Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Vermont’s House Vote

Timothy Kincaid

April 3rd, 2009

See Update Below

The Vermont House of Representatives voted as follows for marriage equality:

Republicans:

  • Yes: 5
  • No: 41
  • Absent: 2

Democrats:

  • Yes: 83
  • No: 11
  • Not Voting: 1

Progressive:

  • Yes: 5

Independent:

  • Yes: 2

I’m not yet certain whether the override of the veto would require 2/3 vote of each legislative body, or only 2/3 of those present and voting.

If it is the former, then the 95 yes votes are 5 short of the 100 needed for a veto override. While I think it is unlikely that these additional 5 votes can be achieved, it is not outside the realm of the possible.

If it is only 2/3 of those voting, this may be achieved by pressuring at least seven of the Democrats that voted “no” to find a reason to be unavailable for that vote.

UPDATE:

At least two Democratic House members that voted against the marriage bill have declared their intent to vote in favor of overturning the Governor’s veto.

hat tip to reader Matt Algren

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Mike
April 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Several of the no votes have already stated that they’d flip their vote if it comes down to a veto battle.

Timothy Kincaid
April 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Mike,

Can you give us a link to that?

Matt Algren
April 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Reps Debbie Evans and Sonny Audette (both Democrats) pledged to switch if the bill is vetoed. The quotes come from an article published yesterday morning in the Burlington Free Press.

If there is a vote to override a gubernatorial veto, however, [Rep. Debbie] Evans said she will vote for it. The Democratic caucus is firm about sticking together to challenge the governor, she said.

Evans said she believes Gov. Jim Douglas interfered with the legislative process by declaring last week that he would veto the bill before it went through the Legislature. “No one was happy with that,” she said.

She wasn’t the only Democrat who said she would switch her vote to override a veto. Albert “Sonny” Audette, D-South Burlington, said he would do the same.

http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/04/vermont-legislature-votes-for-marriage/

And I’m pretty sure (but not positive) that it’s 2/3 of those present.

Zeke
April 3rd, 2009 | LINK

Well it’s really comforting to know that these people will vote to support their political party in a veto override but wouldn’t vote “yes” on the original vote just because it’s the right thing to do to end discrimination and support equality for all Vermonters.

cd
April 3rd, 2009 | LINK

The Speaker of the House, who abstained (it’s some kind of institutional custom on the passage vote) has said he will also cast a vote to override a veto. That makes for 98.

Stephan Oursfroid
April 4th, 2009 | LINK

This legislation is worrying. Even if it touches only civil marriages, churches and other private associations will be strongly pressured to conform to this passing mood. One has only to look at when the Supreme Court ignored long-standing tradition and the concerns of conservative citizens and redefined marriage to be between spouses of any race. There is now hardly any mainstream denomination that will not recognize these unnatural unions. But don’t call me racist, I have plenty of friends among the lesser breeds.
This is all part of a peculiarly modern trend of thinking that any loving couple should be allowed to marry. Today’s adaptations of “Romeo and Juliet” miss the point that it is a cautionary tale: these two promising youths followed their selfish passions against the earnest advice of their parents and their duty to their families, and paid the price for it. Indeed young people today think they can couple with however they want. That is certainly not going to happen while I am stuck with this old hag of a wife, whom I love very dearly.
But this trend is inevitable as long as religion keeps such a hold on our nation. If you believe your feeling are decided by a benevolent being, obviously that legitimizes them; atheist know that they are only accidents of evolution, and should be resisted if they are inopportune. If you ask Christians the reason as to their faith, most will talk of warm, comforting feelings rather than cold, hard facts and logic; and it is the same with gay love. And churches have to pander to their pews. Yet more evidence as to the need for a more secular, atheistic outlook in this country.

Stefano A
April 4th, 2009 | LINK

But don’t call me racist, I have plenty of friends among the lesser breeds. . . . while I am stuck with this old hag of a wife . . . .

Such drivel . . . but alright, we’ll not call you a “racist”, instead I think it would be apt to say your simply a misogynistic bigot.

Timothy Kincaid
April 4th, 2009 | LINK

Stefano, I think the comment was intended to be satire.

gordo
April 4th, 2009 | LINK

“Today’s adaptations of “Romeo and Juliet” miss the point that it is a cautionary tale: these two promising youths followed their selfish passions against the earnest advice of their parents and their duty to their families, and paid the price for it.”

It’s either satire, or someone completely missed the point of Romeo and Juliet!

Stefano A
April 4th, 2009 | LINK

Stefano, I think the comment was intended to be satire.

Ah! Then, in that case, I retract my comment.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.