The work is never over

Paul Fromberg, the rector of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco and whom I knew briefly when he was rector of a parish in Houston, writes about yesterday's California Supreme Court decision on marriage equality:

"In terms of political organizing, the fight for gay marriage can’t be separated from California’s budget crisis: from our struggles for immigrant rights, education reform, and tax reform that will allow us to provide humane health care and educate all our children. The fight for gay marriage can’t simply involve gays throwing a bit of money at a campaign so we can all have fabulous weddings. It means, as we say in my business, doing the hard work of becoming a community."

BREAKING: New Hampshire House balks on marriage equality bill

Bay News
Wednesday afternoon, May 20, 2009

The New Hampshire Senate passed it, the governor was standing by to sign it, and many expected approval of a final same-sex marriage bill in the House today could be swift and routine.

But in a surprise turnabout, the New Hampshire House voted narrowly Wednesday afternoon to defeat the measure, 186 to 188.

When the House Speaker announced the vote in the House, the chamber erupted with sounds of both distress and applause. Supporters and opponents then launched immediate efforts to both save and kill the measure for this legislative session.

Both sides await Prop. 8 decision on anniversary of ruling

KTVU.COM

SAN FRANCISCO -- Friday was the one-year anniversary of a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage - only to be struck down six months later by a voter initiative that made a ban on gay marriage part of the state constitution.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage are now awaiting a second State Supreme Court decision on whether the initiative itself, enacted by voters Nov. 4 as Proposition 8, was constitutional.

The court heard arguments on the case in San Francisco on March 5 and must issue a ruling no later than June 3.

Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

For Immediate Release
May 14, 2009

Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

CONCORD - Gov. John Lynch released the following statement today regarding same-sex legislation in New Hampshire:

“The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion and emotion on all sides.

“My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

“In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls, letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the legislature and our history and traditions.

“Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination.

“At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term ‘civil union’ to ‘civil marriage.’ Given the cultural, historical and religious significance of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change.

“I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families.

“I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

“Throughout history, our society’s views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

“That is what I believe we must do today.

“But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

“The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.

“But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.

“I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.

“This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

“This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.
It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

“If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.

“We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.

“I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals and I urge the legislature to pass it.

Below is the language Gov. Lynch has proposed for the same Sex legislation.

# # #

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

Mothering Relationships

Normally, I don't get caught up in the cheap sentimentality and commercialism surrounding today, Mother's Day. (My wise mother used to say to my father, my twin brothers and me, "Every day is mother's day," and she served that role in our lives indeed!) Motheramelia, whose blog I discovered at Mad Priest, has written a very nice mother's day sermon. She's an Episcopal priest in Maine, where the legislature in that state voted this week for marriage equality. You can read the whole sermon here. Here are the parts that struck me deeply.

For some people though, it is difficult to appreciate and to honour their mothers, and even more difficult to love them. Not all parents act in a loving and sacrificial way At such times it is hard to celebrate a day like today - - hard because anger and pain and hurt get in our way - hard because we do not understand how it is that someone who is supposed to love us has left us behind. If they’ve been fortunate, they’ve found someone else, some other woman, or even a man, who has given them the love and support that mothers are supposed to give to help them grow into a healthy adult.

Another important event happened this week. The Governor signed a bill passed by the Maine Legislature allowing same sex marriage here in Maine. Governor Baldacci said he had changed his mind because he felt it was a matter of justice. I want to read to you some of the testimony Bishop Lane wrote for a hearing on the bill:

The Episcopal Church, long ago, concluded and publicly proclaimed through its own legislative body that gay and lesbian persons are children of God and, by baptism, full members of the church. We have also concluded that sexual orientation, in and of itself, is no bar to holding any office or ministry in the church, as long as the particular requirements of that office or ministry are met. And we have repeatedly affirmed our support for the human and civil rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered persons. In many of our congregations, both here in Maine and around the country, faithful same sex couples and their families are participating in the life of the church and sharing in the work of ministry and service to their communities.

If we, as Mainers, believe that faithful, lifelong monogamous relationships are among the building blocks of a healthy and stable society, then it is in our interest to extend the rights and obligations of civil marriage to all Maine citizens. To deny those rights to certain persons on the basis of sexual orientation is to create two classes of citizens and to deny one group what we believe is best for them and for society.

The Episcopal Church continues its conversations about doctrine in relation to same sex marriage and the blessing of same sex relationships, and there is yet no consensus. We continue to search for ways to honor the varied viewpoints of all our members and to provide a place of dignity and respect for each of them.

The bishop went on to say that no clergy would be required to act against his or her conscience and be required to perform marriages for gays and lesbians. I’ve been questioning for years why clergy act as agents of the state in marrying people. I’ve thought that that function should be the responsibility of civil authorities and the church’s responsibility is about blessing relationships. I have decided that I will not perform the function of the state.
I hear people say. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” I hear others say “I support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage.” And I hear others ask “why do gays and lesbians want marriage so much when they can have civil unions? “ When most people marry, they do it because they love one another and are committed to each other. But marriage is also a legal contract, with rights and responsibilities. Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. This is not so with Civil Unions. Civil Unions are only recognized in the state in which they are done and the way people in our society move about, this can be problematic.

There is a whole long list of benefits and protections for heterosexual couples (more than 1000) that ranges from federal benefits, such as Social Security survivor benefits, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. The list includes things like family discounts, getting family insurance through employers, visiting spouses in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Some of these benefits can be had through Civil Unions, but not all of them and to get many of them the assistance of a lawyer is needed. Yet for a married couple a marriage license is all that is necessary. I agree with the governor and our bishop that marriage should be available to any couple. That doesn't mean that any couple should get married. The divorce rate is high enough.

Same sex marriage is about relationship. Mother’s Day is about relationship. God is about relationship. Being a Christian is about relationship. Thursday, Tobias Haller a Brother of St. Gregory gave an address to the Province II Synod in which this wonderful paragraph stands out about our relationships with God and one another:

In the long run, there is no such thing as a solitary Christian. There is no Christian without the church, no church without Christ, no Christ without God. For as we believe that God is love, there can be no love without relationship. This love divine, all loves excelling, is the ultimate compassion — feeling-with — the love that embraces the other, that gives itself for the life of the other, that becomes itself in losing itself, saving its life in losing it. This is the embodied love of the Incarnation, the love that died on the Cross, the love that rose again from the dead, and in whom we will one day be raised: love that becomes so united with the beloved that the old categories that ruled the world — Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female — are overshadowed by the love which passes all understanding, yet shelters our hearts and minds under the shadow of everlasting wings.[Tobias Haller BSG, Address to Provincial Synod II, May 7, 2009]

To love someone else as God loves us doesn’t require that we understand them. It doesn’t require that we approve of their actions or their lifestyle or their decisions. And it most certainly does not require that they love us, though it is always very nice when they do. To become a branch of the vine that bears fruit means we need pruning. And vine branches need pruning every year. So those ideas and attitudes that used to bear fruit in the past will only bear abundant fruit with pruning. In that way the love that overshadows all helps us to grow into the fullness of our potential. The love that gives life to all of love's children will help remove outworn categories. The love that we feel as a mother's love is a love with arms wide open to embrace and shelter all of love’s children.

Another Amazing Day for Marriage Equality

Boston Globe

In a banner day in New England for advocates of gay marriage, Maine legalized the practice Wednesday, and the New Hampshire Legislature voted to do the same.

If New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signs the bill or lets it become law without his signature, his state would become the sixth overall to allow gay marriage and the fifth in New England. Rhode Island would be the region's only holdout.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat who hadn't indicated how he would handle his state's bill, signed it shortly after the legislation passed the Senate on a vote of 21-13 -- a margin not large enough to override a veto.

Comment: Gov. Baldacci didn't mess around, did he. Let's hope Lynch moves on this to make Northern New England stand up for Equality!

Amsterdam to pay NY gays to get hitched

DutchNews.nl 9 April 2009

The city of Amsterdam is set to invite five New York-based gay couples ­– one of whom must be a US citizen and the other Dutch – to come to Amsterdam to get married in August of this year.

Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen will perform the ceremony.

The city has set aside €37,000 to finance the Pink Exchange Project, which is part of Henry Hudson Year, celebrating the 400-year-old bond between the Dutch and Americans that started with Henry Hudson’s arrival in Manhattan in 1609.

COMMENT: Earlier this week, Diederik van Hoogstraten, writing in Volkskrant (Dutch), quotes Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group, Freedom to Marry, that Vermont's vote to override the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill will act as "a reminder to other legislatures that they must finish their work" for civil equality. Mayor Cohen's offer sends a powerful message from the Netherlands (as the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001) to the NY Legislature to follow the Netherland's lead.

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.”

PHOTOS FROM MONTPELIER

Kevin Hurley and I are in Montpelier for the historic vote today on the Marriage Equality Bill. We arrived around 8:45 a.m. this morning. The House is supposed to take up the bill this afternoon.

I am now down in Capitol Grounds Cafe on State Street to get an internet connection. The big yellow and green Equality buttons are visible in and outside the State House. Above are a few photos Kevin took of the well of the House just before the start of today's session; a meeting of gay and lesbian families with an unsupportive governor; and finally a photo of supportive placards outside th Statehouse.

OUT OF STATE ANTI-GAY GROUP ROBOCALLING IN VERMONT

From GREEN MOUNTAIN DAILY

The Princeton New Jersey based "National Organization for Marriage" - a national religious right group that works against LGBT rights across the country - is currently running robocalls in the state on the marriage equality bill.

While there is a compelling case out there that this organization is either a Mormon Church front group, or is at least largely supported by the LDS Church, they got started in California (where they were very active in the California Prop 8 fight) with money from the Catholic Knights of Columbus. In any event, it is - once again - a group with a religious agenda that they feel everyone should be legally bound to, no matter what state they live in.
------------
Footnote: Shay Totten/Blurt received one of the calls:

I didn't record the call because I answered the phone and just listened to the recording. I'm surprised for a couple of reasons. First, my state rep was one of the original sponsors of the legislation (Democratic Rep. Mark Larson), and second I'm a journalist. Thirdly, it not only had my rep's name, but his number, too.

This leads me to believe that the call list was probably not a political list, but one that contains most, if not all, households. And this has to be expensive.

Not sure that having an out-of-state group lobbying for their cause is going to help the in-state opponents of same-sex marriage. They are also behind an e-mail campaign to Vermont lawmakers. I've placed calls and emails to the organization to get more details about their efforts in Vermont and will post any responses I receive. They claim to have an ad running as part of their Northeast Action Plan to stamp out same-sex marriage efforts in New England. I haven't heard one yet in Vermont.

Several readers who alerted me to the calls they received had this same question: The ad specifically mentions that lawmakers should support Gov. Douglas. Did he give his blessing to this group to use his name? Probably not. His name also appeared on a rather hate-filled rant that landed on people's fax machines this week from a Utah-based group America Forever. This group also robo-faxed Vermont businesses before a public hearing on same-sex marriage last month.

BREAKING NEWS: $750bn MARRIAGE BAILOUT BILL MOVES THROUGH CONGRESS

Just in from Green Mountain Daily!

'Saying "we have to act quickly before the institution fails completely," a bipartisan group of Senators is pushing a $750 billion bill to bail out marriage after its unprecedented collapse in the wake of gay and lesbian rights victories. Starting with civil unions in Vermont, marriage has been dealt crushing blows in recent years, with little end in sight.

The collapse, predicted by many, has been devastating. Divorce rates since the collapse of the marriage system have multiplied by a factor of 10. Most marriagists blame the new universal acceptance of the "gay lifestyle" in the wake of these laws, which have caused nearly 75% of all married men to experiment sexually with other men, and up to 50% going gay completely (with that number expected to increase). "I just never thought of it as an option," one anonymous ex-husband was quoted as saying. "Now that there's no social stigma attached, why not decide to crave male genitalia? I only chose the straight lifestyle because I didn't really know about penises!"'

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.

VERMONT: SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL GOES TO SENATE

Blurt

The same-sex marriage bill is headed to the Vermont Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously today — 5 to 0 — to advance the bill out of committee.

Vermont Freedom to Marry is urging supporters to call their senators, and be present when the Senate debates and votes on the bill. That's expected to happen on Monday at 3 p.m.

Will Gov. Douglas veto the bill, it passes the House and Senate? I heard him say today on Vermont Edition that he did not support it. He made that idiotic argument that discounts the civil rights of all - including LBGT folk - as being less important than what he thinks Vermonters really care about: jobs and the economy.