Box Turtle Bulletin

Vt Marriage Veto Expected Tonight; Override Vote May Take Place Tuesday

That’s the latest word coming down from Burlington.

Vermont House Veto Count

To overturn Governor Douglas’ expected veto in the House, we must have 100 votes. This means that

• 95 current supporters must agree to overturn the veto. This is not guaranteed. If too strong of an effort is made to make this a partisan vote, the 5 Republican supporters could waiver.
• 1 supporter that was not present must vote with us
• 2 “no” votes must follow through on their commitment to override the veto (out of anger at the Governor for announcing his intention before they even voted)
• 1 Speaker of the House who out of tradition did not vote on the bill when presented but has indicated that he will vote for overturning the veto must do so
• 1 (at least) additional “no” voter must be persuaded to vote to overturn the veto. This is more likely to be found among the 11 Democrats who voted “no”.

Those Activist Republican Appointees

Back in May 2008 I noted that the justices on the California Supreme Court who voted in favor of marriage equality were largely Republicans or appointed by Republican governors. Now Evan Wolfson (via Andrew Sullivan) notes that the authors of all pro-marriage judicial decisions have one thing in common:

Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);

in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);

in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 — Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.

And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998.

So the next time you hear some social conservative declaring that they have to get Republican governors elected so that they can stop the appointment of those liberal activist judges that are trying to destroy the family, just smile to yourself.

Wingers On Parade: Reactions To Iowa

Today’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling, which struck down the portion of that state’s marriage law restricting marriage to heterosexuals, has provoked an entertaining assortment of reactions from the usual characters. Here are just a few examples.

First up, Matt Barber. He now has a title that is longer than the queen of England (“Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law”). I like his reaction because it fits perfectly with other ridiculous arguments which inspired the very name of this web site. Barber blathers:

U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.

That’s right. We now have the potted plant argument, which I guess is appropriate coming from him. Since the Box Turtle reference may be getting old, maybe we should rename this web site “Pansies for Pansies.com” in Barber’s honor.

Next up, Randy Thomasson. He’s demanding the most rigorous constitutional amendment ever devised by man or beast:

…Iowans should write a rock-solid marriage amendment, one that is much stronger than amendments in California, Oregon and Washington, which still allowed counterfeit marriages and immoral policies forcing insurance plans and private businesses to subsidize pseudo-marriages. Iowans should also take care to prevent the civil institution of marriage from being someday abolished, and must biologically define a man and a woman to ensure that the distinct, God-given genders of a husband and wife cannot be perverted.

owa Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) wants more than just a constitutional amendment. He also wants to prevent Iowa from becoming a “gay marriage Mecca”:

Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

Concerned Women for America aren’t interested in tinkering with laws or constitutions. Instead, they call for the establishment of a theocracy:

Until we rightly handle these issues in God’s house, we will continue to fail in the court house, the state house and the school house. George Washington warned us it would be impossible to rightly govern without the Bible, until we repent and return to those same principles, we will fail to properly govern and succeed as a nation.

And finally, our favorite. Peter LaBarbera gets a two-fer. First, there’s this post on his web site:

Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructible behaviors.

In LaBarbara’s mass email which also included the above statement, he added:

If the people do not respond in righteous anger coupled with effective action, the downfall of our beloved nation is assured — because God (who invented marriage) is not mocked.

Iowa protester Craig Overton (Rodney White / Des Moines Register)

You know, there’s a reason we have an award named for him. One excellent nominee for that award might be one Craig Overton, whose sign was so embarrassing to gay rights opponents that they urged him to put the sign down. It read “Same sex animals don’t mate. God Bless. Culver man up.” Overton refused to put the sign down.

Iowa Legislative Leaders: Iowa Has Always Led In Civil Rights

As a Midwesterner, some of the reactions to the Iowa Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage has rankled me a bit. You know, the those condescending reactions that go, “Really? Iowa? A square state in the middle of the country?” As if Iowans — or any other Midwesterners — are any less capable of dealing with discrimination than anyone else.

Well, here’s a joint statement from Iowa’s Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy on today’s Supreme Court decision that puts the Iowa Supreme Court decision squarely in context with Iowa’s long history of justice:

Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long.  It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.

This is the first time a state supreme court ruled unanimously on an issue like this.

So what next? It doesn’t look like there’s much of a threat to this ruling. To amend the Iowa Constitution, the proposed amendment has to be approved by the Iowa legislature in two successive sessions before it is put before the voters. Sen. Gronstal has already announced that “there will not be a vote as long as I am the majority leader.” So this pushes the first vote in the Senate out until the 2011-2012 session, which means the earliest an amendment could come before the voters would be 2013. And that assumes that the Senate changes hands in 2010. If the Senate doesn’t change hands (Democrats have a 32-18 advantage), then the date for a popular vote is pushed out even farther.

This decision seems to be very secure. Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, who represented the county where the complaint originated, announced that his office would not seek a rehearing, so the court’s decision will take effect on April 24.

Vermont’s House Vote

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

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages was supposed to have been released twenty minutes ago, but the web site is down. But word is that the state Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court ruling. That lower court rulled that Iowa’s marriage law’s exclusion of same-sex couples was unconstitutional.  According to the Des Moines Register:

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry.

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

To Iowa’s constitution, it would require approval in two consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote. This means that a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

Vermont House Approves Same-Sex Marriage

Vermont’s House of Representatives gave preliminary approval to a bill giving same-sex couples the right to marry. The House vote was 95-52. The bill will be brought up again Friday for final approval, then return to the Senate for approval to changes in the language.

Last week, the Senate approved a similar bill by a veto-proof majority of 26-4. Two day later, Vt. Governor Jim Douglas (R) announced that he would veto the measure should it reach the desk. Tonight’s vote was three votes shy of a veto-proof majority of the members present.

Iowa Supreme Court To Rule On Same-Sex Marriage Friday

A statement appeared on the Iowa Supreme Court website announcing that a decision in Varnum v. Brien, will be posted on the web tomorrow by 8:30 a.m. CDT. The suit contends that Iowa’s marriage law is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Iowa Constitution. Oral arguments in the case were presented last December.

In August 2007, a lower court judge ruled that Iowa’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Although he put a stay on the decision four hours later pending a Supreme Court hearing, one couple, Tim McQuillan and Sean Fritz, managed to get married during that short window. They remain the only same-sex couple with a legal Iowa marriage license. They spoke to the impact that getting married has had on their relationship:

“When we got married, I realized that made me an adult,” Sean said. “Abruptly. … And now I realize that probably has a strong influence upon what we call gay culture, the fact that it’s comprised of people who don’t consider themselves adults.”

“You treat children like children,” Tim interjects, “they’re going to behave like children. If you treat them as adults and you expect things of them – it’s totally an argument of what you expect out of someone. If they’ve never been expected to get married, they aren’t going to. It’s pretty harsh social conditioning.”

Sweden Passes Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

We’ve just been informed that minutes ago, the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament) passed a reformed marriage bill that includes same sex marriage. The measure passed 261-22, with 18 abstentions. The change will go in effect in one month.

People currently in registered partnerships will have the option to retain their partnership, marry anew, or sending in their partnership paperwork to have them converted into legal marriages. Sweden first enacted registered partnerships in 1995, making it the third country in the world to formally recognize same-sex relationships.

[Hat tip: Reader Noa from Sweden, who is crying tears of joy.]

Delaware Legislature Affirms Gay Residents

WBOC is reporting on two bills that would impact gay residents:

The first measure, Senate Bill 27, would have reinforced Delaware’s ban on gay marriage. That proposed constitutional amendment failed in the Senate Thursday.

The House though did pass a measure to make it illegal to discriminate against gay people when it comes to everything from employment to buying homes. The bill now goes over to the Senate for consideration. Gov. Jack Markell said Thursday he supports the bill.

At the last minute, the bill was “clarified” to allow for Civil Unions (replaced with SS 1). But that did not gain it enough support.

BWOC’s Jeremy Tucker can barely contain his disappointment.

Senate bill 27 failed despite the efforts of hundreds of protestors who gathered at Legislative Hall to support the measure. Supporters argued they wanted to make sure marriage remained between a man and a woman.
…
No word on whether Senate Bill 27 will be re-introduced.

Sorry newsguy, but constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote of both houses. The Senate rejected this bill by 11 to 9 (with one not voting). If it can’t get a simple majority, then it’s dead.

New Hampshire House Votes for Marriage

Boston Globe reports:

The House has voted to make New Hampshire the third state allowing gays to marry two years after they granted them the right to enter into civil unions.

The House voted 186-179 to send the bill to the Senate. The first attempt to pass the bill fell one vote short, but opponents were unable to kill it. The House then reconsidered and passed the measure.

So the race is on.

Will Vermont’s House give a veto-proof vote for marriage to become the third state? Will New Hampshire’s Senate vote yes and a reluctant Gov. Lynch allow it to become law? Will New York’s Senate leadership grow a pair and bring the bill up for certain passage? Will California’s Supremes give that state back its status as a marriage equality state? Or will either New Jersey or Maine quietly step out of the shadows to steal the title?

Governor Douglas to Veto Vermont’s Marriage Bill

Governor Jim Douglas (R) has now given a statement about the effort of legislators to enact marriage equality in Vermont. The bill has passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority and is now being considered by the House.

Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill. He made the public announcement this afternoon.

We will now watch to see if the House passes this bill with a veto-proof (2/3) majority. Should all those members of the House who are in the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party vote for the bill, they will have over two-thirds without requiring any support from Republicans or Independants. About half of the Republicans in the Senate voted for marriage.

A Little Growth on the Issue of Marriage

In 2000, Rep. Tom Little (R), wrote the Vermont civil unions bill to meet the Supreme Court’s mandate that gay couples be treated equally. He thought that was adequate at the time.

Now Little is back to testify before the House committee on a bill to replace civil unions with marriage equality.

“I’ve learned a lot in the last eight-and-a-half years,” Little told the committee. “I think that gay and lesbian couples, under Act 91, have been more open and received more legal recognition in Vermont.”

Little quickly added that he believes Act 91 – the state’s civil union law passed in 2000 – does not go the full length to bring equal rights to same-sex couples in the state.

“This is an opportunity for the General Assembly to take a deep look at the issues and take direct action that will fulfill the promise of equality under the Vermont Constitution,” Little said.

Vermont Senate Votes For Marriage

WCAX-TV reports:

The Vermont Senate has given overwhelming approval to same-sex marriage.

The bill passed just before 6 p.m. Monday on a vote of 26 to 4.

And now on to the House.