Governor Will Veto Gay Marriage Bill

Source: WCAX-TV News

Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it passes the Legislature.

The Vt. Senate gave its final stamp of approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont. Passage came on a voice vote with no debate, one day after the Senate gave the bill preliminary approval on a 26-4 roll call vote. Now the issue moves to the House, where the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It is expected to pass.

Governor Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, and this afternoon he announced he plans to veto it. He said he made the announcement to stop speculation and to focus attention on economy.

...

However, Douglas conceded that lawmakers would likely override his veto. "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."

Read more: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10069165&nav=menu183_15

---

All is not lost - edited to show that an override is likely

I know Massachusetts had Mitt Romney, so I suppose all things are possible, but still...

disappointed the the Democratic incumbent, Gov. Deval Patrick (a co-chair of Obama's national campaign) seems to be so hopelessly tone deaf.

California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. Lack of competition at most levels begets a party of pygmies with little vision beyond delivering the goods for their fiefdom, and a Democratic governor ends up beholden to the pygmies. So a Republican governor can run as an independent advocate for the state's citizens. Democrats need to articulate a vision to make positive changes for the whole state, say, enacting living wages or paid leave or universal health care, rather than just buy off every legislator and mayor.

My house is in Danville(on the edge of the Northeast Kingdom). I will never forget the "Take Back Vermont" campaign that sprung up as a result of the 'Civil Union' bill. I was disgusted to drive by the large signs all over the countryside. As someone whose family (on my father's side) has lived in Vermont for well over 100 years I have seen the resentment of the natives towards the 'flatlanders'. It is true that the 'landscape' in Vermont changed in the 70's when both the hippies came up to Vermont to start communes and wealthier people came up and bought up lots of land for second homes and as a result dramatically upped the price of land. A lot of interesting dynamics up in them hills.

But the election was the pockets of conservatives and the number of candidates. I have every confidence there will be legal same sex marriage in Vermont soon and hopefuly the end of Jim Douglas.

The election following the passage of civil unions was incredibly
nasty and vile.

Tesha

Exposes the republican party for what it is - a bigoted, "Party-above-all" better-be-conservative-and-walk-the-walk-or-you-die 29% of americans who are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Especially in the enlightened northeast.

Too bad our Vermont dems can't come up with a single viable candidate to oppose Douglas. The problem last election was an independent candidate splitting the dem vote. Maybe the backlash from this will get him out of office when his term is up.

in 2008. The governor of vermont serves a two year term. Douglas was elected in 2002 with less than 45 percent of the vote when a Democratic candidate and an independent split the opposition vote. But since then, Douglas has won reelection with more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Yes, there was both an independent candidate and Democratic candidate on the ballot against Douglas in 2008, but between them they could only muster 43.5% of the vote.

Sounds like the house and senate have it under control.

Even Vermont has retrograde Republicans.

AFTER I veto it.

:eyes:

They were doing it here in CA. While they were playing the victim, they were sending threatening letters to businesses telling them they would destroy the business if the owners opposed Prop H8.

For some reason in Massachusetts, the house was more anti-gay than the senate. I hope it's not that way in Vermont. But we know that in 2000, Vermont approved civil by a vote of 79-68 in the house, and the senate approved it by a much wider margin of 19-11. This time marriage was approved by a senate vote of 26-4. We need an additional 21 votes in the house as compared with to override a veto. Are they there? If as much headway can be made there as was made in the senate, then yes; if, for some reason the house is even more anti-gay relative to the senate than it was in 2000, maybe not. And, the big question is also, will we lose any pro-gay votes after veto? I'm pessimistic, to be honest. If we lose every Republican vote (which probably won't happen), then we need to retain all but 3 Democrats and third party members to override. It's a tall order, but I hope it happens. What a blow to the right it would be.

Do you think it is worthwhile contacting every single House representative? I sent personal emails last night to every member of the House Judiciary Committee, urging each of them to support the bill. Do you think there are still representatives that have yet to make up their minds? I guess we'll get a good indication of how the House intends to vote based off of how much support we get from the House Judiciary Committee..

and they have to force their bigotry on every one else.

Then don't fucking veto, you bigoted POS

wtf, seriously!

(And what happened to VT? A Republican Gov? Who do they think they are, CT?)