Queer eyes on Vermont (and more)

Please excuse the lame pun.

Unless you live under a rock, you have probably heard that on the 23rd, the Vermont State Senate passed S. 115, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont. Of 30 members, 26 voted yea. That is 86.6% yea to 13.3% nay. Since the party make-up is 23 Democrats to 7 Republicans, at least three Republicans voted yea.

The bill is now in the House, and it's expected to pass there too. With 150 members, the party make-up is 96 Democrats and 5 Progressives (101 together), 47 Republicans, and 2 independents.

But there's some potential trouble. On the 25th, Jim Douglas, Vermont's Republican governor, announced he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This means that, if same-sex marriage is to be legal in Vermont, both chambers of the Vermont General Assembly must override the veto with a two-thirds vote. The Senate far surpasses that requirement, but it remains to be seen how the House will vote. The pressure is on that chamber to muster 100 votes in favor of the bill.

California's legislature passed a bill in 2005, and another in 2007, to legalize same-sex marriage, but the Governator vetoed both. If Vermont's legislature can override Governor Douglas's veto, it will become the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process. It will also join Massachusetts and Connecticut as one of the few states where same-sex couples are treated just like opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, the story also develops elsewhere in New England, but the story overall isn't very happy. On the 26th, the New Hampshire House passed a similar bill, HB 436. It initially failed 182–183, but a motion to reconsider — that is, disregard the vote and start over — was approved, and the bill passed 186–179 upon a second vote. Even if the Senate passes it, it looks like the New Hampshire General Court cannot muster enough votes to override a possible veto from Democratic Governor John Lynch, who opposes same-sex marriage. In February, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S. 147 (PDF), a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. And in Maine, more than 60 legislators from both parties and both chambers, about a third of the entire legislative body, scrambled to be cosponsors of a similar bill, LD 1020. In fact, the rule in the Maine legislative process that restricts the number of cosponsors a bill can have was suspended to accommodate all the cosponsors. That doesn't happen often!

New England will be very interesting to watch in the coming weeks and months. Here's hoping for the best.

— Athelwulf

Update, March 31, 10:37 PM

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee voted 8–2 in favor of the same-sex marriage bill, and the bill is scheduled for debate on the House floor Thursday and Friday. The vote would have been 9–2 if a particular Republican had not been absent. Yes, you read that right. Awesome stuff.

Update, April 2, 4:42 PM

The Vermont House is debating the bill as I write. The live stream is here, courtesy of Burlington Free Press. I also have confirmation that one Republican, Patti Komline of Dorset, did not attend the Judiciary's hearing on the bill, but would have supported the motion to approve. The vote would have been 9–2, not 8–2.

Update, April 6, 3:30 PM

The Vermont House finally passed the bill on Friday 94–52. The Senate concurred with its amendments today, and the governor "promptly vetoed" the bill, as Vermont Freedom to Marry reports. The override votes will be held in the Senate, then the House, tomorrow morning. Hopefully enough nay votes in the House can be flipped. Two yeasayers from Thursday's vote to have a third reading were absent on Friday's final vote, but one that was absent on Thursday voted yea on Friday. The subtotal is 96–52. The Burlington Free Press reports that two Democrats who voted nay on the bill plan to vote in favor of the override. The reason one gave was that she "believes Gov. Jim Douglas interfered with the legislative process by declaring last week that he would veto the bill before it went through the Legislature". This makes 98–50. House Speaker Shap Smith, who abstained from Friday's vote due to institutional custom, will vote in favor of the veto. This brings it to the tentatively predicted vote of 99–50. It's so close!

Meanwhile, on Friday, a very surprising development in the Midwest: The Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling was unanimous. The author of the court's opinion is one of two justices appointed by Iowa's last Republican governor. Yes, really.

Walden: Support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

This is a letter to Oregon's only Republican congressman, Greg Walden. It might be a lost cause to try to convince him on this issue, but it's still worth it to put pressure on him.

Three of Oregon's five US House members have cosponsored HR 1283. I will also write a similar letter to the fifth.

— Athelwulf

Dear Congressman Walden:

I assume you seek to represent all your constituents. If this is true, then I am sure you will vote yea on H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, when it comes to a vote. This bill repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the discriminatory law that forces gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans to serve their country in secrecy.

The United States, considered by many the land of the free, is one of very few countries whose armed forces will give a man a medal for saving another man's life, but then turn around and discharge a man for loving another man. While this policy is not an outright ban, the United States stands out as one of very few liberal democracies whose armed forces discriminate against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Countries whose military services do not discriminate include Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, and every country in the European Union except Greece, whose military bars openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people outright. Greece shares this distinction with communist China, communist Cuba, communist North Korea, and Iran.

The practical reason for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is so the military will no longer inadvertently filter out skilled individuals. Many times, I have heard of our military discharging Arabic translators under this law. As the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has reported, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Many of them were critical specialists with uncommon skills. It is as if our greatest enemy is not al-Qaeda, but rather gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not only impractical, but also unfair. I have many good friends and some family members who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. One man, a very dear friend, served in the army in the early Seventies while closeted. Another friend was undesirably discharged for being gay. Many people like them have bravely served America, only to face a dishonorable discharge just for their desire to spend their lives with another human being whom they love, which is not a crime in this country. And many Americans want to answer the call to service, but they are deterred by their government, which shamelessly tells them to hide who they are while others do not have to adhere to the same terms. I deplore this double standard, and I hope you do too.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act will end dishonorable discharges for a crime that does not exist, thus retaining and attracting many skilled military professionals. It will also end the double standard of forcing gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers — but not straight ones — to remain silent about their sexuality. Congressmen Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Wu, as well as 123 more of your House colleagues, support this bill. I urge you to join them.

Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of 10 U.S.C. § 654, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully yours,

[valediction withheld]