Tag: gay marriage

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.

I have to share this letter from the Hillsborough Beacon, which takes issue with our editorial on same-sex marriage. John Tardy writes that same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. “Marriage,” he writes has “for millennia meant the union of a male and a female human with the intent to create and raise a family, i.e., have children of their own and to nurture them into adulthood.” So, while gay and lesbian couples “can ‘borrow’ someone else’s children or family one way or another, the basic function of procreation that is at the core of a marriage is physically defunct in such situations.”

Procreation, apparently, is the key, which leaves heterosexual couples like my wife and I — who tried but couldn’t have kids and others who have adopted, or older couples who marry after they no longer can create a child — outside of this very narrow definition.

I am sure that Mr. Tardy would make an exception for my wife and me — we have what he would consider compatible equipment — and I have to say I’m honored. Of course, making such an exception knocks the foundation out from under his initial argument.

Monmouth University released poll results today that show narrow support in New Jersey for same-sex marriage, though support remained under a 50 percent threshold. (The poll results arrived in an e-mail after our editorial and podcast were live on our site.)

The poll — which Patrick Murray, founding director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, links to in his blog — found that 48 percent of New Jerseyans backed same-sex marriage while 43 percent opposed, with support inching up when only registered voters are included.

Currently, New Jersey residents who favor allowing same-sex marriage outnumber those who oppose it by a 48% to 43% margin. Opinion among registered voters is slightly more supportive of same-sex marriage – 50% of voters favor it to 40% who are opposed.

Opinion on this issue breaks down along party lines: most Democrats support same-sex marriage (58% favor to 35% oppose), most Republicans are against it (37% favor to 54% oppose), and independents are split (46% favor to 43% oppose).

New Jersey polls conducted by Eagleton-Rutgers both before and after the state’s civil union law went into effect found similar levels of overall support among the general public – 50% to 44% in June 2006 and 48% to 45% in October 2007. However, all these polls mark a significant change from September 2003, when only 43% favored allowing same-sex marriage compared to 50% who opposed it. Prior polls have also shown strong (65%) support for the state’s current civil union laws.

Particularly interesting, given the results of November’s referendum in California, is that half of the respondents

oppose amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a women. Another 41% favor a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Among registered voters, 52% oppose such an amendment while only 38% support it.

This marks a decrease in support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from October 2007 when more residents supported (47%) than opposed (44%) it. It is a return to June 2006 levels when just 40% were in favor and 52% were opposed.

So, there has been movement in the right direction, even if it has not been at the pace same-sex-marriage supporters would like. That doesn’t mean supporters shouldn’t press the issue. Remember, there was little public or political momentum for civil rights before the Montgomery boycott and the civil rights movement forced the nation to deal with the injustice of Jim Crow and the lingering legacy of slavery.

This week’s editorial is on today’s second anniverary of the state’s civil union law. The gist is that it is a failure and it is time to fix it by legalizing same-sex marriage. A podcast, by Geoffrey Wertime, accompanies it. (You also can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes by clicking here.)