Equal marriage in Vermont

Burlington Free Press:

MONTPELIER — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

The Vermont Senate voted earlier this morning to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of the same-sex marriage legislation.

The vote passed, 23-5.

Ambers:

A great day for the gays and the federalists: for the first time, gay marriage has been legalized in a state through the formal legislative process. Vermont's House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to override Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of a gay marriage bill. On September 1, gays will be allowed to marry in Vermont. That brings to four the numbers of states where gay marriage is legal; Iowa's Supreme Court authorized same-sex unions on Friday; SSMs are also legal in Massachusetts (thanks to a court) and in Connecticut (court-ordered, too). Opponents of gay marriage have been fearing this very day for years. They're going to have to change the way they respond to the issue because they can no longer argue (only) that courts are imposing gay marriage by fiat. In the case of Vermont (and in the case of California, twice before), duly-elected state legislatures affirmatively gave consent to expand or revise the definition of civil marriage. (California's two legislative efforts were vetoed by the governor.)

The Post:

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Yglesias:

The interesting thing about the Vermont legislature’s strong vote in favor of gay marriage is that I think it illustrates that far from provoking a backlash against gay rights, pro-equality legal decisions on this front tend to drive the pace of change forward. One factor is that the more people see gay equality in practice, the less frightening it looks. But another factor is the dynamics of political leaders. This isn’t really a topic that politicians want to deal with, even politicians with progressive views and progressive constituents. They would just as soon focus on something else. But a court case smokes the politicians out, and forces the better ones among the bunch to take up the cause and do the right thing.

That, in turn, can help push public opinion forward. Once people see political leaders who they respect debating the issue, it looks like a “mainstream” topic. And when that happens, for a lot of folks basic values of fairness wind up trumping the fact that they’ve lived their whole lives with the rules being a certain way and it seems “unnatural” to change them.

Note that the vote passed 100-49 in the house. All it would have take is a one vote switch to 99-50, and the governor's veto would not have been overridden by the 2/3 requirement, thus postponing equal marriage in Vermont for the near future.

It seems highly likely that if the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling had not just come down the pike 4 days earlier, this veto-proof legislation would have failed.

As with such landmark decisions as Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas, the courts have played an important role in guarding the rights of an unpopular minority against the tyranny of a majority.

Anonymous Liberal makes the same point. Andrew has more reax.