The Vermont Legislature’s press conference today brought good news on how the legislature will deal with the economy and on Vermonter’s civil rights.

House Speaker Shap Smith and Senate President Peter Shumlin announced their legislative priorities for the remainder of the 2009 session.  

On the table are: legislation to create good paying jobs for Vermonters, encourage the development of clean renewable energy, reduce the Governor’s proposed tax burden on businesses and

grant equal marriage rights to all Vermonters.

The reasons for jobs, taxes, and clean energy pieces are obvious. But why civil rights this year?

Other states have passed equal marriage laws … though some needed a court to help them understand that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage equality. In separate written remarks from Senator Shumlin, he describes a little of the history of Civil Unions in Vermont, equal marriage in the US and elsewhere, and the differences between the rights his family has from those of a same-gender couple and their children who live in the same community:

In the years since [the passage of Civil Unions] the world has changed dramatically.  Same-sex couples began legally marrying to our north in Canada, as well as a handful of other countries.  To our south, they began legally marrying in Massachusetts.  Connecticut adopted Vermont’s civil union law, and then moved on to marriage.  Legislatures throughout the Northeast-including the two other states that passed civil union laws of their own – are considering marriage bills this year.  Vermont is no longer alone, and we’re no longer leading.  Here in Vermont, peoples’ fears in connection with the civil union law have proven unfounded.  Nobody was harmed, some families enjoy a little more security, and our State is a better place for having taken that step.

There is strong support throughout the state. As this ad shows, even the Burlington Free Press(!) supports marriage equality. It’s not simply the right thing to do, it’s downright mainstream:

More below the fold:

From Shumlin’s written remarks we get the real reason why we need this legislation – people are being denied equal rights; real families are being denied the same basic rights that the rest of us take for granted:

It’s clear that Bari and Diane’s family is as worthy as our own, and that their love and commitment to one another is no less than that between Deb and I or Shap and Melissa. But I’m conscious that our laws still don’t recognize that; they don’t allow Bari and Diane to get the same civil marriage license from their Town Clerk that I and so many other heterosexual Vermonters take for granted.  As a result, they’re two-steps removed from important federal protections like Social Security survivor benefits.  They face greater uncertainty when they travel outside of Vermont.  They’re more likely to be denied spousal health insurance benefits.  They are shut out of an institution-marriage-that’s as relevant and important to them as it is to me.  Our laws build a figurative wall between their family and my own-a wall that doesn’t match the reality that I know.

But, as eloquent as Shumlin may be, he can’t beat Sandi and Bobbi when it comes to showing why equality matters:

Be sure to thank Representative Smith and Senator Shumlin for looking out for all our interests this session, and encourage your own representative(s) and Senator(s) to support equal marriage.  Vermont will be a better place the day this bill is signed.

At Vermont Freedom to Marry, they’ve posted the following information for those who want to get involved:

The Senate Judiciary Committee will start the work on S.115, “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage,” sponsored by Senate leaders Peter Shumlin, John Campbell, and Claire Ayer, on Monday, March 16, when legislators return from the Town Meeting break.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees will jointly host a PUBLIC HEARING on Wednesday, MARCH 18, from 6:00 – 8:30 p.m. at the Statehouse in Montpelier. MARK YOUR CALENDARS!

( – promoted by odum)

There is still time to push “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009” or H.R. 1106.  The vote will finally be held in the House later today.

Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina has worked for years to protect consumers from predatory lenders and now he’s battling the banking industry to clean up the mess these same lenders have made. He has introduced legislation that will prevent the foreclosure of millions of homes.  The legislation, H.R. 1106 – or Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, was on the House floor for a vote last week, but last minute wavering of Blue Dog Democrats required that the vote be postponed.

Republicans and some Democrats are buying into the hype created by the banking industry. Most of the talking points are flat out lies and much of what is being regurgitated by those members standing in opposition shows they have a profound lack of understanding of the legislation.

Follow below the fold for a rundown and an action plan.

Republicans and other opponents of the bill want to blame the mortgage crisis on borrowers saying they were dishonest and irresponsible.  Rep. Virginia Foxx from North Carolina put it into words on the House floor on Thursday.

It’s some consolation that North Carolina can boast a few very progressive representatives to help balance a woman who so easily spews talking points laced with hate-based code words.  Later in the day, North Carolina’s Brad Miller, NC-13, closed the debate.

Contrary to what Republicans claim, this is not welfare.  This is not a bailout.  This is not permanent.  Dishonest Borrowers can’t get their mortgages modified.  This will not increase the cost of capital.  This will not make it harder to get mortgages in the future for those who are paying their mortages on time now.

Every other asset – yachts, business properties, jets, vacation homes, investment properties – are eligible to have their principal loan amounts modified in bankruptcy.  For some reason, Republicans wish for us to think that it is only offering this option for a limited time to a limited number of borrowers that will increase the cost of capital.  It simply isn’t true.

Please call and email your representatives in Washington.  I’ve made it easy for you.  I’m posting scripts to get your started and contact information for the representatives you sent to Washington.  No excuses.  Get to work!

Here is a simple script for a call:

Hi.  My name is _____.  I live in the first/second/third, etc. district.  I’m calling to encourage Rep. _____ to support H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. We are not going to stop the downward spiral of our economy until we stop the collapse of home values. And we are not going to stop the collapse of home values until we get control of foreclosures.  This important legislation will provide mortgage lenders with more motivation to voluntarily work with customers to save their homes.  Again, I urge Rep. __________ to support H.R. 1106.

Here is a simple script for an email:

Dear Representative _______________

I urge you to vote for H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.  It is important legislation that will help stop the collapse of home values and the downward spiral of our economy by giving us more control over home foreclosures.

Most of these homeowners were not irresponsible or dishonest when they bought their homes and those that were will not be able to modify their mortgages through this legislation.

We’ve bailed out the financial services industry.  It’s time we did something to help average citizens stay in their homes.

Thank you for supporting H.R. 1106.

[Update] – If you would like to add congressional specific foreclosure numbers you can use these.  The entire file is found at Scribd. h/t Congress Matters.

Contact Information

If you aren’t sure which district you live in, you can go here.  Otherwise, use the list below.

U.S. House

Rep. Peter Welch

202-225-4115

email

Because we are so close to having this legislation pass in the House (hopefully) I am including contact information for your Senators too.  Go ahead and get them started lobbying the Blue Dogs from the South.  (Sorry about them…we’re working on it.)

U.S. Senate

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy

202-224-4242

email

Sen. Bernie Sanders

202-224-5141

email

For more information on this legislation:

Rep. Brad Miller’s live-blog at BlueNC.

Rep. Brad Miller’s Q&A in Greensboro’s News & Record

Article in Charlotte Observer

CNN Money article

Editorial for Greensboro News & Record

Representative Miller’s testimony before Judiciary Committee (PDF)

(UPDATE2: It’s now officially on the agenda. This is from Senator Shumlin’s statement:

(UPDATE: Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin and Speaker Smith will be holding a press conference on their priorities for the rest of the legislative session, and GMD has just received word that it will likely include a decision to move quickly on marriage equality. If such an effort is passed into law, Vermont would become the first state to recognize same-sex marriages without being compelled by a court. Details if and when they materialize.)

I want to start by explaining that marriage is something that is, personally, an abstraction.  I get that people get married.  I get why they get married.  There are some very specific practical reasons for it, but those to me are more a matter of functional benefit than any emotional tie to it.

I could spend days trying to figure out why I view it so differently from most people I know, but I know that the way my mind works, I view all sorts of things differently from most people I know, but that’s not entirely relevant here.

This is what’s relevant here (hat tip myDD):

In Vermont, we’ve had civil unions for nearly a decade now.  The battle over them was intense, nasty and bitter.  There were bumper stickers with obscene comments about a particular sex act that were frequently visible.  People completely freaked out about the sanctity of marriage.  Some groups went around the area sponsoring anti-gay slide-shows talking about the dangers of homosexuality.  

In 2007 & 2008, we had hearings around the state on same-sex marriage (I love blogged one of those here).  The comments were nearly unanimous in support of it.  

I watched most of the debate in Massachusetts over same-sex marriage during their constitutional convention over the matter.  It was a fascinating shift– first with people opposing all forms of recognition of same-sex couples, and very quickly changing to civil unions as being the conservative alternative to full marriage and then just leaving it at full marriage.  In Vermont, those opposed to same-sex marriage are still trying very hard to bar the door.  As was reported in Green Mountain Daily:

The party line then (emphasis added):

Family groups believe Vermont’s “civil unions” law will have a negative impact on the state and may be used to undermine marriage laws across the country.
    Janet Parshall, chief spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, decried the lawmakers’ action.
    “This is ‘gay marriage’ in everything but name, and it is a direct assault on society’s most essential institution,” Parshall said.

The party line now:

“It appears that, from their side,” said (Stephen) Cable (President of the “Center for American Cultural Renewal” in Rutland), “it is a battle of semantics, and being in a position of being more accepted in terms of the word ‘marriage.’ From our perspective, ‘marriage’ is drastically different. The word marriage,” he said, “implies, you know, it implies [the] opposite sex can form a union. So it’s very, very different from our perspective.”

I get a bit complacent about all this sometimes.  I don’t generally come out to people really, because it doesn’t occur to me that they don’t know I’m a lesbian.  I reference my partner by name in casual conversation so anyone who doesn’t know will figure it out pretty quickly, but I rarely use language to describe our relationship that anyone else wouldn’t use.  I.e., I refer to our anniversary, our house, etc.  

It doesn’t really occur to me to approach this any different way.

And yes, there are political opportunists who attack homosexuality, and there is occasionally harassment in Vermont and governor Douglas actually used the threat of same-sex marriage as part of his fundraising material.  

But still, I feel like, you know these people are just nuts and I think most people get that they’re nuts.

Then I pull up Pam’s House Blend and read that a Spanish jury acquitted a man of murder.  What was his crime?  Killing two gay men.  How did he kill them?  He stabbed them 57 times, looted their apartment to make it look like a robbery and then set the place ablaze.

His defense?  Gay panic.

I look at that video above from the courage campaign and I look at this story and I just don’t even know what to say or do about it.  It’s just terrifying to me.

It’s not like I’ve never been threatened by homophobes before.  I have (though not in a long time).  But I just think… this doesn’t make any sense.  It’s so completely insane to me and I just look at this and I just want to scream out “what the hell is wrong with you people?”

But that’s not just about that murder or that jury.  That’s really about Proposition 8 and the groups that oppose same-sex marriage in Vermont, and about anyone who thinks that they should be enforcing their anti-gay prejudices through the law.  

It’s really about what, to me, is the simplicity of this issue: we are human beings, like anyone else, and we deserve to be treated no better or worse than anyone else as a result of our sexual orientation.

This seems like it should be simple, but it’s also pretty damned clear that not everyone gets it.

And I honestly don’t know what to do other than to just present a real and true face of humanity to these people and hope for the best.

( – promoted by odum)

The Amazing Adventures of Political Jim; Fighting to preserve his political career and promote political amnesia.

You can see Chapter 1 here: http://tinyurl.com/cyuqk9

Join the Facebook group: http://tinyurl.com/dzo82y (There is a rumor I'll where my pants like Jim Douglas if the group gets big enough)

What is not a joke is Jim Douglas' double-speak, hypocrisy, and just plain old bad management of Vermont.

Want to help and have some fun? Get started:

Read the comic, invite some friends to the facebook group, add to the “unfunny” list, vote in the poll and don't let Douglas have an inch.

The UNFUNNY parts of Jim Douglas:

– Is a stooge for Vermont Yankee
– Thinks it is “not time” for Marriage Equality
– Proposes joke budgets with fake accounting example: leasing the lottery
– Loves Sarah Palin, John McCain, and GW Bush
– Think McDonald's jobs are the best Vermont can do
– Raises TONS of out-of-state corporate money
– Never stops campaigning but thinks it is “perverse” when other start planning

More UNFUNNY below the fold and if you have another UNFUNNY please add it to the list!

– Thinks stealing $40 million from teachers retirement is a good idea
– Puts politics before policy when it comes to most issues but especially sexual predators
– Thinks Jim=Jobs except Vermont has higher unemployment now than when he was elected
– Spends $1,000,000 a year of taxpayer money to help him deceive Vermonters
– Raises “fees” instead of taxes to keep his “no new taxes” pledge
– First thinks it is OK for state workers to work in buildings making them sick
– Then gives a contract to a mobile office company who just happens to be a huge campaign donor
– Would rather bailout companies in Louisiana than protect Vermonters
– Never said BOO about the Iraq war to GW Bush
– Thinks Vermont can’t do anything at all to help save polar bears
– Hates Wind for some yet still unexplained reason
– Loves cutting ribbons and taking credit for others good works
– Has politically appointed State Workers run his campaign
– Appoints his campaign workers as State Commissioners regardless of qualifications
– Loved staying in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House with GWB
– Has “undocumented workers” on his family farm which isn’t so bad if he wasn’t such a giant hypocrite about it
– Was “Nixon’s Man on Campus” while attending college
– Has questioned if segregation ever existed

 Loading ...

Just a quick note to say goodbye to friends of Green Mountain Daily as I turn my attention back to business.  I have a humble little start up company, Green Mountain Kitty Litter, that will need at least 60 hours/week to make successful.

It's been a good run for about two years and I'll have to say I found Green Mountain Daily to be a great community and an enlightening place to learn the ins and outs of Vermont politics.  

As my path turns from GMD to GMKL, I tip my hat to all and bid everyone an appreciative farewell.

Respectfully submitted,

Nate Freeman

NateFreeman@gmail.com 

From Green Mountain Daily

Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck at the Free Press blog:

Some post-Town Meeting Day thoughts:

– Democrats have come in third in the last two big Vermont races – for governor and mayor of Burlington.

“The last two big Vermont races.” Over a time frame spanning Town Meeting Day to last November’s election.

Of course, within that time frame, there were a few other elections too. Just not “big” ones, like mayor of Burlington. US Congress (won by a Democrat who didn’t even face a serious challenge), Secretary of State (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Attorney General (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Treasurer (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Auditor (won by a Democrat in a blowout) and Lieutenant Governor (where the Democrat came in second).

So these weren’t “big” elections, y’see. Not like mayor of Burlington. And Governor – well, that wouldn’t be a “big” election either, except that the Democrat came in third by 200 votes. That makes it major, y’see, because it supports Hallenbeck’s preconceived point.

I’m sorry, but so many adjectives come to mind, they’re all getting jammed up in my brain, leaving me slack-jawed. Maybe this is just an early April Fool’s post…?

Or maybe she meant to say Democrats have come in third in the last two big Vermont races which they came in third in.

I mean, there is just no other way to salvage such a naked absurdism.