http://gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/gannett-burlington-010-pub01-live/current/bfpsection/singleplaylist/client/embedded/embedded.swf
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and now Vermont. So when does New Jersey join the party?
Even with the referendum in California overturning that state court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, it seems clear that momentum is building for marriage equality.
Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that state’s ban, making it the first non-coastal state to weigh in favorably.
And yesterday, Vermont joined the fray — legislatively (above video from Burlington Free Press). After both houses of the state Legislature approved the marriage bill and it was vetoed by the governor, both houses then voted again — overwhelmingly, overriding the veto and demonstrating in no uncertain terms where the state stands on the issue.
MONTPELIER — House Speaker Shap Smith’s voice choked with emotion as he read the vote count from the podium: 100-49.
By the narrowest of margins, the Legislature overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto Tuesday and Vermont became the fourth state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry, and the first to do so without a court order.
“It really is a historic moment,” Smith said afterward.
“It means everything. It means we’re going to get married,” the Rev. Nancy Vogele, an Episcopal minister from White River Junction, said after the vote. She plans to wed her partner, Cheryl Elinsky, on Sept. 1, the day the law takes effect.
The override vote, which reached the two-thirds’ majority needed in the House without a vote to spare, seemed in question until the roll was called Tuesday. Earlier in the morning, the Senate passed the override more easily, 23-5.
Legislators whose votes were in question endured heavy lobbying from both sides, culminating with hundreds of calls and e-mails in recent days. Legislative leaders reached the two-thirds majority needed for an override by persuading three House Democrats who had voted against the bill to join the majority and vote for the veto.
Same-sex marriage supporters cheered as the House vote ended a decadelong fight for them that came down to an intense one-month debate in this year’s Legislature. Outside the chamber, those who have spent years working on the issue hugged and wept. A short time later, gathered in a Statehouse conference room, the crowd erupted into more jubilance.
Just 54 of 177 legislators voted against the legislation, which is a shocking total that makes it clear that enough lawmakers felt there would likely be little political fallout from the vote.
Nine years ago, when the state battled through a contentious debate to become the first in the nation to offer civil unions, a number of legislators who supported the measure were defeated for re-election the next year. Many have characterized this year’s debate as much less contentious. The vote also comes a full year before the next election.
“I do think it’s different this time,” said Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington. “There’s going to be a handful of districts to watch. Nine years ago there were 30 districts to watch.”
That was the case in Massachusetts a few years ago when state lawmakers publicly nixed a plan to put a ban on the ballot. The lawmakers who voted to keep gay marriage legal survived without much fuss.
The Vermont debate was very public, following years of activism and a commission that “concluded that civil unions did not provide complete equality.”
Sound familiar?
The vote was not expected to happen this year, however, because legislators thought “budget shortfalls caused by the crippled economy made this a poor time to tackle such a contentious, emotionally draining issue.”
Again, sound familiar?
Not until after Town Meeting Day in March — halfway through the legislative session — did leaders declare that same-sex marriage would be a priority this year.
In just one month’s time, they held hearings, passed the bill in the Senate, then the House, shipped it off to the governor and worked up to the final day to muster the votes needed to override his veto.
Hank Kalet 