Gov. Douglas' Response

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas was one happy three-term Republican incumbent at his Wednesday press conference.

The opposition party, the alleged majority party, appears in disarray.

Everyone I've told about the new Symington-Shumlin Commission that will hold public hearings and "study" gay marriage - Republican, Progressive and Democrat - has looked at me like I was pulling their leg.

I wasn't.

Asked for his reaction to the Democrats' surprise highlighting of gay marriage at his Montpeculiar 1 pm presser, the governor of DNC Chairman Howard Dean's home state [yes, the same Ho-Ho who signed the historic civil unions bill in secret back in 2000, behind closed doors] said:

My position on that has been quite consistent. We went through a very difficult experience seven years ago when the Legislature enacted the civil unions law. I think during that time most Vermonters have come to accept it. I don’t think it would be in the state’s best interests to reopen those wounds, to have that controversial debate, because we’ve extended full privileges, full legal rights and benefits to same sex couples.

I really think it’s important for the Legislature to work with me to focus on what is most important to everybody in Vermont, and that’s the cost of living here, making sure that all Vermonters can pay the property tax bills that have just arrived in mailboxes during the past few weeks.

I want to make sure that Vermonters can afford to buy gasoline, get to work and to school and do the errands that are so important to their families, to get a decent job, to get good health care coverage.

Those are the real priorities for the people of our state and I hope the Democratic legislators will work with me to achieve them.

PRESS: Is your only opposition it would be divisive to open this up? What if it turns out most Vermonters are in favor of this?

DOUGLAS:  I don’t want to speculate on what recommendations might come. I gather, based on the schedule outlined by the Democrats, they don’t plan for the current biennial legislative session to take it up, so I think it’s something that will be talked about well into the future.

PRESS: But do you have concerns beyond it being divisive?

DOUGLAS: Same-sex couples have the same benefits and rights and privileges of marriage now. In 2000 the Legislature fashioned a compromise that was difficult to achieve, but one that most Vermonters have now come to accept. It was a very difficult experience. Those of you who were in Montpelier at the time recall that and I think we really need to devote our energies to the cost of living in Vermont, to improving economic opportunity and hope for the future of our people.

PRESS: So are you saying we don’t need another law on this issue?

DOUGLAS: I don’t believe we do.

He didn't beat around the bush, did he?

Comments

[bigbadbrad]

Beat up the Gov. all you want, He speaks the truth on this one. I'd be so pissed if I was him right now. What a farce!

[jpc]

What I find interesting with this post, is how little the other members of the legislature are actually involved. S & S seemingly out of the blue without consultation decide what they are going to prioritize. It was the same last year with the revolt and repeal people getting on board and then Shumlin deciding to delve in to global warming. Shumlin knows he is the leader, but really doesn't realize what that means. It seems he thinks that means acting independently and dragging Gaye along with him. Why talk it over with the other legislators? THere will be time for that after the commission spends a couple months figuring it out.

I think the guv is right it will open old wounds. There are still "take back vt" signs around as it is. My opinion is that since all the legal rights are already in place then it is only a word. Go ahead change it and get it over with.

[mtbikevt]

It's a little more then a word. We can't look at everything in our life through a legal or monetary spectrum. There are certain things in life that simply can not be measured this way. That one word makes a whole portion of our states population inferior. Marriage should be the legal definition of a union between any two people while a religous ceremony to create that bond is up to each individual to decide. Some will go before a minister and some a JP. That's the personal choice of marriage not whether two people can even get married.

[manoman]

No story here really.

What did people think his response would be?

Douglas' response is, of course, pure politics. Announcing a commission doesn't preempt efforts on other issues. People do and can multitask. The argument that they are wasting time is flawed.

I think what this commission will find is that Vermonter's don't give a rats ass about it. Except for a few right wingers, they will be indifferent. It doesn't seem like a change would impact income tax in any way since Vermont income tax is based on Fed Income tax. Wouldn't the couple still have to file as single on the 1040 and, therefore, single on the Vermont form?

As for "old wounds", Douglas wants to stay away from controversy because it a safe place to be. Thats why although pressed by his supporters, he didn't repoen the Champion Lands Deal. Self preservation says stay away from potentially hot topics.

Personally, I think the Revolt and Repeal group did more harm than good. It was a political tool, not a strategy for solving a problem.

[bigbadbrad]

"That one word makes a whole portion of our states population inferior."
Your right, mtbikevt. I've got two. "married" and "parent" foist a whole other set of discriminations upon folks who are niether.

[mtbikevt]

Seriously not sure what you mean? please explain?

Are you saying the term married makes singles feel inferior or the word parent makes non-parents feel inferior?

[bigbadbrad]

no, the costs of child rearing are foisted on non-parents. Married people recieve a miried of benifits not open to singles.

[Sir Winston Thriller]

manoman says: " It doesn't seem like a change would impact income tax in any way since Vermont income tax is based on Fed Income tax. Wouldn't the couple still have to file as single on the 1040 and, therefore, single on the Vermont "

No. For Vermont Civil Unions, you can file as Civil Union Filing Jointly or Civil Union Filing Single for the state taxes. You must file Single for the Federal Taxes. However, you also have to include in your return to Montpelier another Federal Tax return done as if you are filing Married FIling Single or Married filing Jointly" along with a copy of your "real" Federal return.

Chanign the law to permit same-sex marriage would mean nothing at the Federal level--the Federal government won't treat you as a married couple. However, jurisdictions that DO have same-sex marriage rights (Massachusetts, Canada, etc.) would treat your Vermont marriage as legal. Your Vermont Civil Union is just a curiosity in those places, with no real legal standing.

[mtbikevt]

Believe BBB I feel your pain. I too have no children but pay the heavy burden financially to send all children to school. However, what you seem to miss and which is extremely difficult to quantify is the benefits society recieves from a public education. This does benefit you and me tremendously. And what's the solution you recommend, should we only have private schools thus creating a system of education that is every person for themselves? If that's your theory then should we also have privately paid police where when a crime is committed against you, you have to pay to have the crime soved. I mean why should I pay for the cops when I don't need them. Same with fires I presume, reduce my taxes the amount that I pay for the fire department and make those poor suckers that suffer a fire pay for it.

There are financial down sides that you don't take on. I, like you, don't need to save for college therefore allowing me to create more personal wealth which in turn will allow me to retie earlier. Is that not a benefit that most parents do not have? Unless we are seriously talking about making this evry man, woman and child for themsleves there are just going to be injustices in the world. They are unavoidable and we all have them but they are different for each of us. As far as I'm concerned they are expenses I am willing to pay to live in a better society.

But perhaps most importantly, your financial concerns, while serious, pale in comparison to an individual being treated unfairly simply because of who they are.

[jpc]

"Douglas' response is, of course, pure politics. Announcing a commission doesn't preempt efforts on other issues. People do and can multitask. The argument that they are wasting time is flawed."

You don't think this could be done in a month instead of 10? Do a friggin poll if they want to know what the public's opinion is. It is such a waste of time and resources it isn't funny. We don't need 10+ months and 10 people to decide how we feel about it. The legal rights are already there, the legislature ought to be able to debate it and pass the bill in under a day since it is a word change.

[realitycheck]

I unfortunately agree with the Gov. that this is not a priority I want the legislature to spend time on right now. I say this regrettably, as I think gays should be allowed to marry. Civil unions provide equal State benefits to being married, but unless you are married in the eyes of the federal government, you do not have the "full bag" of rights as a heterosexual couple.

Problem is, being married in Vt adds little to same-sex couples' rights. As noted above, the only benefit is recognition of your relationship in other states. And even that may run into problems, depending on the state. The real substantively meaningful change would need to occur in DC, and that's not happening any time soon.

Considering the benefits of the endeavor, when weighed against the benefits of solving other issues, I would rather see movement on health care first (single payer for Vermonters is not impossible...), then our economy and environment, seem more pressing. We're heading into a recession that few are talking about, but its coming. The retailers know its out there, and Wall Street is catching on (declines last couple days, more to come). The War and the softening real estate market are going to catch up with us. Republican governance has squeezed the middle and lower income folks, and with 70% of our GDP tied up in consumption, it only stands to figure the less money the masses have, the less we can buy. Our debt-fueled lifestyle is running really thin, really fast. Unless we start thinking ahead about the middle classes, and long term economic growth for lower and middle income folks, Vermont's workers are going to suffer, which is not only bad for the workers, its bad for state budgets, for services, for tourism, for our communities, and for funding for protecting our environment.

Its about priorities. Not that I share many of the same priorities with Gov. Douglas (can we please get some wind towers up?), its just that I more pressing problems than this one.

[manoman]

OK. I see. I was wondering how one would transpose the taxable income from two 1040's filed with single status to a Vermont Married filing jointly or married filing single form.

Perhaps Vermont ought to just ditch the dependence on the federal form.

[bigbadbrad]

wrong, MtBikevt. Public Schools are doing a bang up job educating kids, aren't they? How many chinese and Indian doctors/scientists do we import every year. I didn't force anyone to have kids. Save your money for whatever you want, i don't care. The fact that I don't have to save for a childs college education is frankly, noone's business. Please give me all the perks, goodies and kickbacks accorded others or get your gruppy little hands of my wallet! I am not interested in hearing people squak about second class citizenship and turn a blind eye to this. It's bald faced hypocracy1

[manoman]

"We don't need 10+ months and 10 people to decide how we feel about it."

Do we need 10+ months and 10 people to decide how to implement Douglas' H520 plan?

Imagine how the public would perceive legislative action based upon a poll. Polls are nameless and just aren't going to work. Imagine if Douglas stood up and said "My office polled Vermonters and due to the result we are going to start shutting down State Parks to save money"

[Ye Ol' Vermonter]

No big story folks.

Only two legislators are involved so there is no real waste of legislative time. It is a voluntary group so no spending of money on it.

Will it provide a definitive answer, probably not. But all the crap the right wing said would happen with civil union has not. Thus their testimony is of little value. However, since gay marriage is not recognized in several states I am not sure what it really gains in the snd. Maybe it moves us closer to the real world where marriage should be confined to a religious exercise and joint relationships of some title would be legalized across all states by the Congress.

[mtbikevt]

So, that one would be a yes to every man, woman and child for themselves?

[montpelier28]

Realitycheck is correct.

[bigbadbrad]

No, no, no, mtbikevt. Balancing the needs on the backs of people based on the size of their saving, thrift, hard work, marital status, sexual orientation, parental status, you name it is wrong. Yes, we need public ed. Same sorta house, same income, same tax bill, 5 kids V none. that's fair? You walkinto a store, you expect to pay the same price as someohne else don't you? why should I be expected to pay more? Why do you get a tax deduction for every kid you pump out? Did I hold a gun to you r head? Someone has to come up with the revenue shortfall generated by those exemptions. Don't look at me.

[realitycheck]

On the subject of tax breaks for the kids, or tax breaks for anyone for that matter, you have to look at the big picture. Having kids is expensive. The idea of the tax break is that that $1k/kid will get spent on care (clothes, food, childcare, education, toys). That means that there is more tax revenue from the increased economic activity.

Also, there's a good point that was previously made about the benefits to society from having educated kids, etc. Tax breaks play a part in this. Having more money in parent's pocketbooks is better for the kids.

And so you know, having kids is REALLY expensive, and its really really hard work, so if you are worried about "faireness", enjoy your single, non-parental life as much as you can. That $1,000 "perk" hardly offsets all the burdens that come with parenthood. Once you have kids, you'll understand.

[skeptic]

You all seem to be missing the fact that this seems to be designed precisely so it DOESN'T take up the legislature's time. Instead of introducing the legislation and launching the divisive debate the Gov speaks of, and moving all those other pressing issues to the side, this is about volunteers doing their work and then coming back to the legislature with results so that legislators can actually write legislation that reflects what Vermonters are saying.

And how many times did we hear in 2000 that the Leg pushed it through too quickly and didn't take the time to listen to Vermonters?

Seems to me this is a pretty balanced way of gathering good information and making people feel like they have a voice. Even if it does risk the Westboro Baptist Church and Randall Terry coming back here.....