personally, he believes in marriage equality," said Michael Briggs, Sanders' spokesman.

Unlike Douglas, and his fellow DC delegates, Leahy doesn't want his opinion to sway lawmakers' votes.

"He believes Vermont's Legislature and Governor are empowered to decide this, as the Vermont Supreme Court has clearly ruled," said David Carle, Leahy's spokesman. "His practice has always been not to tell the Vermont Legislature what it should or should not do."

The mayor of Vermont's largest city — Progressive Bob Kiss — is also weighing in on the issue and asking city councilor to join him in support of same-sex marriage. He's drafted a letter calling on Chittenden County lawmakers and the guv to back the bill. May be too late on this one.

A draft version of the letter reads:

The legislation now under consideration by the Legislature to achieve marriage equality is past due. Nine years ago Vermont led the nation when it legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. Yet we continue to deny the right of marriage – for our friends, family members and constituents – to same-sex couples. Our experience in Vermont with civil unions confirms that our best and most important decisions are based on a long of history of commitment to fairness, equality, individual liberties, and civil rights.

We have an opportunity to fulfill these principles and enact real change for all the people of Vermont by passing a same-sex marriage law. We urge you all to act now and support civil marriage rights in the State of Vermont for same sex couples.

The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force is holding a rally Friday morning at the Statehouse during the time set aside for Gov. Douglas to have a legislative open door inside his ceremonial office under the Golden Dome. The open door event starts at 9 a.m.

I have also heard that newly elected Burlington city councilor, Marissa Caldwell, is organising on Facebook a sit-in rally on Saturday in front of the governor's Middlebury residence. Here's an idea: have two straight married couples knock on the governor's door with bagels, cream cheese and coffee on a tray and invite Gov. Jim to come out for an informal brunch and chat with Vermont's citizens! There's still time for history to be made!

VT SENATE APPROVES FREEDOM TO MARRY BILL, 26-4

History was made today.

Vermont Public Radio:-- The Vermont Senate voted 26-to-four on Monday to approve a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Supporters said the legislation is needed to provide same-sex couples with all the legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have.

If the bill becomes law, Vermont would become the first state in the country to adopt same-sex marriage without a court ordering it.

The legislation would go into effect at the beginning of September, and after that date, civil unions would no longer be available to same-sex couples.

Any civil unions issued over the last nine years would continue to be recognized by the state and civil union couples would have the option of getting a marriage license.

Windsor Senator John Campbell urged his colleagues to support the bill. Campbell said the time has come for Vermont to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples:

"To me I look at what marriage is is a commitment. It's about love. It's about if you choose to raise a family, how you raise your children. Marriage, to me, should be inclusive."

Campbell said he was dismayed that some opponents of the bill described same-sex couples as being immoral:

(Campbell) "And even one person went so far to say those people should be arrested because that lifestyle should be criminal. You know who those they people are? They are our policemen. They are our firefighters. They're teachers; they're garbagemen; they're the guy who plows the street. They are our children, our sisters, our brothers. That's what they are. They are human beings and as such and as it's said in this bill they should be treated equally."

An effort to place this issue in a nonbinding statewide referendum was defeated by a vote of 19-11.

The House Judiciary Committee is set to begin its review of the bill on Tuesday. The legislation could be on the House floor for a vote by the end of next week.

Vermonters: For many senators this was a difficult vote. Go here to find a list of senators to thank.

Cross-posted at Antemedius.