Victories in Vermont and Iowa signal progress, momentum

Following on the heels of a marriage equality victory in the Iowa Supreme Court late last week, the Vermont Legislature squeaked out an override to Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of a marriage equality bill, adding renewed momentum to the marriage equality movement after California voters overturned same-sex marriage rights there last November.

The override made Vermont the fourth state where same-sex couples will be able to obtain marriage licenses just as straight couples can, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa - where same-sex couples will be able to apply for marriage licenses as of April 27. After a mandatory three-day waiting period licensed couples will be eligible to wed on April 30.

Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who led the effort to enact the marriage bill along with House Speaker Shap Smith, expressed hope that Vermont would become a model of marriage equality for Northeastern states that are still struggling with this issue.

"If this little state can stand up and override a governor's veto and get a two-thirds majority for marriage equality that ... will give confidence to our neighbors in New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, New York to join the Northeast in marriage equality," said Shumlin in a phone interview several hours after the legislature took the override votes. "And I do think that we are many steps closer to finally lifting the discrimination and ridicule that gays and lesbians have lived with throughout this country's history."

Marty Rouse, the national field director for the Human Rights Campaign and a former Vermont resident who worked to re-elect civil union supporters to the Vermont Senate in the aftermath of the civil unions battle, agreed.

"I think it will have an impact on the New Hampshire Senate for sure," said Rouse, a reference to pending marriage legislation in the Granite State. He added that Vermont's proximity to upstate New York means it could also influence upstate lawmakers to support New York's marriage equality bill, which has been a bone of contention in the New York Senate, in addition to influencing lawmakers in Maine, where a marriage bill may be taken up as early as next month.

"This little state will have significant impact," Rouse said of Vermont.

Meanwhile, after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court's April 3 ruling in favor of marriage equality, Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, who opposes marriage equality, issued a statement saying he would not support an effort to reverse the decision via the constitutional amendment process. His statement comes after leaders in the Democrat-controlled legislature came out in support of the decision, indicating that an amendment, which as in Massachusetts would have to pass two consecutive sessions of the state legislature before being put to voters, won't see the light of day anytime soon.

In a statement released April 7, Culver said his opposition to marriage equality "is a tenet of my personal faith," and noted that the Iowa Supreme Court decision does not require churches to officiate or recognize same-sex marriages.

Said Culver, "the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court's decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

"As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa," he also stated. "I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa's Constitution." (For excerpts of the decision, see "Marriage Equality" below)

That leaders in a "heartland" state immediately came out in support of the decision contrasts starkly with the reaction among leaders in liberal Massachusetts less than six years ago, when the state Supreme Judicial Court handed down the Goodridge decision. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney immediately began campaigning against the decision locally and nationally, while then-Senate President Robert Travaglini and then-House Speaker Tom Finneran quickly moved to reverse the decision via the amendment process.

And just nine years after the Green Mountain State was plunged into a contentious, divisive battle that resulted in the country's first civil union law after the Vermont high court ordered the legislature to remedy the legal inequality facing same-sex couples in the state, Rouse marveled at how quickly lawmakers had returned to business just three hours after the House and Senate voted separately to override Douglas's marriage veto. "It's like the same old State House," he said during a phone interview while still in the building.

"Unbelievable. Although many are wearing HRC Equality pins right now," he added, laughing.

Likewise, Shumlin was almost nonchalant about tackling an issue that continues to be a political hot potato without being forced to do so by the courts; in fact, Vermont is the first state to implement marriage equality in a legislative manner. He indicated that the overall lack of political leadership on the issue -- along with the passage of California's Prop. 8 -- drove his desire to pass the bill.

"Well, it was a team effort by the speaker and myself and many others," said Shumlin. "I think that the bottom line is that marriage equality is the right thing to do and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters remain the only minority group in the country who politicians -- from the president of the United States to the governor of Vermont -- can publicly oppose and see their poll numbers go up. And I think that alone was reason enough for us to stand up for their rights."

"You know with civil rights, it's always argued that there's never a right time," Shumlin also said. "As you can imagine the governor made the case that we should be doing jobs, economic development. We've made the case that we're capable of doing more than one thing at a time and that is exactly what we're focusing on: jobs and economic development. But I do think that what happened in California on Election Day invited a response from thoughtful people."

That's not to say that the override votes came easily. While the Senate easily passed the override by a comfortable 23-5 vote, the House vote was a different story. Rouse described feverish machinations on the part of advocates and allied lawmakers throughout the weekend prior to the vote, as lawmakers wavered, left the fold and in some cases returned to the pro-equality side at the last minute.

"We were on defense for 48 hours," said Rouse. "It was terrible."

Various members spoke during discussion of the veto vote, most of them opposing the equal marriage rights bill. The roll call began, with each legislator calling out his or her "Yes" or "No" vote as their names were called. For the first few minutes, the tallies were literally tic for tac. Then, about mid-way through the vote, the pro-override votes began to pile up. The only question was whether they would reach the magic mark of 100.

At 11:03, the Speaker of the House, his voice cracking, announced the vote: 100 for, 49 against. The veto had been defeated; the bill would become law.

There was a brief eruption of applause in the chamber, and the House heard from a few members who wanted to explain their votes. But history was done.

Beth Robinson, head of Vermont Freedom to Marry and a key leader for equal marriage rights in Vermont for the past 10 years, called the vote a "nail-biter."

"We thought we had the votes as the roll-call began, but you never really know until the vote comes out of people's mouths," said Robinson. So uncertain was the outcome, Robinson had prepared both a victory and a defeat speech.

Shumlin acknowledged that he was ready to pull the plug on the override vote due to the dicey atmosphere in the House.

"I never told anyone this except the speaker, but I wasn't going to hold the vote," he said. "I was not going to be defeated on this issue and I had no intention of holding the vote ... if the speaker didn't come and look me in the eye and say, 'I have the votes,' which he did. Actually we were scheduled to vote at nine o'clock, he didn't give me the word until nine-forty, and we immediately overrode the governor and sent the bill to the House."

Shumlin called the override one of his proudest days as president of the Senate, a post he has held since 1994. "Standing outside the House chamber as hundreds of Vermonters passed by with tears of joy was one of the most moving experiences of my service here," said the lawmakers. "These were folks - women with children who understood that they could finally enjoy the same rights and benefits that my wife and I have enjoyed for the last twenty years.

"I think that was the defining piece of this debate in this state," he continued. "Vermonters care about their neighbors. We take care of each other, we don't judge each other based upon what we are, but we make judgments based upon who we are and there is a clear sense that despite the governor's veto, the time had come to say we're one family."

Asked whether he feared a political backlash in the 2010 legislative election because of the marriage legislation, Shumlin said that he was prepared for the possibility.

"You know occasionally in public life you have the opportunity to do the right thing and you live with the consequences," he said.

Likewise, Robinson said that despite the victory, "we can't say it's over until after the 2010 elections."

Rouse, however, sounded a more confident note about the shifting political winds on the marriage issue. He predicted that many more who voted against marriage equality would be retiring than those who supported it. "I think they realized their time has passed," he said of the opponents.

He also expects that Democrats who voted against marriage equality would see pro-equality primary challenges and that Republican opponents of equal marriage could lose seats. Ultimately, Rouse predicted that as it has in Massachusetts, support for marriage equality would become a winning issue for candidates.

"If you voted against marriage equality you will have a higher chance of losing your seat than if you voted for marriage equality," he said.

Bay Windows freelance reporter Lisa Keen contributed to this report.