Sigh. Yesterday the VT House Passed Marriage Equality 95-52. And that is not good news.

[cali]

Well, it is and it isn't. Of course it's great that VT legislators overwhelmingly get that this is an issue of fundamental fairness. Hey, they voted 26-4 in the Senate for the legislation, and almost two thirds of the House voted for it, but it's that *almost* that's the problem. Governor Douglas (R) has said in no uncertain terms that he'll veto this bill. And in order to override this veto we need 100 (or is it 101?) in the House. They don't seem to be there.

This morning the bill will be read for the third time. Now maybe a few more votes will turn up today, but I don't think we'll see 5 or 6 more votes. Maybe when it comes to the veto override vote there will be a few more votes. Two dems who voted no have said they will vote to override because they're pissed at Douglas intervening when the legislature has voted so strongly for this legislation. But then again, some repubs who voted yes, may decide not to vote to override a veto by a repub.

This is so frustrating.

[Vinca]

1. I don't get it. I really don't. If the people who are so rabidly

against gay marriage believe in the institution as it is that deeply, they should outlaw divorce. Sheesh. No one has ever been able to explain to me how my gay neighbors marrying would cause harm to my hetero marriage of 36 years.

[cali]

2. Very few people in VT are rabidly against marriage equality

Unfortunately the governor, our faux moderate, is one of them. And that he really is rabidly against it can be seen by his determination to veto this legislation despite its passing margin.

[Vinca]

4. Here's a gem of a letter from yesterday's Brattleboro Reformer -

"Douglas shows bravery on same-sex marriage
Editor of the Reformer:

I applaud our governor, James Douglas, for his courageous and correct decision in the face of much controversy, to announce that he would veto the same sex marriage bill if it came to his desk.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, consecrated with solemn and sacred vows, taken in the name of God, and in accordance with the laws of the land. The ultimate purpose is to procreate children that will share the genes of both marriage partners. To permit same sex couples to marry will desecrate and pollute this solemn and time honored institution.

Same sex couples cannot have children. Only a woman can give birth to a child. If a partner in a female same sex couple has a child, there must be a male involved, whether it be by in vitro fertilization or intercourse between two unmarried persons. The resulting child cannot share the genes of both partners.

Certain legislative leaders are attempting to ram this legislation through the legislature without giving the electorate a chance to voice their opinion. If this bill is to proceed, there should be a state wide binding referendum, then all voters would be provided an opportunity to express their true opinions.

I speak as a man who has been happily married to the same partner for 62 years and the father of five children who are all happily married to their original partner.
Wayne D. Rowell

Wilmington, March 28"

[Orsino]

5. Divorce is one of the things that "gay marriage" is used to draw attention away from.

And no, they're not going to legislate away their right to trade in on a new trophy wife every decade.

[Rockholm]

3. I believe it will become law.

The governor will probably veto, which will cause an uproar and the House will override. Please, please, please.

What really galls me is this......The right-wing fundies scream and holler that "THIS" needs to be decided people. Well, the people's representatives have approved the legislation and the governor threatens to veto (Exactly what happened in California, legislature passed and Governator vetoed).

I hope that the CA Supreme Court strikes down Prop Hate.