People do this sort of thing every day, so this is nothing major for most people, but this is the first time it is legal in Vermont for two women to get married, so this is something I think of as somewhat important.

What I’m looking forward to, however, is the time in ten years when two women can get married to one another and not even think about what a big deal it is.  

This is not a personal story.  There are certain aspects of my personal life that I share gladly and willingly, but my relationship with my girlfriend, soon to be my wife, is not one of those things.  You won’t see photos of us, personal stories, or anything like that, after the fold.  

Instead, I will tell a story about politics, change, and evolution.

In February of 2004, Massachusetts was given a mandate by its supreme judicial court: enact marriage equality or fall afoul of the constitution.

It was that Spring that I watched most of the hearing at their constitutional convention, in which an attempt was made to amend the Massachusetts constitution in order to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.  

What’s interesting about this was that even most of the proponents of this amendment quickly gave into the equal protection under the law argument.  Here’s a (nearly half hour long) video which encompasses a lot of what happened during that period:

Here’s what I remember: the original version of this amendment was not intended to protect any same-sex couples.  Quickly, this changed.  And I mean quickly.  I got whiplash realizing what had happened here: suddenly, civil unions, which had been a major controversy in Vermont just a few years earlier, became the conservative fallback option.  

In the end, nothing happened in Massachusetts.  The legislature let the court’s decision stand, and same-sex marriage became legal without any major calamities, craziness or much of anything unusual or unexpected.  

It wasn’t until a few years later that Vermont started to address same-sex marriage.  The initial process was a series of town meetings, one of which I liveblogged here.

I should explain something about Vermont here: a lot of people think we’re this super-liberal state full of old hippies or something.  There is that element here, but we also have a lot of rural conservatives and some really vitriolic homophobia.  (for some examples, see the reader comments to this story from Vermont’s Rutland Herald).  Our fairly conservative governor even used anti-same-sex marriage rhetoric to fundraise (pdf file of his fundraising letter here).

So that’s why it’s still a bit of a shock that not one person opposing same-sex marriage appeared at that hearing I liveblogged.  Other hearings had similar results: no more than one or two scattered opponents.

Fast forward two years, to 2009.

At the beginning of the year, I never would have thought we’d be approaching same-sex marriage as part of the discussion in Montpelier.  But not only did we pass it, we passed it by significant margins.  The state senate passed it 26-4 (!).  The house passed it 95-52.  This was in late May and early April.

Our governor vetoed this bill.  He claimed it was a distraction from the real work of the legislator (unlike the extra time it took to deal with the override vote).

It came down to April 7th.

The requirement in Vermont for ovderiding a veto is 2/3rds of the members of each house.  This was easy in the Senate, with support for the override of 23-5.

The house was much closer, with a necessity of 100 votes, and only 95 supporting the original, it was a very tough call.  Not only did we win, we won by exactly the number we needed.  The final vote tally was 100-49 (see my original post on this here).

Here’s the relevant part of the bill that got passed.

§ 8. MARRIAGE DEFINITION

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. When used in this chapter or in any other statute, the word “marriage” shall mean a civil marriage.

That’s it.  It’s that simple.  It goes into effect today.

It’s about time.

According to The Ledger, a Florida paper, Florida’s Democratic Senator Nelson doesn’t think there’ll be any public option in health insurance (Sen. Nelson: Health Care Reform to Pass, The Ledger, 08/31/09).

According to the article Nelson says the public option can’t get 60 votes to break a filibuster, and despite acknowledging nobody is talking about a government takeover of our nation’s health/medical care system “still any public option will not pass”.

And now for some real stupidity …

“A big part of (the bill) will be shoring up Medicare and Medicaid. We do not have a bill yet because the Senate does not have consensus. We tried all summer to get consensus,” he said.

That’s right … go back and read the above … Nelson the dumber is telling folks we can’t have a public option health insurance program because we need to shore up taxpayer funded health insurance programs.

Ahhh … the sweet, syrupy smell of political and personal stupidity.

PS. Here’s a way to a public option or even maybe single payer: in 2010 let the Democratic House members go down in flames. The White House will still be Democratic and so will the Senate (in name anyway) so there won’t be any real change from what we have now. Once the Democratic politicians see that progressive voters really mean it when they say “work on our agenda”, however, these same Dems will be ready to role their sleeves up to do the work of the American people.

Last week Virginia’s Orange County Board of Supervisors vote to approve the building of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter within the historic boundaries of the

Wilderness Battlefield – and one of the most significant battlefields of the Civil War.  The Civil War Preservation Trust has been fighting Wal-Mart on this location for over a year – seeking an alternative location and compromoise – and after last week they desperately need everyones help to stop Wal-Mart from moving forward and opening the door to further destructive development.  

Even State Senator Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate for Virginia Governor, has written a letter to the president and CEO of Wal-Mart pleading with him to move the location off the historic battlefield.  Wake-Up Wal-Mart is helping in this fight and you can too by also writing a letter on the Civil War Preservation Trust’s website and also help spread the word yourself.

More from Blue Virginia and the Washington Post below:

Lowell at Blue Virginia has reasonably asked on the location:

Maybe I’m missing something here, like the (supposedly) urgent need to build retail right on top of a battlefield where 145,000 Union and Confederate soldiers fought and more than 29,000 were killed or injured. Can’t this store be located a mile down the road or something? What do you think?

Seems like a sensible question – just not to Wal-Mart.  The Washington Post further reports that:

[Civil War Preservation] Trust president Jim Lighthizer called on Wal-Mart to reconsider its decision to build within the footprint of the Wilderness Battlefield, near Fredericksburg, pointing to what he called, “nationwide anger generated by its proposal.”

“The ball is now in Wal-mart’s court,” he said. “It’s in the corporation’s best interest to work with the preservation community to find an alternative site. …We are optimistic that company officials will see the wisdom of moving somewhere else.”

That doesn’t sound likely, according to Wal-Mart regional spokesman Keith Morris. In an interview he said, “Two years ago, the county decided this site was one where growth should occur. We have looked at alternative sites and there are other sites but they require rezoning. There is no guarantee the county would approve another site.”

Morris pointed to the county planning commission’s second and little-noticed Aug. 20 4-3 vote that reversed a decision of the night before, when that commission deadlocked on the issue. A deadlock is considered a negative vote. Morris said that second vote was an indication of the county’s strong interest in seeing the store built at the proposed site.

There is a possibility that the Trust, as the lead organization of the Wilderness Coalition, will turn to the courts and appeal the board’s decision. Officials are debating their next step now.

Again, please help by writing a letter on the Civil War Preservation Trust’s website and spreading the word online.  

Thank you.

Vermont’s (and GMD’s) Bill McKibben took his turn in the Colbert hot seat, discussing 350.org and global climate change. Bill was brilliant as always, Colbert was funny as always, and my only question is why didn’t Colbert have him on a long time ago?