The decision of the Vermont State Legislature to override their Governor’s Veto, and as such to legalize “gay marriage” within their State, is most telling in showcasing how advocates of traditional marriage continue to fail miserably in standing straightforwardly and boldly in defense of their own principles. Rather than articulate the legitimate policy reasons for upholding traditional marriage, the Governor lamely defends his Veto with a statement on how the marriage issue has taken away attention from economic priorities.

 

Indeed, the Governor barely addresses the subject matter of his Veto. Instead, he tries to focus the debate on the idea that “gay marriage” is a misplaced priority within a period in which “another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs.” Now, it is true that every State faces some level of fiscal crisis, because of the reduced revenue from the downturn in the national economy. Nevertheless, that type of argument concedes that the protection of the traditional, family life is not a meaningful interest of the government; only questions that relate to how revenue may be raised, and then how it is to be spent, should be of concern to elected politicians, according to the rationale of men like Governor Douglas.

 

If that is true, then by which logic does the government have an interest in making certain that children go to school or are otherwise being educated at home, as in the case of State and local truancy laws? By what logic does the government have an interest in setting the minimum age of marriage or sexual consent? By what logic does the government have an interest in limiting marriage only to two persons, rather than three or more who then may profess a “love” for one another?

 

The fact is there is a government interest in protecting traditional marriage: namely, that a legal preference be given to those stable, family units, which in all civilizations and times have shown themselves to be most suitable for the conceiving and rearing of children – if not in the allocation of tax and other legal benefits, then at least in the cultural context by which we view such stable, family units relative to alternative ones. As an American who loves liberty, there is another legitimate interest: namely, that a legal preference be given to those stable, family units, which in their marital exclusivity are most likely to rear said children with identities separate from the State.

 

These are not only legitimate government interests; they are mandated in our Federal and State Constitutions, which speak of limiting government to the passage of laws that are in the “general welfare.” Licensing “gay marriage” is not in the general welfare, because the purpose and effect is to erode the special, cultural status conferred to a man and a woman coming together to conceive and to raise children. If the State is to license “gay marriage” as culturally synonymous with traditional marriage, then it would be better indeed for the preserving of our cultural heritage not to have the State issuing marriage licenses at all.

 

There are important cultural and Constitutional prerogatives at issue within such a debate; but instead of speaking boldly on what those prerogatives are, the defenders of traditional marriage all too often skirt the real issues, in favor of what appears politically safer at the moment. In so doing, they are conceding the whole of the argument to the other side, thus virtually guaranteeing that the Courts and Democrat controlled Legislatures will succumb to the militant, homosexual lobby. When few politicians seem to have the stomach for the fight, we who understand the importance of preserving traditional marriage in sustaining a free Nation of free men cannot but start to see the writing on the wall.

 

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage with Veto Override, by Dave Gram (AP)

Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

Douglas called override "not unexpected." He had called the issue of gay marriage a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

"What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," the governor said Tuesday. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.

"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."

Also in the crowd was Michael Feiner, a farmer from Roxbury and gay marriage supporter, who took a break from collecting sap for maple syrup-making to come to the Statehouse.

"I'm taking a break to come and basically make sure that I was here to witness history," he said.

The House had initially approved the bill last week with a 95-52 vote. Smith and his leadership team worked through the weekend to try to persuade some legislators to change their minds.

One who did was first-term Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans. He said he continued to be philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but decided that voting with his fellow Democrats would help him be an effective legislator in the future.

"You realize that, you know, it's a poker game in some ways," Young said. "Chips on the table. I'm a freshman. I have no chips. If I ... had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don't have that option."

He added, "It's the way the political game is played."