As reported by AP, VT Gov. Jim Douglas said Wednesday he will veto gay-marriage legislation if it passes the Legislature (which it looks likely to do). Whether they have the votes to over-ride the veto is unknown.
So one presumes that to the conservatives, a gubernatorial veto is okay in this case.
You know you can't keep track without a scorecard these days, can you? I'm confused, is it okay when the courts say yes or no? What about the legislature?
So far:
If courts approve gay marriage (as in MA, CA, or NJ) = activist judges = bad, should let the legistlature decide
But if courts deny gay marriage (NY, GA, WA as may yet happen in CA) = good judges, who are not being activist.
If the legislature approves gay marriage (MA, CA, VT) = upending moral values = bad, let's hope the judges overturn it (in which case they aren't activists) unless they did it because of the judges (MA) in which case the governor is the only hope
But if legislature denies gay marriage (eg., VA) = people's representatives doing the right thing and their decision should stand.
Governor vetoes legislature (VT) = good even though it's one person overturning the people's representatives , so much for representative democracy
Governor vetoes (CA last year) a legislative bill that's pro gay marriage because he's waiting for a court decision = good, let the process work (as long as it works to disallow gay marriage!)
Governor tries to prevent gay marriages (MA, Romney) = good, he should try to defeat the court decision and the legislative vote
Governor supports gay marriage (MA, Patrick) = bad, he should overturn the people's representatives and prevent out-of-staters from marrying
So the courts are good, unless they are bad, and the legislature is bad, unless it's good. Is it just me or is there no consistency to the conservatives' arguments except "Gay = Icky"?