Comments

  1. says

    At least the VT editorial pages (Burlington Free Press, Rutland Herald, for example) are exposing the ridiculousness of Douglas’s claim that he announced his intention to veto to avoid further distraction. Like dropping a political bombshell just as the House is about to take up the issue isn’t a distraction! Since he seems to have no real convictions about the marriage bill (he’s never clearly articulated why he is against allowing gay couples to marry), his move is purely political, and the editorial pages immediately recognized the hypocrisy.

    The next few days will be spent securing as many House votes as possible while the press goes wild focusing on Gov. Douglasshole’s childish attempt to avoid distraction.

  2. David D. says

    Is this going to be another one of those guys found blowing someone in a public toilet somewhere?

  3. says

    “Is this going to be another one of those guys found blowing someone in a public toilet somewhere?”

    Highly unlikely. Some Republicans are actually anti-gay and straight. He’s one of them.

  4. James C. says

    What a dick. That “thread the needle” comment at the end shows he’s truly only interested in actions of political convenience. I’m sure he was against civil unions when the were proposed and for some time while they were still relatively new. Now that they are ten years old, he has to temper his language and admit they didn’t end civilization. But taking the next step to full marriage is now the new tipping point in his twisted mind. Talk about moving the goal posts. I hope in 20-30 years, he looks back on this decision with the deepest regret and shame, not likely though.

  5. Henriette says

    Even his comb-over is limp. But he’s speaking the truth when he says Obama is also against same-sex marriage. Yep, that is true. Just in case you didn’t know, and thought you had friends in high places.

  6. Dutch guy says

    Let me say that I do not know the USA’s State and/or Federal law making system, but what sort of a democracy do you have when one person can veto a bill that was accepted by a majority?
    Over here, in the end, our Queen (we are a monarchy) must sign all bills, and theoretically she can veto it, but it also means she must abdicate should she do so.
    – From the Netherlands.

  7. peterparker says

    @DUTCH GUY: the United States is not and never has been a pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. The State Constitutions set out rules regarding how laws are made in each individual state. The U.S. Constitution determines how laws are made at the federal level.

  8. Michael says

    Does anyone know what it would take to override his veto? Does it seem within the realm of possibility?

  9. Chris says

    @ Dutch Guy: I actually live in the NL myself, and I am American. I think the closest comparison is between the EC and the member states.

    That said, we don’t have executives in Europe, apart from France and Germany.

    Queen Beatrix doesn’t “check” the power of the cabinet through veto, but she does ask Balkenende to form a new cabinet every other year. So that is a way of keeping them under control.

    It’s just a different system that we have. It’s sad to say I haven’t come to the conclusion that one is better. :-S

  10. anonymous says

    According to the Vermont constitution:
    If, upon such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present of that House shall pass the bill, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present of that House, it shall become a law.

    For the Senate 2/3 is 20 out of 30. 26 Senators voted for the bill, so as long as 6 or less senators back off they can override it.
    For the House 2/3 is 100 out of 150. There are 96 democratic representative, so is 4 of the 47 republicans/5 Progressives/2 independents cross over they can override the veto as well.
    Pretty decent odds.

  11. says

    As Anonymous pointed out, the odds are decent but, as far as I know, there haven’t been definitive numbers (at least not publicly) about the likely vote tally. (Some party line crossing is expected.) The governor’s veto announcement wasn’t expected, so we were just aiming to get maximum support in the House (there is no question that it would have passed), support that becomes all the more crucial now that we definitely need a 2/3 override majority.

    But, basically, one spineless governor is potentially in control of whether we get equal marriage rights in VT or not. He sucks and it sucks.

  12. Bruno says

    I’m hoping it’ll help the VT House a little that the NH House just approved their own gay marriage bill. The writing’s on the wall in New England.

  13. sam says

    it’s too much of a distraction?

    if he wouldn’t veto the bill, it would no longer be a distraction.

  14. says

    Governing on his feelings and beliefs not what LAWS and RIGHTS dictate? We must stamp out all hints of THEOCRACY immediately!