House overrides veto, same-sex marriage legal in Vermont

Gay marriage legal in Vermont

(Montpelier, Vermont) Vermont has become the fourth state where same-sex marriage is legal.

The House and Senate on Tuesday overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a marriage bill.

The Republican governor, as expected, nixed the bill Monday night when it arrived on his desk and sent it back to the legislature.

Dozens of gay marriage supporters wearing Freedom to Marry stickers began arriving at the State House early Tuesday morning.

The Senate voted 23-5 to override the veto. It then moved to the House, which voted 100-49 - the exact number needed to override the veto.

While the broad spread in the Senate was predicted, the House vote went down to the wire. Tuesday morning, Democratic leaders said the vote could come down to a single vote, and they were right.

In vetoing the marriage equality bill, Douglas, in a prepared statement, attempted to portray himself as a moderate, putting the blame on the federal defense of marriage law.

“This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents,” the statement said. “Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont.”

Douglas said that the legislation does not provide any additional benefits not already available under Vermont’s civil unions law.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then, LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two-tiered” system - marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

The marriage law amends the old civil unions law to allow marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

The law also guarantees that churches would not be obligated to marry same-sex couples.

Vermont now joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa with legalized same-sex marriage. Marriage bills also are being considered in Maine and New Hampshire.

---------------

2 in a week!
4 down, 46 to go.

What's funny is 6 members of the house who voted against the bill in the first place voted in favor of the veto. Maybe next time Vermont's governor won't veto a bill before it passes.

Rotten Shame

From the sound of things, New Hampshire could be the next state. Legislation has passed the House by the slimmest of margins and is expected to pass in the Senate rather easily. It remains to be seen whether the governor, a Democrat, will veto the bill (he did not veto a bill legalizing same-sex unions).

Also today, the District of Columbia voted to recognize foreign (performed outside of D.C.) same-sex marriages. They have to vote on this again next month for it to be official. Given that D.C. is the most liberal state/territory in the United States, it will pass easily. Since D.C. is also controlled by Congress, they cannot legalize same-sex marriage to be performed in D.C. without congressional approval - something that could be quite interesting if they attempt to do. The federal government doesn't seem to be a big fan of such legislation, but they'll have a difficult time explaining why an overwhelming Democratic majority will vote against one of their party's principles.

catbox_9 wrote:

From the sound of things, New Hampshire could be the next state. Legislation has passed the House by the slimmest of margins and is expected to pass in the Senate rather easily. It remains to be seen whether the governor, a Democrat, will veto the bill (he did not veto a bill legalizing same-sex unions).

Also today, the District of Columbia voted to recognize foreign (performed outside of D.C.) same-sex marriages. They have to vote on this again next month for it to be official. Given that D.C. is the most liberal state/territory in the United States, it will pass easily. Since D.C. is also controlled by Congress, they cannot legalize same-sex marriage to be performed in D.C. without congressional approval - something that could be quite interesting if they attempt to do. The federal government doesn't seem to be a big fan of such legislation, but they'll have a difficult time explaining why an overwhelming Democratic majority will vote against one of their party's principles.

When it rains it pours