Marriage equality for lesbian/gay Vermonters moved one step closer this morning (Friday) as the Vermont State Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation (S.115) authorizing same-sex marriage in the state.
WCAX-TV - Senate committee approves gay marriage
The unanimous 5-0 vote on S.115 surprised some observers, as it included a "yes" vote from Republican Kevin Mullin, a generally conservative Senator representing Rutland County, where opposition to the bill has been particularly vocal. Mullin offered an amendment in committee to hold a statewide advisory referendum on the issue (defeated 4-1) prior to voting for the bill.
It is expected that the full Senate will take up and pass the bill Monday afternoon (March 23), sending it to the House of Representatives, where final approval is expected by the middle of April.
Approval by the full state Senate is assured, with at least 21 - and perhaps as many as 27 - of 30 Senators likely to vote "yes." (The Senate includes 22 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 1 Progressive/Democrat).
When the bill is sent from the Senate to the House of Representatives, it will go to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by openly gay State Representative Bill Lippert. Passage in the House seems equally likely, with an estimated at least 90-95 "yes" votes in the 150 member House.
(Notably, the support for the bill will not be strictly partisan, with support from some high-profile Republicans - including the House Republican leader Patti Komline, as well as likely opposition from at least a few more conservative rural Democrats.)
Despite these promising numbers, passage is not assured - advocates (led by the phenomenal Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force) are working overtime to counter the last ditch right wing mobilization in opposition to marriage.
The Senate and House Judiciary Committees held a joint public hearing on Wednesday night. Attended by an estimated 1,000 people, the hearing brought out opponents and supporters in force, with probably a 60-40 split in favour of marriage equality. While many have commented that the debate seems far less contentious than the heated and angry rhetoric seen during the 2000 debate over civil unions, most of the opponents of the change continue to base their arguments on biblical interpretations and base appeals to homophobia.
(One telling anecdote from the public hearing -- when one particularly vicious anti-marriage speaker was testifying, a State House employee turned to a friend and her teenage son in attendance and commented: "I feel like I get more stupid just by listening to her.")
But it is clear that public opinion in the state has shifted significantly since the divisive civil union backlash in 2000. A January statewide poll showed 58%-39% support for marriage equality, with only 22% of respondents saying they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported gay marriage. After 9 years of civil unions in the state, as well as full marriage in nearby Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Canada, Vermonters have come to see that legal recognition to gay couples hasn't endangered western civilisation.
In the past few days, even two newspapers who opposed civil unions in 2000 (the Burlington Free Press and the St. Albans Messenger) editorialized in favour of passage of the marriage bill, joining the vast majority of newspaper editorials from around the state.
If/when the S. 115 is passed by the Legislature, the final hurdle will involve our Republican Governor Jim Douglas. Despite his underlying conservative philosophy, Douglas attempts to project a moderate image (the only way a Republican can win in Vermont).
Throughout the debate, Douglas has said that he opposes the legislature acting on the marriage legislation - calling it a "distraction" from the legislature dealing with pressing economic issues. (Not surprisingly, the Senate and House Democratic leadership points out that they are able to deal with more than one issue at a time, and that there are 25 committees in the legislature, and that only 2 are working on this bill.) Supporters have countered by citing a recent economic analysis showing that marriage would bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the state economy and create approximately 700 new jobs.
Douglas has also stated that he believes the legislation is not needed - claiming that the existing civil union legislation extends all of the same rights as would marriage. (Democracy for America - based here in Vermont - has asked if civil unions are as good as marriage, would Douglas agree to have a civil union instead of a marriage with his wife.) Today in an interview on Vermont Public Radio Douglas went further, saying that he believed that marriage is "a union between one man and one woman."
But despite these statements, Douglas has refused to say if he would veto the bill. Likely to face a very strong Democratic challenge in 2010 (most likely from former Lt Gov Douglas Racine), Douglas knows that a veto would hurt him politically. At the same time, he would face potential backlash from his base if he were to sign the bill. The likeliest option may be that he would allow the bill to become law without signing it.
Should he veto the bill, a legislative override is a distinct possibility - the votes are almost certainly there in the Senate, while it will be very close in the House to achieving the 100 votes it would take to overturn a gubernatorial veto.
While far from certain, today's action makes it even more likely that Vermont will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as New England becomes the beachhead for marriage equality. (Perhaps even more significantly, it would mark the first time a state enacted it without being required to by a court order.)