Asterisk

Breaking news from the Burlington Free Press this afternoon. We’re one step closer to marriage equality in Vermont.

The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of a same-sex marriage bill this morning, advancing the controversial legislation to the full House for debate Thursday.

The committee supported the bill by a vote of 8-2.

The bill, which passed the Senate last week and which faces a promised veto by Gov. Jim Douglas, would provide same-sex couples with the same rights as those of heterosexual married couples.

Committee members who voted for the bill were: Eldred French, D-Shrewsbury; Willem Jewett, D-Ripton; Richard Marek, D-Newfane; Cynthia Martin, D-Springfield; Kathy Pellett, D-Chester; Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe; Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg and Maxine Grad, D-Moretown.

Voting against the bill were Peg Flory, R-Pittsford and Andrew Donaghy, R-Poultney.

Patti Komline, R-Dorset, wasn’t in committee during the debate or this morning’s vote, though she has said she supports the bill.

The article goes on to quote some of the 1,500 letters that Vermont Governor Jim Douglas (R) has received since his announcement that he would veto the bill if it comes to his desk.

More news on the civil marriage debate, as the West Virginia House of Delegates voted down a Religious Right backed bill that would have put an anti-marriage equality amendment up for a popular vote. More from the Charleston Daily Mail:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — West Virginia’s House of Delegates voted along party lines Monday to end this session’s chances for a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage.

Delegates voted 67-30 to reject the attempt. All 29 House Republicans voted to move the measure out of committee, as did Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette.

West Virginia does not recognize same-sex marriages granted elsewhere, under a 2000 law that also requires all marriage license applications to say “marriage is designed to be a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a man.” But amendment advocates argue that doesn’t go far enough and could be challenged in court.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has pushed for this session’s resolution, citing a poll it says shows clear support for an amendment. It recently bombarded the revision committee’s chairwoman and the head of the House Judiciary Committee with sometimes abusive phone calls demanding action, and targeted Gov. Joe Manchin with a postcard campaign.

“Once you start down the path of bypassing committees, there will be no ability to draw the line on what group, what issue or what initiatives are given special consideration,” House Majority Leader Brent Boggs, D-Braxton, told fellow delegates. “Short-term gain should never trump abiding by the rules, despite the outcome.”

Just for grins, let’s take a look at the Family Policy Council of West Virginia. First, here’s a video (h/t Box Turtle Bulletin) that they released last month. It’s almost six minutes long, but for the best part, skip ahead to 00:45 to see the best part.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vQm0hJ8Dd0[/youtube]
It’s an interesting image, isn’t it? A good wholesome American family, just minding their own business, is under attack, in the crosshairs of a sniper’s rifle because The Homosexuals want to kill families. What a wonderful message to send to people!

More recently, The Charleston Gazette (h/t Right Wing Watch) reported that the Family Policy Council of West Virginia had sponsored a telemarketer-esque campaign to harass House Judiciary Chairwoman Carrie Webster and Monongalia County, Delegate Barbara Fleischauer about the bill.

Who is the Family Policy Council of West Virginia? For one thing, they’re identified as “fully associated with” Focus on the Family (and by extension, Family Research Council). And as we learned last week, the position of FRC (and by extension, FotF) is that our government should side with the Axis of Evil.

All things considered, I wouldn’t consider this amendment news a win for our side (West Virginia law still explicitly stands against marriage equality, and legislators including the governor appear to stand by the current law), it’s at least a good sign that the state isn’t following the Religious Right’s lead. For that, we can be thankful.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and answered a question about the repeal of DADT, which President Obama has supported. His response is, to put it politely, less than what we would expect.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hj0mIylZBA[/youtube]

A similar response was given by Vermont’s Governor Douglas last week on the timing of marriage equality rights. Just wait until this other thing is under control and then we’ll get back to you, unless something else comes up.

By coincidence, I was going through old posts Saturday afternoon, and when I first saw Secretary Gates’ response this morning I immediately thought of the words Dr. King wrote from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

“Wait!” doesn’t work. We know this from the experience of African Americans. We know this from the experience of women. We even know this from our own experience.

My answer to Secretary Gates: NO. At least not willingly, not quietly, and not patiently.

You don’t get to decide, Secretary Gates, when to give us what has been stolen from us. You don’t get to decide that we’d best just sit in the corner and wait patiently like good little boys and girls. You don’t get to negotiate the acknowledgment of our rights.

If there’s one silver lining we can take from this, maybe we can read this is an indication that we’re getting somewhere. In both Governor Douglas’ and Secretary Gates’ comments, they aren’t telling us that rights aren’t due, just that the timetable for handing over those rights is negotiable. I get the impression that they expect us to be thankful for that. Our response to them, whether it be about marriage equality, DADT, or any other issue, must be an emphatic and uniform NO.

The rest of Dr. King’s letter, which is now and always relevant to the cause of justice, can be found in the aptly titled book Why We Can’t Wait.

There are several parts to this one, so I’ll go directly to Delaware’s WBOC-TV for an explanation:

Two major pieces of legislation dealing with gay rights came up for a vote in the Delaware General Assembly Thursday.

The first measure, Senate Bill 27, would have reinforced Delaware’s ban on gay marriage. That proposed constitutional amendment failed in the Senate Thursday.

The House though did pass a measure to make it illegal to discriminate against gay people when it comes to everything from employment to buying homes. The bill now goes over to the Senate for consideration. Gov. Jack Markell said Thursday he supports the bill.

Senate bill 27 failed despite the efforts of hundreds of protesters who gathered at Legislative Hall to support the measure. Supporters argued they wanted to make sure marriage remained between a man and a woman.

“We really want to see a growing swell of support for what marriage really is, between one man and one woman, no matter who wants to change it,” said Kim Birowski.

Opponents though argued that Delaware already bans gay marriage and did not need to pass a constitutional amendment.

Steve Elkins says, “We’re here at the state capital of the first state, to take advantage of equal rights for citizens.”

No word on whether Senate Bill 27 will be re-introduced.

Okay, so to reiterate:

• Senate bill (SB27) that would have started the process of passing an anti-marriage equality amendment to the Delaware Constitution failed. Gay marriage remains illegal, but only by law, not by Constitution.
• House bill (HB5) that gives roughly the same anti-discrimination protections as the federal proposed ENDA passed. The bill needs to pass in the Senate, then it goes to the Governor, who says he’ll sign it.

Kudos to the Delaware legislature for voting in favor of equality and against discrimination.

Interesting comments on the WBOC-TV article. Some very basic arguments being made, the kind that have been refuted and that we’re all tired of dealing with. There are more than these three comments, some of them even positive, but these show up on the main article page.

Can you count the old standbys? I came up with 24.

h/t thomascwaters.com

News is coming fast and furious these days. While we wait for the House of Representatives in Vermont to decide on gay marriage, their next door neighbor has made up its mind. More from Tom Fahey of the UnionLeader.com.

The New Hampshire House narrowly passed a bill today that would allow gay couples to marry.

The final vote on HB 556 was 186-179, and came after nearly three hours of debate.

The bill was amended today to state that no clergy of any religion could be required under the bill to officiate at a same-sex marriage.

Rep. David Pierce, D-Etna, in arguing for passage, told House members, “Both sides of this debate believe in the institution of marriage,” said. “We all want the same things during our time on earth. It doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay.”

Rep. Laura Gandia, R-Litchfield, warned it will make children of this and future generations “guinea pigs in a massive social experiment that is irreversible.”

Democrats were joined by about a dozen Republicans in passing the bill.

The final vote followed a 183-182 vote against passing the bill, an unsuccessful 177-189 attempt to kill it, and a failed effort to postpone it for more work.

In a statement after the vote, state GOP chairman John H. Sununu called the vote “another attempt by the liberal Democrats in the Legislature to impose their San Francisco agenda on the State of New Hampshire.”

The former governor said, “The small margin by which the bill passed should encourage Governor Lynch to take a stand with a clear ‘I will veto this bill if it gets to my desk’ message.”

With a governor who opposes gay marriage and a far from veto-proof margin, there’s little chance of this bill becoming law. Still, thanks to the 51% of House who voted against fear and inequality, there’s a chance.

Now we wait for the Senate vote.