As the euphoria over yesterday’s Victory in Vermont! passes, more details are becoming known. Many, if not all, of the major Religious Right leaders have come out with the standard shock and condemnation that we’ve come to expect. Others have covered that, and probably better than I could.
So instead, I thought I’d talk about the missing House vote yesterday. The bill passed 100-49 with one member missing, and that missing member turns out to be Albert “Sonny” Audette (D). If you paid attention to the pre-vote projections, you’ll recognize the name as one of the two NO votes who had pledged to overturn the governor’s veto.
The Burlington Free Press has the story.
Rep. Albert “Sonny” Audette, D-South Burlington, the only representative not present at Tuesday’s historic override of the gubernatorial veto of the marriage bill for same-sex couples, stayed home because of health problems, he said shortly after the vote.
Audette, who suffered a stroke last spring and has struggled with gout and arthritis, woke up Tuesday morning barely able to get out of bed. Making it to the Statehouse for the override vote was out of the question.
Audette said he was sorry about not making it to the Statehouse for Tuesday’s vote, but when he woke up he could hardly move because of the gout in his feet. As he reclined in a lounge chair and ate soup his wife, Terri, made for him, he explained that his health was more important than the issue before the House.
I’m going to be polite and accept Rep. Audette on his word here. A 77-year-old man who suffered a stroke a year ago gets the benefit of the doubt when he claims poor health. Besides, he has no reason to lie; he says later in the article that he would have gone back on his pledge and voted to let the veto stand.
As late as Monday night, Audette, a devout Catholic, was still debating whether to vote his conscience or vote with his party. In the end, his conscience would have won out, had he been present to vote. He would have voted against the veto override, he said.
“It’s against my religion,” Audette said. “I voted my conscience, and my conscience is swayed by my 12 years of Catholic education.”
And that’s where my patience runs out. As I said last week, I do understand the struggle to integrate new understanding, to turn away from the way things have been done in favor of a better way. I have honest-to-goodness compassion for that struggle.
But I’ll repeat it for Rep. Audette and everyone else: This is not about marriage as a religious institution. Your opinion on whether gays should exist (which is what every gay rights issue is really about) is beside the point. WE EXIST. Given that fact, the issue is simply this: Should we or should we not have rights that are equal to yours?
Audette said he wrestled with the marriage issue because he respects gay and lesbian people and has friends in the gay community, but had to weigh that respect against the needs of his constituents. He said the people he represents who lobbied him on this issue were overwhelmingly opposed to it.
“He’s so kind-hearted, you know,” Terri Audette said. “He doesn’t want to hurt anyone.”
To steal a line from Jon Stewart, and with due respect to the Audettes, you don’t have gay friends. You may have gay acquaintances, gay coworkers, gay neighbors, and gay members of your family, but you don’t have gay friends. Not when you vote to deny their rights.
Ideally, Audette said, the Legislature would have been able to call for a referendum. Audette didn’t want to have to deal with such a potentially divisive issue as marriage for same-sex couples and a public statewide vote would have been the solution to his discomfort, he said.
“I shouldn’t be mandating my feelings on someone else,” Audette said. “Everyone should be able to have their say on this.”
If you don’t want to deal with difficult issues, perhaps it’s time to retire from politics, Rep. Audette. You are a part of a representative democracy. You accepted the responsibility to vote on potentially divisive issues when you were elected.
Finally, civil rights should never be put up for a popular vote. I have enough of a problem with rights guaranteed by the Constitution being voted on in the legislature; putting them up to the general public leads only to tyranny.
In 1902, when the women’s suffrage movement was just getting warmed up, the American flag had 45 stars. In protest, the suffragists created their own US flag with only four stars, representing the four states that allowed women to vote.
