A Day To Remember
Today’s exercise was supposed to be about something else altogether. But let’s get real. Yesterday was a historic day in this state, and the event must be noted.
Furthermore, the politics of it have to be discussed. On the assumption that they won’t be elsewhere – at least not very much, political journalism being something of a lost art in hereabouts-they will be here.
Obviously, the big political loser is Gov. Jim Douglas. The Legislature overrode his veto. It had never done that before. It had not overridden any governor’s veto since 1990, when it overrode one of Gov. Madeleine Kunin’s.
Douglas should get a little credit here. By and large, he handled this same-sex marriage issue without losing his cool or his dignity. He said he was against it, but he didn’t revile the proposal or attack its supporters . Nor, apparently, did he lobby the six Republican House members who voted for same sex marriage and then voted to override his veto. Had he done so, he might have won.
But he also might have won had he not announced on March 25 that he would veto the bill. The pre-emptive strike seemed to make sense at the time. The conventional wisdom (shared here, it must be acknowledged) was that it was enough to scuttle the bill, which was unlikely to attract the 100 House votes needed to override the veto. The 95 votes that passed the bill last week only validated that judgment. Why would a lawmaker who voted against a bill then vote to override a governor’s veto of it?
Maybe because by announcing his plan to veto before the vote was taken, the governor made himself the issue.
Not, in this case, himself instead of the legislation; but himself in addition to it.
Douglas remains reasonably popular among the electorate, but less so among the Democratic majorities in the Legislature. There’s no big mystery here. He keeps beating them. They want to beat him back. That had to motivate the handful of Democrats who voted against the bill last week but for the override yesterday. None of them said in so many words that they voted to override so they could stick it to the Gov. They didn’t have to.
If Douglas is the big loser, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin and (especially) House Speaker Shap Smith are the big winners. Shumlin, with that immense Democratic majority in the Senate, had the easier time of it. Smith had to charm and cajole to the very end, and on an issue that’s hard to sell via standard political rhetoric or appeals to party loyalty.
Vermont legislative leaders don’t have much clout. In bigger states, the House Speaker can threaten to move a member out of his or her fancy office or remove members from their legislative staffs. Here, lawmakers have no offices and no staffs. The leader can hint that the members’ pet bills will have a better chance of passage if said member cooperates on this vote. But it’s a little late for that this year; most of the committee work is done. Smith probably had to round up those last votes by pure persuasion, or perhaps by asking for a personal favor.
Either way, he looks awfully good this morning.
Speaking of the morning, and the cold, sober light it often shines on the residue of last evening’s joys, here’s a small reality check for the celebrators: gays and lesbians in Vermont do not have full marriage equality, and won’t when the law takes effect September 1.
That’s because one line in Douglas’s veto message is correct: “Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont.”
Most states won’t recognize Vermont’s same-sex marriages, either. Real marriage equality will have to await nationwide marriage equality.
With one caveat, the governor was also correct when he pointed out that Vermont’s civil union law “afforded the same rights, and benefits of marriage to same sex couples.” When it comes to the specific, material, financial, legal privileges of marriage – buying and inheriting property, adopting children, caring for the sick, etc. – the news law provides nothing the old one did not. The new equality is “only” personal, emotional, psychological.
Hence the caveat. In marriages, those are pretty big “onlies.”
Inevitably in the aftermath of the vote, advocates on both sides warned that some of their opponents would be wiped out in the next election. Perhaps they will. Democrats are bound to lose a few seats of their huge majorities anyway; turnout will be smaller in 2010 with no presidential election; lots of last year’s Obamaniacs who voted for Democratic legislators will stay home a year from November.
But the betting here is that, with one possible exception, the political impact will be mild. November, 2010 is a long time from now. There will be other issues over which voters will get into one tizzie or other. Legislators, contrary to what one may have read, are not fools, at least when it comes to knowing what their constituents want. No doubt a few of the lawmakers knowingly took a risk in voting as they did. But politicians usually know how to stay in office, sometimes if they know little else. That probably applies to the Vermont Legislature.
The possible exception is the governor, and not only because, for the first time, he appeared weak. By vetoing the bill, he pleased part of his conservative base. But in this liberal state, he wins by transcending his base. A whole lot of folks who voted for him last November also voted for Barack Obama. The Democratic ticket next year will be led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, widely expected to whump whoever is foolish enough (or egomaniacal enough) to run against him.
Will some of those Democratic-leaning independents who voted Obama-Douglas in 2008, many of whom think gay marriage is just fine, vote for Leahy and the Democratic candidate for governor in 2010, in part over this issue?
Check back in 18 months.
Tags: gam marriage, Jim Douglas, Shap Smith
