We Don't Have Gay Marriage Because Of A Dysfunctional Political System

Today, the Vermont legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto and voted to allow same-sex couples to marry. They become the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislative process rather than the courts. Of course, California passed a gay marriage bill twice, in 2005 and 2007, only to see the Governor veto the legislation both times. And then... nothing.

Now, the bill never passed by a margin approaching a 2/3 vote in either chamber, so you might question the efficacy of an override vote. However, that only makes sense if you aren't aware that the California legislature NEVER overrides vetoes. This actually came up last year, when the Governor vetoed the initial FY2009 budget and the legislature threatened to override. Instead they ceded to the Governor's demands. Indeed, California has never overridden a budget veto in the history of the legislature, and the legislature pretty much never overrides vetoes of any other kind, even if the measures pass both houses with overwhelming margins. The last override in California? THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Part of this is due to the unnecessary forced bottlenecks in the legislative process, where practically everything passes right at the end of a legislative session, and the Governor vetoes after the session ends, which means that the legislature is out of session at the time they could override a veto. But another part concerns an insidious professional courtesy mixed with threats, where the Governor in recent years has implicitly vowed to veto all kinds of bills if he's ever overridden on one.

The overall point is that California's government does not operate like a functioning political body. The veto override, a major tool for a legislature to impose their will on a Governor, doesn't exist. The majority vote, when a Governor agrees with the thrust of the legislation, with respect to the budget and taxes, doesn't exist. And so ordinary functions of political bodies are closed off to California, by self-imposed means. This highlights once again why we have an ungovernable political structure that needs to be radically changed.

Marriage Equality In Vermont

The Vermont legislature just voted to override a gubernatorial veto and legalize gay marriage. In the House, the vote was 100-49, exactly the amount needed for passage. Vermont becomes the first state to recognize gay marriage through a vote of the legislature; previously, California's legislature passed a gay marriage bill, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill and it was never overridden.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont now all allow gay marriages, and New York State recognizes them while not performing them. The case in California remains tied up in the courts, but Prop. 8 will likely pass as a Constitutional amendment.

Equality will be a long process, but it will happen. And many years later, we will look back strangely on this period and wonder why anyone made such a fuss.

Prolonging The Distraction

Vermont Governor Jim Douglas vetoed a marriage equality bill today, hiding behind the "separate but equal" civil union law affording rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Last week Douglas claimed his veto threat was based on wanting to "focus" on the struggling economy. Now Vermont legislators will have to focus on a veto override for a week. Makes sense to me!

The State Senate, which passed the bill 26-4, will vote to override tomorrow. But the House vote was lower than the 2/3 threshold needed for override. According to the Kos diarist,

Several members of the Vermont House who voted no on the bill last week have indicated that they would vote to override the Governor's veto on principle stating they could not in good conscience vote for the bill itself, but were willing to vote to allow the will of the majority to become law over the veto. However, other members who voted for the bill may switch and vote against the override attempt using the governor for cover.

Hopefully the House will come through.

"...No, It's Iowa."

The Iowa Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that a 1998 state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

Here's the opinion and the summary. You may be wondering whether Iowa can pull a Prop. 8 and reverse the decision at the ballot box. It's a little more difficult to do there under state law.

Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

“If you’ll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats’ excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court,” Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. “It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they’ll keep their promise.”

Democrats run the House and Senate in Iowa, and could conceivably bottle this up in their respective Judiciary Committees. Even if they didn't, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land for a minimum of three years in Iowa.

Change happens slowly...

...I should add that the Vermont state House voted to allow gay marriage by a 95-52 count. The Republican governor Jim Douglas is expected to veto, but activists feel they have a shot to override it.

I Can't Interrupt My Laser Focus On The Economy To Write My Signature

The stupidest part of Vermont Governor Jim Douglas vowing to veto a same-sex marriage law that both chambers of the legislature will soon pass is his justification:

"The urgency of our state's economic and budgetary challenges demands the full focus of every member and every committee of this Legislature."

Um, the legislature has already passed it, and the amount of time it would take Douglas to sign the bill is approximately 2.7 seconds. In fact, the Legislature would be entirely LESS focused on the economy if they are forced to schedule a session to override Douglas' veto (and they have the votes to do that).

Maybe Jim Douglas can't walk and chew gum at the same time, maybe that's the problem.

Gay Marriage: Justice Rolling Downhill

Vermont's legislature will pass a law allowing same-sex marriage, likely with veto-proof majorities, and become the first state to actually legalize gay marriage through the legislative process instead of the courts. California passed a gay marriage law through both chambers but Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it twice. Media elites who like to cover for Arnold often forget that.

But perhaps more important to the marriage equality movement is Chuck Schumer's endorsement, suggesting that even national Democrats are defying their fears and coming around to the just position on this contentious issue.

Schumer's office confirmed the meeting and also the senior senator's change of heart, issuing the following statement from the Brooklyn Democrat (who is traveling upstate today):

"It’s time. Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived of it. New York, which has always been at the forefront on issues of equality, is appropriately poised to take a lead on this issue."

It's hard to overstate the significance of this in the eyes of gay marriage advocates.

With the ascent of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant US Senate seat, Schumer was the last remaining statewide elected official who backed civil unions over full marriage equality.

(Recall that one of the first issues Gillibrand "evolved" on was marriage, although her office has insisted she always personally supported it).

Far into the future, successive generations are going to look at this debate and wonder what all the fuss was about over stopping two people who loved one another to commit their lives to being together.

The Actual Best Headline From March 4

Vermont towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney

The only problem I have with it is the clause "vote to."

Voters in two Vermont towns on Tuesday approved a measure that would instruct police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," local media reported.

The nonbinding, symbolic measure, passed in Brattleboro and Marlboro in a state known for taking liberal positions on national issues, instructs town police to "extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them."

I would actually like to see this in a bunch of towns. The post-Presidency and Vice-Presidency should be characterized by Bush and Cheney having to go underground to avoid prosecution. If the Congress refuses to allow for any measure of accountability the localities ought to in their stead. Large swaths of the country should be made off-limits to them. Fourthbranch'll love it, but Bush's ego would tear at him. He thinks he's a swell guy loved by everyone.

I can't WAIT for him to go out and raise cash for McCain. The protests should be immense.

New Thread

Clinton really spanked Obama in Rhode Island, and the exit polls have now been re-weighted to reflect that. Look out for that re-weighting, it's sneaky!

So basically Rhode Island and Vermont were a wash, and we're waiting to see what transpires in Ohio and Texas. I know the late votes in Cleveland and the surrounding areas will break for Obama, but I can't see that overturning a big Clinton lead. Meanwhile Texas is really tight, but again, Dallas and Houston and Austin have yet to report. There's also this.

Some precincts in Texas are still voting. According to rules, people in line at 7 p.m. when polls were supposed to close still get to vote. And since caucuses started right after the polls close, it looks like tons of people tried to vote late so they would only have to make one trip.

Now add all the caucusers showing up to caucus, and it's mayhem at places. This thing will go late.

If Ohio and Texas end up a wash, and Rhode Island and Vermont end up a wash, and there's no discernible delegate shift, and those 50 superdelegates Obama's been holding in his back pocket come out of the woodwork... what's Clinton's path to the nomination? I'm OK with her staying in the race, but what's the plan?

Now, the Slate calculator is imperfect, of course, and the vagaries of caucuses and delegate rules and so forth mean this analysis is inexact. And this does not include Florida and Michigan, whose delegates were ruled ineligible by the Democratic National Committee because those states held primaries earlier than allowed under party rules -- delegates Clinton would like to seat since she won those states. But you get the point. And this is why the Obama camp remains confident that he will finish the primary season with a lead among pledged delegates no matter what happens today.

Of course, there are nearly 800 superdelegates, and the Clinton camp hopes victories today would give it enough momentum to keep those party elders from flocking to Obama at least until Pennsylvania. If Clinton could prove in the interim that Obama is a paper tiger and not up to the scrutiny a front-runner invariably attracts, her strategists think the superdelegates will decide they have to go with her for the sake of the party.

It's a big gamble, and few at Clinton's headquarters in Arlington are fooling themselves about the odds. But this year has shown that anything can happen and that politics are not so neat and predictable as we might think. Or at least not as neat and predictable as Slate's delegate counter.

That's really a scorched-earth strategy, especially considering that it will play out while John McCain is anointed the nominee and gets to go around to swing states bashing both of them. The effect will be to hurt BOTH Democrats' chances in November. I hope that message is sent.

Vermont Goes For Obama

MSNBC called it immediately. The real key here is whether or not Obama can get 64% of the head-to-head vote, because that would result in a 10-5 delegate split instead of a 9-6 split. It's all about delegates at this point.

Of course, Vermont doesn't count because it's so black and urban.