News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

About

-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Blend Blogroll Widgets

Activism

Get the widget.

Best of the Blend

Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...

The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)

Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)

Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.

--Impeach Bush

who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.

--"Joe"
Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding
House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan
Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.
SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Support the Blend

An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.

VT: Marriage equality bill cruises through Senate

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 20:00:00 PM EDT

So is the governor of Vermont, Republican Jim Douglas, going to veto this if it hits his desk? (USA Today):

The state Senate voted 26-4 in favor of the measure introduced by Democratic state Sen. John Campbell. The bill now goes to the state House, where Speaker Shap Smith, also a Democrat, predicted a majority would vote in favor of the "marriage equality" act. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to begin debating the bill Tuesday. A second vote in the state Senate also is expected Tuesday.
Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, has refused to answer questions about whether he would sign the measure, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. He has said that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Smith refused to say Monday whether he believed there were enough votes in the Democrat-controlled House to override a gubernatorial veto.

Pam Spaulding :: VT: Marriage equality bill cruises through Senate

Tags: vermont, Marriage equality, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

VT: Marriage equality bill cruises through Senate | 19 comments

Here's Douglas' problem

If he vetoes it, he looks like an ass. His whole ability to get elected in Vermont rests on him coming across as a nice guy. If he signs it, he loses his psychotic base. His only real choice is to let it go without his signature, which may still harm him with his base.

I'm only a click away.

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 19:44:14 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The problem with a psychotic base...

it that they're about as stable as quicksand in an earthquake. It doesn't matter how strong your foundations are, or how deep they run, when the political fault-lines rupture you're basically fucked.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

by: tavdy79 @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 19:52:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Can he do that?

Sorry; still learning the ropes of law formation. But can he just refuse to sign and have it become law anyways?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

by: Louise @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 05:09:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes

A law doesn't need the governor's signature to become enacted. As long as he doesn't actively veto it, it will be come law.

I'm only a click away.

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 05:23:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Green Mountain Blend

well it is Vermont... really this is a good thing... yes really even from me

by: jibreeladonnagop @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 20:12:42 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

what about VT civil unions?

I looked over the original measure and couldn't figure out what would happen to the existing civil unions. Would they be "converted" to marriages or would those folks have to get married (again)?

by: Danelle @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 23:18:23 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

From what I've heard

preexisting ones will still be in effect, but no more will be issued.

I am the lizard queen!

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:29:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Existing civil unions will remain...

...civil unions, but can be upgraded to marriage if the partners so desire.

I'm only a click away.

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 16:55:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't uderstand the process

as reported in that USA Today snippet. Why would the state Senate have two votes on the same bill?

by: Pollyanna @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 23:53:22 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Legislative Process

Yesterday's vote in the Senate was on the 2nd reading of the bill. My understanding of the process (and I should have a better handle on this) is that after the 1st reading it was remanded to the Senate Judiciary Committee. They took a couple of weeks of testimony (including last week's public hearing). The committee reported the bill out yesterday (2nd reading) and then the main Senate debate (and vote) took place. There will be a 3rd reading of the bill and vote today in the Senate (just procedural) and then the House Judiciary Committee takes up the bill. It is expected to come up for debate in the House next Thursday and Friday. It will pass in the House but to have a veto proof majority needs 100 votes. That probably won't happen but I agree with Julie that the Gov will is not likely to veto. Yesterday's Senate vote was a larger margin than expected with a few Republicans and one conservative Democrat supporting. I think this is a good indication that Gov will probably avoid a veto. If the law passes it will go in effect in September. At that time no new Civil Unions will be performed. My understanding is that folks with Civil Unions can get a marriage license if they want - but their Civil Union remains valid if they take no action.

by: Jess Wilson @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 09:33:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is precisely why

something needs to be done on a Federal level. All these bits and pieces of marriage rights is more depressing than no marriage rights.

by: Donica @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 00:03:52 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

No they're not.

by: Jim @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 01:06:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

They can't

There's no provision for it at the federal level. States have always regulated marriage, the only thing that could happen at a level higher than the states is a SCoTUS ruling, and we aren't there yet - especially with the current court.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 08:00:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah they are

Be married in one state and not in another? Civil unions here, domestic partnerships there. In some cities but not others. It's a damn mess.

by: Donica @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 01:10:09 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I agree

that it's not fair and it sucks. But maybe it's the only current way to drag the sheeple forward in their thinking.

I wish it didn't have to be this way.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

by: Louise @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 05:12:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

From Cape Cod Times, this story

regarding the "political fallout" in Vermont:

http://www.capecodonline.com/a...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

by: Louise @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:19 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

GOVERNOR DOUGLAS WILL VETO THE BILL.

The Hon. Jim Douglas has been governor of VT for a few months or a little over 60 days. The Vermont legislature has a plurality of Democrats, Progressives and Independents over the Republicans...mostly reactionary RW Republicans or moderates who are afraid of their base.

Among the Democrats are "social conservatives" who are fodder for the Republican minority to capture into their voting numbers on the Civil Marriage Act.

When you have two-thirds Democrats and one-third Republican in the state House of Representatives....after a handful - about 7 Republicans - in a three dozen- member state Senate, it should be a "slam dunk".

The state Speaker of the House tells the truth. Even with that plurality, he is NOT sure whether they can overturn the veto of the Republican governor. This is a vote that suggests that any action other than a veto will destroy his political career in the Republican party.

by: BISHOPRAYMOND @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 14:41:50 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Please know your facts

Jim Douglas has been governor of Vermont for quite some time know.

I'm only a click away.

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 16:55:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Julie, have you seen this video?