LetVermontVote.org 2008

Once again the usual suspects are rattling sabers for the “upgrade” of Civil Unions to full marriage in VT via legislative action.  However a legislative stalemate exists on the issue. We humbly suggest that VT’s legislative leadership send this issue directly to the people for their input by means of a statewide referendum.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081121/NEWS02/311219974

Published: Friday, November 21, 2008

Vt governor opposes gay marriage bill

By DAVE GRAM  The Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas said Thursday he would oppose legislation allowing same-sex marriages, saying the state’s civil unions law is adequate and that lawmakers should be focusing on the state’s money problems.State Sen. John Campbell says he plans to introduce such legislation in the Legislature’s upcoming session.“I think the current civil union law is sufficient,” Douglas said. “It accords equality of rights to Vermonters in terms of their relationships and I think we should leave the law as it is.”Campbell said the bill is unlikely to gain support in the Legislature unless Douglas gives a clear signal he would sign it – or allow it to become law without his signature.But Douglas balked at sending any such signal.“I never indicate what I might do when a bill gets to my desk, but I’ve been quite clear that I don’t support the legislation,” said Douglas, a Republican.He said he wants lawmakers to focus on the fiscal bind brought about by the recent economic downturn.A $36.8 million revenue shortfall, combined with $27 million in demand for new spending – mainly on human services and public safety – has left the state with a “$64 million question” about what expenditures to cut, he said.

This story offers background on the last go-round for Vermonters and smae-sex unions. This month (Nov. 2008) the usual suspects began rattling sabers for the “upgrade” of Civil Unions to full marriage in VT via legislative action.  We see this as more evidence that the issue needs to go directly to the people.

From USA Today and AP-VT

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-13-3932657192_x.htm 

By John Curran, Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. — For many who lived through Vermont’s not-so-civil debate over civil unions, the memories remain painfully fresh: hate mail, threatening telephone messages, tense public meetings.

This time around, as the state weighs whether to legalize gay marriage, the debate is noticeably tamer with little of the vitriol and recrimination that surrounded its groundbreaking 2000 decision to legally recognize gay and lesbian couples.

It’s early: Lawmakers say they’re unlikely to push for a vote this year on pending legislation that would legalize gay marriage, although a state-appointed panel has been gathering public input and is due to report to the Legislature in April.

Although that absence of an impending vote may be what’s keeping things civil, people involved in the debate have noticed a change in atmosphere.

“It’s a very different tenor,” said Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which supports gay marriage. “People have had an opportunity to come to terms. Vermonters have had eight years to see the two guys next door, or the two women down the street who have a legally recognized relationship under the civil unions law.”

On Dec. 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex unions was unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to come up with a law accommodating them. That triggered a yearlong battle in which a state that prides itself on tolerance seemed to lack it.

Supporters and opponents alike streamed into Montpelier to rally and lobby lawmakers.

When the law took effect July 1, 2000, it didn’t quell the controversy or the fallout. It became a central issue in that year’s elections and 17 incumbents who voted in favor lost their seats.

“It was quite rancorous,” said Stephen Cable, founder of Vermont Renewal, which opposed civil unions then and opposes gay marriage now.

“I have a box of hate mail you can’t imagine. We got dried feces and used condoms in the mail. We had people stalking our vice president, who had an armed guard at her house for three weeks, 24/7,” Cable said.

“It was a time unlike anything since the Vietnam War era, when you had the sense that the whole world around you was divided,” said David Moats, author of “Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage,” a book about Vermont’s civil unions controversy.

An Associated Press exit poll of voters that November found the state split 49 percent to 49 percent on whether civil unions were a good idea. Four years later, the poll asked voters to choose between three options for recognition of same-sex unions: full marriage, civil unions or no recognition. Forty percent said they supported marriage, 37 percent civil unions and 21 percent neither.

Other states followed Vermont’s lead. Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have endorsed civil unions and California and Washington have enacted domestic partner laws. Only Massachusetts permits gay marriage.

Last summer, the Legislature appointed an 11-member Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection to explore the idea of gay marriage and hear how Vermonters feel about it. The panel, which opponents say is stacked with gay marriage supporters and have boycotted, has held seven hearings and has three more scheduled.

The hearings have generated plenty of input, but no name-calling or personal attacks.

James LaPierre, who has a civil union partner and two children, saw the contrast firsthand. He went to a 2000 meeting on civil unions intending to get up and speak, but he was intimidated by the atmosphere and kept quiet.

“People would stand up and go to the microphone and there was jeering and catcalling,” said LaPierre, 43, a nurse from Burlington. “It was hateful, and scary.”

Last month, LaPierre went to a hearing by the Commission on Family Recognition. This time, the gathering was “supportive” and he got up and spoke. But it had fewer people — about 100, by his count, compared with about 500 at the 2000 event.

“Instead of a hateful, unruly, mob-like meeting, it was civil and organized. There was representation of the other side, but only two or three people,” he said.

Opponents believe the change in tone may have more to do with their boycott — and the lack of impending action — than acceptance of gay marriage.

“If they’d announced they were going to move on it this year and these hearings were on a bill we intend to have a vote on this year, you’d be seeing a much different scenario,” said Rev. Craig Bensen, president of Take It To The People, which promotes traditional marriage.

Thomas Little, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2000 and now the chair of Commission on Family Recognition, acknowledges that some gay marriage opponents are staying on the sidelines — for now.

“Most people don’t expect the Legislature to take any action in 2008, and opponents, therefore, are keeping their powder dry until some point in the future, when it’s more likely to become a legislative debate,” he said.

This is the blog for “LetVermontVote.org”.

Hopefully, this will aid the advancement of our goals in the 2008 session of the Vermont General Assembly.

Our goals are:

1) Have the Legislature authorize a “non-binding referendum” on the question of changing VT’s marriage laws to include same-sex unions. This would foster widespread public debate on the issue. And the votes of an informed public would give needed insight to the General Assembly concerning Vermonters’ view of this issue.

2) Have the Legislature authorize a “non-binding referendum” process that is citizen-initiated. This would be a process that would have to go to a vote if citizens presented the Secretary of State with a certain number of signatures in support of a “non-binding referendum” on a issue or question, perhaps the signatures of 5% of the registered voters in Vermont.