The Vermont state Senate passed by a 26 to 4 margin Homosexual Marriage, proving the opponents of “civil unions” right in the slippery slope from civil unions to marriage.  Just as well that nobody cares much about this slide — opposition to these things is centered on the “Religious Right” and Vermont (and the New England States) have just surpassed Oregon as the most unchurched state in the Union.  The House will pass the bill sometime next week, I’m supposing?

Vermont’s Governor, Jim Douglas, has announced his veto.  I am not an expert on what level of “super” majority is necessarty to override a veto, but I gather 28 out of 32 is more than enough.  Something I don’t understand about Jim Douglas’s veto is the rationale.  It is a line familiar to those watching Evan Bayh form his Cacusus to flank right of the Obama Administration — “In these tough economic times, we can not concern ourselves with such divisive issues.”

Even on its own terms this line does not make sense for the situation in Vermong.  As represented by the elected representatives to the state, it divides the state 28 to 4 — and I have not seen any reason to believe a gap exists between the voting of the representatives with the electorate at large.  That is not very divisive.  Time is not being spent on this matter, which is to say time has just been spent on this matter, and the only way to now dig into that opportunity cost of “dealing with the economy” versus passing gay marriage is to force the Vermont legislature to put the measure back on the agenda and over-ride this veto.

So what does Jim Douglas want here?  If he just wanted to remain squemish at gays being in the rubric of “Marriage”, he could have just said so, let that be his reason for the veto, and let it go at that.  All I can think is that this clears the way for Republican fund-raising when the time comes that he lays site on a US Senate bid at Patrick Leahy’s retirement.  He appears to be a functional governor generally, and I trust the state knows what it’s doing in re-electing him by wide margins, but consider this a sign of the discreprencies with the reconciliation of a state party head in looking at the national party.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.