Thurs House Vote 95 - 52

More debate today. Final vote today? 100 votes in favor needed to override Gov. Dumbass' promise to veto. Excerpts from the House Record for yesterday (April 2) below. The Old-Fashioned-Paranoid-Crankypants award goes to Duncan Kilmartin of the Northeast Kingdom.
_____________________________________

Rep. Gilbert of Fairfax explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Simply because I, as an individual believe that marriage is a sacrament and chose to be married within a church, does not mean that everyone must have the same beliefs. Others may choose a civil marriage ceremony, a civil union, a different church, or nothing at all. These alternatives have absolutely no affect on my marriage, my faith, or my individual commitment to my wife and family. They cost me nothing. The choice to marry is a public declaration of a personal choice made by a couple that loves and is committed to care for each other. As a person, I cannot deny the rights to others that I claim for myself. As a legislator, I must uphold the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions and my Oath of Office. I support this bill .”

Rep. Grad of Moretown explained her vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I vote yes for S. 115. As a member of your House Judiciary committee my goal is to promote justice for all Vermonters so they may attain equal access rights, benefits and privileges under the law. Through testimony on this bill I learned that civil unions does not do this but creates a separate status for same sex couples and their children who are often discriminated against, stigmatized and marginalized. Studies show that there is no credible scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation, but instead is related to parenting styles.

In voting for this bill I vote for Vermont same-sex families and their children with the hope to begin to repair the wounds of discrimination they suffer and give all Vermont children a more tolerant world in which to grow.”

Rep. Audette of South Burlington explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I voted no but I respect people for who they are and not their sexual orientation.”

Rep. Clarkson of Woodstock explained her vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
I vote yes in support of a bill that furthers the cause of equality in Vermont and because anything that promotes love and commitment is wonderful and further promotes the common good.”

Rep. Kilmartin of Newport City explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Marriage in all cultures throughout recorded history has been between a man and a woman and for good and indisputable reasons. There is a male father and female mother who carry the child to term. To give the title to same-sex couples does nothing but introduce confusion and chaos into the very nature of marriage and the family. The way the bill is structured, it denies individuals and mothers and fathers the exercise and practice their sincerely held beliefs and denies them their Constitutional rights to raise their own children according to the dictates of their conscience. The bill cleverly sets up clergymen and religious institutions as those entitled to freedom of conscience while intentionally denying the individual citizens their constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

Rep. Koch of Barre Town explained his vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker:
Due to the necessity of attending the wake of a close friend back home, the member from Vernon has asked me to note for the record that she would have voted no on this question.”

Rep. Ram of Burlington explained her vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
To say that Civil Unions offered the same rights as marriage is nothing less than saying once upon a time there are two drinking fountains that both dispense the same water. I vote yes to lift this final weight of off the shoulders of your otherwise free society.”

Rep. Turner of Milton explained his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
Voting “no” tonight on this bill was a very difficult decision for me. Several of my family members and close friends are gay and I fully support their rights under the Civil Union laws of our state. I believe in and have performed many Civil Unions in the past. However, I just could not come to terms with redefining the term marriage. I fully respect the proponents position of this legislation and can understand and will respect my position on this issue. Thank you.”

Rep.Wheeler of Derby explained his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
I found myself wishing when I came into this debate I had strong opinions one way or another, but I didn’t. When I was a newspaper reporter covering the Civil Union debates it was far easier for me to know how I would vote on that issue, but probably only because I didn’t have to actually vote. In voting “no” I know that I have disappointed some people including, some dear friends. My vote came after
much talking and listening to people on both sides of the issue. In voting “no”, which a huge percentage of my constituents asked me to do, I hope my gay and lesbian friends and colleagues don’t feel that I threw them under the bus, but on the other hand, I won’t blame them if they do. As a history writer I wonder if I voted on the right or wrong side of history – only time will tell. Will I look back on my vote with disappointment? Only time will tell. I apologize for those who I have disappointed, and I thank everybody for keeping this process civil.”

Rep. Zuckerman of Burlington explains his vote as follows
“Mr. Speaker:
Nine years ago twenty-two members of this body voted for full equality. Today ninety-five members did. In and of itself, that is a huge victory. A huge majority has spoken.”

Adjournment
At nine o'clock and twenty-five minutes in the evening, on motion of Rep. Komline of Dorset, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o'clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon.