If you're on Senator Leahy's e-mail list you might have received this e-mail from Senator Leahy:
I've got great news to report: Today, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure the equality of all state-sanctioned marriages!
This is an historic milestone in our ongoing fight for freedom and equality. But we're not done yet. Next, the Respect for Marriage Act heads to the floor where I hope it will be debated and passed by the full Senate soon.
Six states, including Vermont, and the District of Columbia now recognize that all of their citizens have the freedom to marry, including same-sex couples. But because of DOMA, thousands of American families are being treated unfairly by the federal government.
This is wrong -- and we've got to change it. We must repeal DOMA to ensure the freedom and equality of all of our citizens.
Thank you for your continued support in this critical fight.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy U.S. Senator
Great news from Senator Leahy.
What happens from here? It's pretty obvious, right? The Republicans use the filibuster rule to block consideration of the legislation on the floor, once again demonstrating their anti-gay bigotry and their willingness to stand in the way of the will of the majority.
I haven't read them yet, but there are two new District Court decisions invalidating provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act. From Talking Points Memo:
Taken together with the decision this week of the governor of Hawaii to veto civil unions, this seems to be another very important step in the direction of marriage equality. (What's the connection? The decision in Hawaii suggests that civil unions are not a sufficient alternative.)
Of course, there are many months and many hundreds of pages of briefing before these cases are resolved, but it sounds like a big step.
It's also a response to people who are opposing state marriage laws because they won't have any effect on federal benefits.
On behalf of the State of Vermont, Governor Douglas is threatening to deny equal marriage opportunities to same gender couples. This will have at least one of the following results.
1. A long, drawn out, expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the legislature, if not this year, then soon.
OR
2. A long, drawn out expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the Supreme Court next door to the State House.
Or
3. The Governor will force "Number 1" which will lead to "Number 2" with the Vermont Courts, which will put us RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY and will require additional legislation to carry out the Court's order.
If the Governor goes through with his discrimination veto, he will inevitably force court and legislative battles. The Governor's pro-discrimination veto will send us -- in 2010/2011/2012 -- right back to the 2009 General Assembly. Right back to the 2009 General Assembly that is, today, proudly standing with all Vermonters and protecting their rights.
If the Governor chooses the path of division, delay, distraction and the disgrace of rejecting Vermonters' rights to marry -- all of our rights as Vermonters and as people -- to enjoy State created legal marriage benefits, then the following is a harbinger of what's to come.
You did not read it here first, but you will read something like it soon enough if the Governor chooses goes through with his discrimination veto.
If you attended the press conference in the ENTHUSIASTICALLY PACKED State House Cedar Creek room a week ago Friday, you also saw Euan Bear unfurl a banner.
Before I became a Justice of the Peace, I thought civil unions were the cutting edge answer that gay and lesbian couples desired.
I have been active in my church, and my husband and I just celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary in January. We also spent we spent five years as a presenting team for Christian Marriage Encounter*, so I believe that I have a clear understanding of the depth of commitment required in a marriage.
I originally ran for Justice of the Peace because I wanted to be able to perform civil unions as well as weddings, and I was just reelected as a JP. I am proud that Vermont took that bold cutting edge step of creating civil unions for same sex couples in spite of all the negative rhetoric during the legislative process.
Each one of the almost 40 weddings and civil unions I have performed during the past two years has been an eye opening and touching event.
I was only halfway through my first season of performing civil unions when I began to feel that something was sadly wrong with our system. The couples for whom I performed civil unions were as deeply committed and as deeply in love as the heterosexual couples for whom I performed weddings. While civil unions were a giant step forward for Vermont and the country, civil unions are entirely separate and certainly not equal to marriage.
I am not here to argue what traditional definition of marriage has or has not been. During different times in history a marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, while in the polygamous societies that exist in some of our allies cultures and right here in the US in some Mormon sects, marriage is between one man and several or many women.
I am here to talk about marriage as a union between two adults.
A few months back, while I was out walking my dog, Steve stopped me, and said he wanted to chat. He said that he had noticed I was a JP and had a question for me.
"What do you think of civil unions and the possibility of gay marriage," Steve asked.
I took a deep breath. While we have been casual friends for almost four years, I know he is very active in the Roman Catholic Church and recently lost his wife following a long illness.
Nervously, I said I have come to believe marriage equality is the direction in which we must move. The couples for whom I am performing civil unions are as deeply in love and committed to each other as the couples for whom I perform weddings. I believe, however, the issue is quite simple, "separate but equal" is never equal.
Steve smiled. "Thank you," he said. "My daughter is a lesbian. I love her. I want her to have the same rights as every person."
Right now in Vermont, those same rights do not exist. Civil unions do not afford couples the same legal and financial protections that a marriage does. It is discrimination. Growing up in the 1950's and 1960's I met many couples who raised their children without the emotional support of their families or communities simply because the couple was mixed ethnically, religiously, or racially. Those times must be over. I have friends here in Vermont who were not accepted as grandchildren by the one half of their family only because one of their parents was French Canadian, so they were considered "foreign".
It is quite simple. Stop the discrimination and move away from fear and hatred. This is not a moral issue.
As someone who has been married for 30-years, I find it encouraging and refreshing to know that once again others value the commitment of marriage. That commitment should be available for every adult, whether they are of different religions, ethnicity, races, or sexual orientation.
I urge you to come to the Statehouse tomorrow for Freedom to Marry visibility day. Meet many committed couples and many other Vermonters who support them. Please join with us to let our governor and legislators know you support equality in marriage.
If you can't make it to the Statehouse tomorrow (Friday, February 6, 2009), please call, email, and write to the governor and your legislators. Visit Vermont's Freedom to Marry site for more information: http://eqfed.org/vfmtf/events/...
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin agreed that it is not a question of yes or no in a July 2007 interview with Burlington Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck.
"Shumlin said same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable. "It's not a question of yes or no. It's a question of when," he said."
That quote was almost two years ago. The time is now.
Here it comes. The trolls are coming out of the closet to lament how the General Assembly, in this coming 2009 session, will not have no time to pass a law giving equal marriage rights to all Vermonters.
The chorus is chiming in and the preemptive song is that the General Assembly will be legislating 24/7 and Eight.Days.A.Week to get a handle on all the policy problems -- social, fiscal, legal, economic, regulatory,environmental, health care, educational etc. ad nauseam that are gripping our State. Last I heard it was the Republicans and conservatives who tanked the economy - the same people who are so concerned (at the mention of marriage equality) that only the economy should have our attention.
But does that mean that justice necessarily goes on the back burner?
Here is the deal folks: One sentence of Vermont law needs to be changed. One syllable ("All those in favor . . . "AYE") needs to be uttered on the floor of the House and Senate; AND the Governor needs to take just one measly second to sign his James Douglas Hancock to the legislation. Then it's done. It's a big deal, it's important, it's a huge step, but it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. The work is already done, we know the problem, we have the solution. Let's get it done.
One Sentence in Title 15 of the Vermont Code to fix. Just one. One Syllable to utter. Just one. One Second to put pen to paper. Just one. That is all it will take to end marital inequality in Vermont.
Congratulations to New Hampshire for achieving civil unions (without threat of a court order) for Granite State gay and lesbian couples. A wonderful day for my natal state, in keeping with their wisdom and courage in electing the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.
I like civil unions. Lots less baggage than "marriage." We get to invent our own traditions, or carry on parts of the old ones, or take on the whole marriage panoply of ceremony and tradition as we like.
But -- and you knew there would be a "but" -- what sticks in my craw are comments like those of Howard "Fifty State" Dean, the former governor who signed Vermont's civil unions bill secretively, behind closed doors, so as not to offend the bigots or allow the queers and their equality-minded allies opportunity to celebrate. Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate who made millions of dollars for his 2004 campaign from hopeful queers across the country, thanks in large part to gay and lesbian Vermonters who campaigned for him among out-of-state communities he otherwise had no clue how to address, shows an odd mix of almost-courage buried in cowardice. It's as if his heart for justice is battling his fearful political instincts, and unfortunately there is no well-meaning but ultimately fraudulent Wizard of Oz to give him a medal so he could finally go with justice.
About New Hampshire's enactment of civil unions, a step toward equality for gay and lesbian couples, Howard Dean, the current kingmaker of the Democratic Party, said in a statement carried by WCAX TV:
You know I don't think marriage or civil unions are a national issue. I think the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that's always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more.
Okay, he threw one good line in there: "I think the defense of marriage act [DOMA] is unconstitutional." That's the courageous Lion part.
The problems with the rest of his statement are below the fold.
250-1
55-1
