[quickdraw]

If Douglas uses veto on this issue, can his veto be over-turned?

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by quickdraw

If Douglas uses veto on this issue, can his veto be over-turned?

Since I'm working on this full-time and then some, I'll field this one. I haven't heard anyone say there's a veto-proof majority.

We're hopeful we won't have to go there. We're hopeful that the legislative and public support for the bill (which has been substantial) will materialize into enough votes that the Governor will do the right thing and sign it -- or at least let it become law.

[quickdraw]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

Since I'm working on this full-time and then some, I'll field this one. I haven't heard anyone say there's a veto-proof majority.

We're hopeful we won't have to go there. We're hopeful that the legislative and public support for the bill (which has been substantial) will materialize into enough votes that the Governor will do the right thing and sign it -- or at least let it become law.

He hasn't tipped his hand because frankly, why make enemies before it's necessary? But after hearing him speak during the last few days, I'd bet everything he's gonna squish this.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by quickdraw

He hasn't tipped his hand because frankly, why make enemies before it's necessary? But after hearing him speak during the last few days, I'd bet everything he's gonna squish this.

Well, we'll do our darndest to avoid that and that's all we can do.

[LisaMc46]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

Since I'm working on this full-time and then some, I'll field this one. I haven't heard anyone say there's a veto-proof majority.

We're hopeful we won't have to go there. We're hopeful that the legislative and public support for the bill (which has been substantial) will materialize into enough votes that the Governor will do the right thing and sign it -- or at least let it become law.

Sherylcatmom,
I'm still confused about how the bill will benefit gay couples. Other than changing the term "civil union" to "marriage" will it provide additional civil rights that they don't have under the current law? My daughter has a friend with two moms in a civil union relationship and I was under the impression they had the same legal rights (at least in Vermont) as heterosexual parents. I'm just curious.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by LisaMc46

Sherylcatmom,
I'm still confused about how the bill will benefit gay couples. Other than changing the term "civil union" to "marriage" will it provide additional civil rights that they don't have under the current law? My daughter has a friend with two moms in a civil union relationship and I was under the impression they had the same legal rights (at least in Vermont) as heterosexual parents. I'm just curious.

Such a great question! And the source of much confusion. In practice over 9 years, we've seen that civil union has failed to provide equal protections and rights under the law commensurate with civil marriage. Here are concrete benefits that will change immediately with full marriage equality:

Federal benefits: A challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act" has been filed in federal court on behalf of a widower in a same-sex marriage. When that part of DOMA is overturned, married same-sex couples will be eligible for Social Security Survivor benefits and other federal benefits. Couples in a civil union will NEVER be eligible for these federal benefits because they are part of the equal protection clause for the status of being married. In fact, Vermont couldn't even bring this federal case because it has only civil union for same-sex couple, a made-up status with no equal protection recognition under state or federal constitutions.

Employer-provided spousal benefits: Many Vermonters work for companies based in other states. Many of those companies offer spousal insurance coverage and other spousal benefits. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, same-sex married couples ARE eligible for these benefits, and we know from research that the are receiving them. In Vermont, employees with civil unions, folks working for the very same companies, are NOT eligible, and these companies will not rewrite their policies to accommodate a handful of employees living in a state with the obscure made-up status of civil union.

Portability: Married same-sex couples who travel or move to New York State, for example, are legally recognized equally with married heterosexual couples. New York does NOT so recognize couples with civil unions, and they will not, because this recognition arose from finding in NY's laws equal protection for all people with status of "married."
For example, a lesbian couple I know has been together many years, has a civil union, and has two children. But if they travel to New York State (something they do frequently) and something happened to one of them, there is no guarantee that they would be afforded hospital visitation or decision-making power -- even with advance directives and power-of-attorney, which have failed in just such cases. Worse, the biological mother of their two children has parents who rejected their daughter for being a lesbian, but would love to take their grandchildren away from her. If something happened to her, and they were in a state that didn't recognize their union, the children could be considered legally orphans, and taken from the only other parent they've ever known, and given to people they've never met.

Thanks for asking! :-)

[sugarmaple]

I don't think Douglas will veto a bill if it is passed by the legislators; I believe that Douglas has other issues to contend with this coming session and his emphasis will be on those issues. I also believe he is going to have some strong opposition to some of his financial plans and proposals and his intent will be to get his agenda passed and looking at the grand scheme of things, gay marriage and fiscal issues for him may not be equal. I am not saying at all that the issue of gay marriage is not important because I believe it is and I believe the bill will be passed, I simply mean that surplus funds, their distribution(s), having VT in the black, maintaining jobs and creating new jobs, having more people remain in Vermont are the bigger issues for the governor.

I was watching bits and pieces of the public hearings on television; I was pleased actually to see Alice Nitka, John Campbell, Dick Sears and others on the Judicial Committee agree to this bill..personally I like Alice, John and Dick alot. I believe they are smart, have a lot of insight, are thorough and are very responsible senators.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by sugarmaple

I don't think Douglas will veto a bill if it is passed by the legislators; SNIP I am not saying at all that the issue of gay marriage is not important because I believe it is and I believe the bill will be passed SNIP I was pleased actually to see Alice Nitka, John Campbell, Dick Sears and others on the Judicial Committee agree to this bill..personally I like Alice, John and Dick alot. I believe they are smart, have a lot of insight, are thorough and are very responsible senators.

I tried to increase your reputation because your supportive, positive, hopeful post made me feel so good. But I have to "spread some good karma around" before giving you more good rep, so I'll settle for a THANK YOU.

[arctichomesteader]

I think the governor will veto it if it passes, just a hunch, could be wrong.

[atypicalLIer]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

Such a great question! And the source of much confusion. In practice over 9 years, we've seen that civil union has failed to provide equal protections and rights under the law commensurate with civil marriage. Here are concrete benefits that will change immediately with full marriage equality:

Federal benefits: A challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act" has been filed in federal court on behalf of a widower in a same-sex marriage. When that part of DOMA is overturned, married same-sex couples will be eligible for Social Security Survivor benefits and other federal benefits. Couples in a civil union will NEVER be eligible for these federal benefits because they are part of the equal protection clause for the status of being married. In fact, Vermont couldn't even bring this federal case because it has only civil union for same-sex couple, a made-up status with no equal protection recognition under state or federal constitutions.

Employer-provided spousal benefits: Many Vermonters work for companies based in other states. Many of those companies offer spousal insurance coverage and other spousal benefits. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, same-sex married couples ARE eligible for these benefits, and we know from research that the are receiving them. In Vermont, employees with civil unions, folks working for the very same companies, are NOT eligible, and these companies will not rewrite their policies to accommodate a handful of employees living in a state with the obscure made-up status of civil union.

Portability: Married same-sex couples who travel or move to New York State, for example, are legally recognized equally with married heterosexual couples. New York does NOT so recognize couples with civil unions, and they will not, because this recognition arose from finding in NY's laws equal protection for all people with status of "married."
For example, a lesbian couple I know has been together many years, has a civil union, and has two children. But if they travel to New York State (something they do frequently) and something happened to one of them, there is no guarantee that they would be afforded hospital visitation or decision-making power -- even with advance directives and power-of-attorney, which have failed in just such cases. Worse, the biological mother of their two children has parents who rejected their daughter for being a lesbian, but would love to take their grandchildren away from her. If something happened to her, and they were in a state that didn't recognize their union, the children could be considered legally orphans, and taken from the only other parent they've ever known, and given to people they've never met.

Thanks for asking! :-)

Thank you for taking the time to explain the issues. My only problem, which is really a matter of semantics, is using the word marriage. I would have no issue with revamping and strengthening the civil union so that the benefits mentioned above would be equal to those of people in heterosexual marriages.

My parents were very conservative, but I embraced the rights of my homosexual friends from a young age. I'm a little old school about the use of the word marriage. I know, it is silly, but at least I'm honest