On behalf of the State of Vermont, Governor Douglas is threatening to deny equal marriage opportunities to same gender couples.  This will have at least one of the following results.

1.  A long, drawn out, expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the legislature, if not this year, then soon.

OR

2.  A long, drawn out expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the Supreme Court next door to the State House.

Or

3.  The Governor will force “Number 1” which will lead to “Number 2” with the Vermont Courts, which will put us RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY and will require additional legislation to carry out the Court's order.

If the Governor goes through with his discrimination veto, he will inevitably force court and legislative battles. The Governor's pro-discrimination veto will send us — in 2010/2011/2012 — right back to the 2009 General Assembly.  Right back to the 2009 General Assembly that is, today, proudly standing with all Vermonters and protecting their rights. 

If the Governor chooses the path of division, delay, distraction and the disgrace of rejecting Vermonters' rights to marry — all of our rights as Vermonters and as people — to enjoy State created legal marriage benefits, then the following is a harbinger of what's to come. 

You did not read it here first, but you will read something like it soon enough if the Governor chooses goes through with his discrimination veto.

Back to the future, below: 

The Iowa Supreme Court eloquently addressed the issue of how its Constitution, just like Vermont's, protects the rights of citizens who want to enjoy the benefits of State created civil marriage. 

Quoted below is just a brief sample of the type of language we should expect to hear from the Vermont Supreme Court if Governor Douglass carries through with his discrimination veto against Vermonters.

Like Iowa's, Vermont's Constitution affords all Vermonters the right to civil marriage.  Here is what the Iowa Supreme Court had to say in response to the argument that marriage rights must be affirmatively denied to homosexuals by the State:

It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past .  .  . 

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois, and twenty five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, see Ex parte Lockwood. In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.” []

. . . [T]his court . . . faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

And how does the Iowa Supreme Court answer this question, and what can we expect here in Vermont if the Governor forces an expensive, divisive and needlessly cruel and drawn-out court battle to secure fundamental equal protection for all Vermonters?  The end result will sound something like this:

From the Iowa Court —

[There is no] constitutionally adequate justification for excluding [homosexual Iowans] from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. [Defendants are unable to show] the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification [banning marriage rights] that [advances] any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in [the Iowa statute] limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken . . . and . . . must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Relative to the Iowa defendants' argument that some couples in Iowa should be denied the marriage rights of other couples, the Court went straight to the point and declared that the State's Constitution – like Vermont's – is there to defend the liberty of the State's residents. Constitutional democracy does not exist to “protect” the prejudices of those who would deny equal right, equal liberty and equal legal protection to their neighbors. 

Once again, you did not hear it here first, but if Governor Douglas carries through on his threat to issue a discrimination veto and creates a long, divisive and unnecessarily mean fight, the will ultmimately and needlessly be thrown at the Courts for the resolution, which is already that is sitting on his desk, then here is a taste of what the Vermont Supreme Court will say about the Douglas' “legacy:”

From the Iowa Supreme Court — 

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans [and like many Vermonters], some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans [and like all Vermonters who do not subscribe to illiberal discrimination], they prize their liberties and live within [Iowa/Vermont] with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected . . .

Please take time to read the entire decision Varnum v. Polk Co. Dk't 07-1499 (Iowa 2009).