GAY PEOPLE'S

Chronicle

Ohio's Newspaper for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community • www.GayPeoplesChronicle.com

Vermont says 'Yes' Lawmakers override governor's veto to be first state to pass marriage with no court order

by Dave Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Montpelier, Vt.-A day after Gov. Jim Douglas delivered his promised veto of a same-sex marriage bill, both chambers of the legislature voted on April 7 to override his veto.

The move makes Vermont the first state to gain full marriage equality through legislative action, instead of a court order.

The Senate vote was not even close-23 to 5 in favor of the measure. In the House of Delegates, matters were tighter, 100 to 49, only one vote over the two-thirds needed to overturn the veto.

Gay and lesbian couples may begin marrying on September 1.

"The emotion that is going around this building right nowhow good people feel it's palpable," said Senate Majority Leader John Campbell. "It's not often that you get in your career to be able to fight for someone's civil rights."

The vote came four days after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled to allow lesbians and gays to marry.

Douglas issued a statement with his April 27 veto.

"This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents," the Republican governor said in the veto message.

"Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont," the governor said. "And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities" to same-sex couples.

The state legislature passed a civil union law in 2000, after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from getting married was unconstitu-

tional. However, the court gave lawmakers the option of either passing same-sex marriage or a

parallel institution, and they opted for civil unions.

Since then, that law has been criticized as a reintroduction of the "separate but equal" policies that marked racial segregation.

The House initially voted 9552 to approve the bill on April 2, just short of the two-thirds of the 150-member body needed for an override.

Supporters worked through the weekend in hopes of getting a few opponents to switch their votes.

"I'm still talking to members and we're hoping for a number that is two-thirds," said House Speaker Shap Smith shortly after the veto. The first-term speaker said he did not believe the vote would be a test of his leadership, arguing that lawmakers' views on the issue often are the result of deeply held personal beliefs.

But the speaker was appealed to members' loyalty to the legislature and its prerogatives.

"The struggle for equal rights is never easy. I was proud to be president of the Senate nine years ago when Vermont created civil unions," said Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin. "Today we have overridden the governor's veto. I have never felt more proud of Vermont as we become the first state in the country to enact marriage equality not as the result of a court order, but because it is the right thing to do." The action in Vermont was

A tall admirer

Volume 24, Issue 21 April 10, 2009

ROBERTOLAYAS

Alexandra Underhill, as the Rainbow Goddess of All Nations, greets Rep. Dennis Kucinich outside the Human Rights Campaign dinner on March 28. Underhill was one of several members of the SAFMOD ensemble to perform at the event, which brought about 500 people to the Intercontinental Hotel. Story on page 3.

Wedding bells in lowa

Court hands down the nation's first

hailed by gay equal rights activunanimous ruling for marriage equality

ists in California who are awaiting

a state supreme court ruling on an amendment that halted same-sex marriage there.

The Californians are also aware that lawmakers there have twice passed bills to allow full marriage just like Vermont, only to have them vetoed both times by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Jessica Garrison contributed to this story.

Inside This Issue

CLOSETS CLOTHES

FIGHT

SEXUAL

ANARCHIST

Anthony Glass

Des Moines Iowa's high court made history on April 3, becoming not only the first Midwestern supreme court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but also the first in the country to issue a unanimous decision in such a case.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially

Parents sue Mentor schools. their son to Page 2

Contaunity Groups...........

12

15

Three Pansy blooms for spring Page 8

Charles Calendar.

Resource Directory

Classifieds

125

further any important governmental objective," wrote Justice Mark Cady in the opinion

The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Iowa constitution's equal protection guarantee, and that tradition is no defense:

"A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion."

The court said that weddings could begin April 27. Iowa has no residency requirement for marriage.

The suit, Varnum v. Brien, was first decided in Polk Country District Court two years ago. One gay male couple was able to marry before District Judge Robert Hanson stayed his decision pending appeal to the state high court. Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle hit familiar points in his argument before the supreme court on December 10. The state's opposite-sex marriage law should be kept, he said, to avoid the "slippery slope" that could lead to polygamy; that traditional marriage is necessary

www.GayPeoplesChronicle.com

to keep up procreation, and that children are best raised by a mother and a father.

2

He also argued that traditional marriage should be upheld, for all intents and purposes, simply because it is traditional.

Cady refuted that in the high court's opinion.

"When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the government objective, which objective is to maintain the classification," he continued. He pointed out that using that argument to uphold tradition would have invalidated every racial and gender-based equal rights

case.

The court was similarly thoughtful in rejecting arguments around procreation, noting that an array of professional organizations' studies showed that children of same-sex couples are raised as well as those of opposite-sex couples.

Continued on page 5