Opinion of Jim Douglas

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Horrible horrible horrible person.

Hopefully 2010 is when Vermont finally has the common sense to dump this wretched piece of trash.

[Rowan]

Horrible horrible horrible person.

Hopefully 2010 is when Vermont finally has the common sense to dump this wretched piece of trash.

I can play this game too. Every Democrat in the VT House and Senate that voted for this is trash. Whew that felt good.

[Keystone Phil]

What did he do about strip clubs/emo venues?

[Scam of God]

A Sheik of the Talibangelicals.

HP.

[Torie]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

[Lunar]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

he's got to be a Republican somehow, right?

[Torie]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

he's got to be a Republican somehow, right?

Ya. But hey, I am a Republican, so back to the drawing board with that little riposte! 

[Rowan]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

He referenced the state constitution.

[Brittain33]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

He referenced the state constitution.

Did he claim the law was unconstitutional so he was bound to veto it, or what?

[Rowan]

I wonder what his explanation/rationale was for vetoing the gay bill. Does anyone know?

He referenced the state constitution.

Did he claim the law was unconstitutional so he was bound to veto it, or what?

Instead of me paraphrasing, I'll just post his statement on the veto:

Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S.115, An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, without my signature 651 MONDAY, APRIL 06, 2009 because of my objections described herein. I do so recognizing that this is an issue that is intensely personal, with strongly held beliefs and convictions on both sides. But I am charged by our Constitution to act on this legislation and by its return, I have fulfilled that responsibility.

The question of same sex marriage is an issue that does not break cleanly as Republican or Democrat, rural or urban, religious or atheist. The decision to support or oppose is informed by an amalgam of experience, conviction and faith. These beliefs are deeply held, passionately expressed and, for many legislators, infinitely more complex than the ultimate ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ required to fulfill the duty of their office.

On such an intensely personal issue as this, all members must do as their individual conscience dictates, with the best interest of their districts in mind.

It is for those reasons that I have not sought to lobby members of my own party, or asked opponents to sustain my veto.

This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents.

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

Vermont’s civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Our civil union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

I hope that when the legislature makes its final decision, we can move our state forward, toward a bright future for our children and grandchildren. We still have a great deal of work ahead of us to balance our budget and get our economy going again and Vermonters are counting on us to work together to get the job done.

[Brittain33]

quote

Thanks. For the record, his citation was purely about the Governor's obligation to sign or veto a bill, and was not a claim of unconstitutionality about the bill's content.

[Alcon]

That's a very weird rationale.  We shouldn't have state-level gay marriage, because gay marriage won't be recognized federally yet?  Why not...?  The only things in here that actually provide an explanation are a vague reference to this being a nuanced decision, and then "I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman," which is an opinion not a rationale.

Of course, I think we've come to expect a complete lack of philosophical transparency on this issue.  The only interesting thing in Douglas' statement is that it seems that he knew his veto would be overridden anyway.

Either way, I doubt that gay marriage (which isn't supported overwhelmingly even in Vermont) is going to absolutely sink Douglas's re-election.

[Torie]

Ya, the statement of Douglas is basically the null set. Isn't it wonderful how folks can string words together that have almost no real substantive content other than conclusory statements of the most banal nature? 

[Scam of God]

Ya, the statement of Douglas is basically the null set. Isn't it wonderful how folks can string words together that have almost no real substantive content other than conclusory statements of the most banal nature? 

Why, without that skill set, nine-tenths of priests would be standing in the unemployment line.

[Rowan]

Ya, the statement of Douglas is basically the null set. Isn't it wonderful how folks can string words together that have almost no real substantive content other than conclusory statements of the most banal nature? 

Why, without that skill set, nine-tenths of priests would be standing in the unemployment line.

You just might be the most hateful person I have ever met. How do you even sleep at night?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     HP

[Holmes]

Well, I already called him a douche in another thread so it's no surprise.

But in 2010, he's gonna learn what happens in Vermont when you veto equal rights to your own constituents. Then again Vermont has a history of electing Republican governors(even now) so if he retires/loses a primary, Vermont could just as well end up with another Republican governor, idk.

[Alcon]

Douglas isn't going to lose a Republican primary for vetoing gay marriage, unless that Republican primary is held in secularinternetland. 

[Scam of God]

Ya, the statement of Douglas is basically the null set. Isn't it wonderful how folks can string words together that have almost no real substantive content other than conclusory statements of the most banal nature? 

Why, without that skill set, nine-tenths of priests would be standing in the unemployment line.

You just might be the most hateful person I have ever met. How do you even sleep at night?

What can I say? Willful self-delusion and self-inflicted ignorance enrages me. You do not have a right to be an imbecile.

[Holmes]

Douglas isn't going to lose a Republican primary for vetoing gay marriage, unless that Republican primary is held in secularinternetland. 

Aren't Vermont's primaries open?

[Alcon]

Douglas isn't going to lose a Republican primary for vetoing gay marriage, unless that Republican primary is held in secularinternetland. 

Aren't Vermont's primaries open?

You're right.  I had forgotten that.  But I'd still be surprised if a 3-to-2-supported socially liberal issue decided the result of a Republican primary, open or otherwise.  Democratic primary, even, honestly.

Especially since Douglas can argue the issue is behind the state, since the veto was overridden.

[Rowan]

Douglas isn't going to lose a Republican primary for vetoing gay marriage, unless that Republican primary is held in secularinternetland. 

Aren't Vermont's primaries open?

You're right.  I had forgotten that.  But I'd still be surprised if a 3-to-2-supported socially liberal issue decided the result of a Republican primary, open or otherwise.  Democratic primary, even, honestly.

Especially since Douglas can argue the issue is behind the state, since the veto was overridden.

Yeah exactly, it's not like his veto was upheld anyway, so now it's a moot point.

[Holmes]

I wouldn't know. Maybe there are some primary-voting Vermonters who are totally for marriage equality but prefer Republican governors?

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, right, the gay marriage veto. Good move.

[Ronnie]

Oh, right, the gay marriage veto. Good move.

Ya, I'd have to agree.