This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 28, 2009.
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
"It ain't over till it's over," said baseball sage Yogi Berra. So it is with this year's legislative session. Though they have adjourned, they will be back.
At least one act of the legislature will have a lasting and profound effect on Vermont and, perhaps, the nation.
That act, S.115, has a deceptively meek title: "An act relating to civil marriage." Known colloquially as the Same-Sex Marriage Act, it will give same-sex couples marriage equity as of September 1, 2009. Plan on extensive news coverage of wedding ceremonies that day.
The act also protects religious institutions, specifically allowing almost any such institution in the state to refuse to perform any marriage that violates its beliefs.
The act, in just ten printed pages, made Vermont a vanguard in the effort to bring marriage equity to the entire nation. Vermont is the first state to have its legislature open up marriage to same sex couples, rather than have it imposed by the state's judiciary. After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the act, there was uncertainty whether the legislature could garner the votes to override. On April 7, however, the legislature was able to override the veto, by the absolute narrowest of margins.
S.115 was the most high-profile bill the legislature worked on, but not the only one.
For young hunters, H.64 eliminates Youth Hunting Day for Vermonters sixteen and under, and expands Youth Hunting Weekend to anyone fifteen and under who has taken a hunter safety course.
An important act for wine producers, S.27 allows "manufacturers or rectifiers of vinous beverages" to hold wine-tastings on their property, as long as they provide 14-day notice of the event to the department of liquor control. The act also allows producers to sell products they did not produce, which could increase networking opportunities for this burgeoning industry.
Notably for Williston, H.31 approves our charter changes, including one that allows the town manager to appoint and discharge the zoning administrator. Also important for the Williston community, teacher Al Myers was honored with House Concurrent Resolution 160, the passage of which was witnessed by many Williston students.
Despite all this good work, though, it ain't quite over yet. The Governor is recalling the legislature into a special session to deal with the budget. The budget approved by the legislature, in bill H.441, has come under fire from the Governor as being irresponsible and unsustainable.
This is the governor's job -- to use his judgement to determine if bills passed by the legislature are appropriate for the state and to veto them if they are not. Since the budget passed the Democrat-controlled house by a comfortable margin, but not by enough to override a veto, the threat of a veto is being taken seriously. The governor's proposal is being looked at closely by legislative leaders as they prepare for the special session.
According to news reports, though, those leaders are not happy with what they've seen. The governor's budget has cuts that the legislature does not want to see, but worse, it envisions savings that have no definite source.
Democrats want to tax higher-income Vermonters, placing a $5000 cap on itemized deductions and replacing the 40% exemption on capital gains tax with the $5000 cap. The additional funds raised allowed the legislative budget to cut across-the-board taxes and to avoid additional budget cuts. The governor argues against the adjustment because he opposes new revenue in general and wants to see more cuts to the budget.
The budget is an essential part of the running of the government, which is why this dodge and parry is even taking place at all. The governor's veto pen is his leverage, but the legislature is not without some leverage of its own. Without a budget, the wheels of government will grind to a halt, and as the executive, the governor will shoulder much of the blame if a compromise cannot be reached.
State Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon has volunteered to help mediate the differences between the two proposed budgets. This would certainly be a positive step. The best scenario for the state would be for the two sides to come to a compromise before the special session, and then have the session simply rubber-stamp that compromise.
Then, it would be over.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tempering Faction
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 16, 2009.
Tempering Faction
I was recently asked a question about the Constitution that comes through my email box every so often in one of two forms. The first is "Where are political parties mentioned in the Constitution?" The second is "How does the Constitution support the two-party system?"
The first question is the easier one to answer. The Constitution does not mention political parties at all. Political parties evolved in our system after the ratification of the Constitution, so it would have been great foresight for the Constitution to have included them.
However, even in the later amendments, right up to those proposed and ratified in the 20th century, we managed to keep any mention of parties out of the Constitution.
The harder question is the second one, and it is a good question. Since the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats have traded the presidency and control of the Congress. Rarely has a third party had a lasting effect.
Third parties have had a role to play in our political history, even if it was a fleeting role. Free Soil, Anti-Mason, Prohibition, Socialist, Reform, Green - these parties raised issues that the major parties eventually had to deal with.
The second question usually has a masked underlying question: Is the two-party system something positive, something worth retaining?
While there is something to be said for third parties, I think that we have a good thing with our two-party system, something worth retaining.
However, we also have something that some of our most influential founding fathers found to be a real issue in politics. The faction, better known today as "special interests."
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers as Publius, warned against special interests tearing at the fabric of society. Madison saw two ways of controlling factions: "The one, by removing its causes; the other by controlling its effects."
Madison knew it was pointless to remove the cause of faction, dangerous even. Only by removing liberty or by making all persons the same could the cause of faction disappear.
Better, then, to control the effect of faction. The federal system, with representative democracy, was his solution for the nation, the solution offered by the Constitution. In such a system, majority opinion is important, but minority rights are just as important, and protected.
Of course, factions still emerge. We see the divisions starkly, at the national, state, and local levels.
Pro-life versus pro-choice; for and against gay marriage; Option B versus Option C for our schools.
When factions are truly destructive is when the two sides cannot find common ground. On the most polarizing issues, common ground can be hard to find, especially when there are some on the fringes who will not budge. But there is almost always common ground to be found.
This is where discussion, compromise, and agreement come into play. The fringes can sabotage agreement, but only if they're allowed to. The larger part of any faction will be willing to compromise. Take the gay marriage debate as just one example.
When the state Supreme Court forced the issue in 1999, the state legislature heard from both sides - those who were adamantly opposed to gay marriage and those just as adamantly for it. By April of 2000, a compromise was reached, and civil unions became the law of this state.
Today, after nine years under that law, Vermonters decided that the advent of civil unions did not cause the downfall of society, and, in fact, enhanced it by granting similar rights to committed same-sex couples. In September, we will take the final step, and make marriage an institution available to any committed couple.
Through compromise and patience, the factions came together enough so that equal rights could be guaranteed.
It is a model for all factional disagreements that we face. The solution might not be perfect, but if found by compromise, it can at least be a shared victory, and when the opportunity arises again to reexamine the issue, lessons learned from the past can be applied.
This nation, this state, this community, all have had to deal with the passions of faction in the past. We deal with them now. We will deal with them in the future. The one thing I'm certain of is that through compromise, and patience, a suitable solution can always be found.
Tempering Faction
I was recently asked a question about the Constitution that comes through my email box every so often in one of two forms. The first is "Where are political parties mentioned in the Constitution?" The second is "How does the Constitution support the two-party system?"
The first question is the easier one to answer. The Constitution does not mention political parties at all. Political parties evolved in our system after the ratification of the Constitution, so it would have been great foresight for the Constitution to have included them.
However, even in the later amendments, right up to those proposed and ratified in the 20th century, we managed to keep any mention of parties out of the Constitution.
The harder question is the second one, and it is a good question. Since the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats have traded the presidency and control of the Congress. Rarely has a third party had a lasting effect.
Third parties have had a role to play in our political history, even if it was a fleeting role. Free Soil, Anti-Mason, Prohibition, Socialist, Reform, Green - these parties raised issues that the major parties eventually had to deal with.
The second question usually has a masked underlying question: Is the two-party system something positive, something worth retaining?
While there is something to be said for third parties, I think that we have a good thing with our two-party system, something worth retaining.
However, we also have something that some of our most influential founding fathers found to be a real issue in politics. The faction, better known today as "special interests."
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers as Publius, warned against special interests tearing at the fabric of society. Madison saw two ways of controlling factions: "The one, by removing its causes; the other by controlling its effects."
Madison knew it was pointless to remove the cause of faction, dangerous even. Only by removing liberty or by making all persons the same could the cause of faction disappear.
Better, then, to control the effect of faction. The federal system, with representative democracy, was his solution for the nation, the solution offered by the Constitution. In such a system, majority opinion is important, but minority rights are just as important, and protected.
Of course, factions still emerge. We see the divisions starkly, at the national, state, and local levels.
Pro-life versus pro-choice; for and against gay marriage; Option B versus Option C for our schools.
When factions are truly destructive is when the two sides cannot find common ground. On the most polarizing issues, common ground can be hard to find, especially when there are some on the fringes who will not budge. But there is almost always common ground to be found.
This is where discussion, compromise, and agreement come into play. The fringes can sabotage agreement, but only if they're allowed to. The larger part of any faction will be willing to compromise. Take the gay marriage debate as just one example.
When the state Supreme Court forced the issue in 1999, the state legislature heard from both sides - those who were adamantly opposed to gay marriage and those just as adamantly for it. By April of 2000, a compromise was reached, and civil unions became the law of this state.
Today, after nine years under that law, Vermonters decided that the advent of civil unions did not cause the downfall of society, and, in fact, enhanced it by granting similar rights to committed same-sex couples. In September, we will take the final step, and make marriage an institution available to any committed couple.
Through compromise and patience, the factions came together enough so that equal rights could be guaranteed.
It is a model for all factional disagreements that we face. The solution might not be perfect, but if found by compromise, it can at least be a shared victory, and when the opportunity arises again to reexamine the issue, lessons learned from the past can be applied.
This nation, this state, this community, all have had to deal with the passions of faction in the past. We deal with them now. We will deal with them in the future. The one thing I'm certain of is that through compromise, and patience, a suitable solution can always be found.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
On Marriage and Civil Union
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 28, 2008. It has been slightly edited from its original form.
On Marriage and Civil Union
Almost a decade ago, an issue swept through Vermont, an issue that many predicted would trigger a sea change in Vermont politics and in Vermont's political leadership.
In December, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws were inherently unfair to gay couples, and it told the Vermont Legislature to decide how to resolve the issue.
The legislature considered expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples, but it eventually decided that the best solution for the time was a new institution, civil union. In April of 2000, civil union became law.
As all of this was unfolding, the Take Back Vermont effort was launched, with two planks in its platform: that native Vermonters were fighting back against flatlanders foisting unwanted changes on the state; and that the majority really didn't want civil unions, but the elected members of the government had a different agenda. Many speculated that in the elections later in 2000, incumbents would be tossed out in droves.
The first civil union license was issued in July of 2000, and by November, most Vermonters realized that civil unions would not cause the state to come crumbling down. That predicted sea change never materialized, and very little changed in Montpelier that year.
Today, it is not uncommon to still see Take Back Vermont signs dotting the rural landscape, a reminder of those interesting days. But bringing up more memories than the occasional detritus of grassroots campaigns of the past are the public hearings that the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection held since August, culminating in a final hearing held in Williston earlier this month.
The Commission is charged with studying the laws concerning same-sex unions, the families those unions form, and how to best protect those families.
Most opponents of same-sex marriage decided that the Commission was stacked against their position from the start. Rather than offer reasoned arguments against same-sex marriage, organized opposition stayed away. The most common suggestion offered, then, was to do away with civil union and do as Massachusetts has done: extend marriage to same-sex couples.
My own personal suggestion, though, is nearly the opposite. Instead of extending marriage to same-sex couples, Vermont should extend civil union to opposite-sex couples.
The reason is this: marriage is currently shared by the church and the state, creating two kinds of marriage - religious and civil. Marriage, however, should be the exclusive purview of religion. My suggestion would do just that, make marriage a religious institution only.
Today, when a couple marries in a church, there is a religious ceremony that joins the couple in the eyes of that church. At the same time, however, the celebrant signs a civil certificate that declares the couple married in the eyes of the law.
If civil marriage is eliminated, couples would still marry in a church, if they wish, and as part of the process, the celebrant would still sign a civil certificate, but one that declares the couple joined, not married, in the eyes of the law.
The idea may seem radical, but really, it is simply renaming what already happens, and in doing so, removing a primary objection to extending marriage to same-sex couples: the use of the word "marriage."
Now, there are several issues that will open up with a change such as this. For example, if you are a couple joined in civil union, same-sex or not, what box do you check on federal tax forms? What do we do with couples who are now civilly married, or with married couples who move to Vermont from out of state?
These are big questions, with implications that extend beyond our borders, and they will not be easy to answer - I certainly don't pretend to know the answers. We are, however, Vermonters, and we like a challenge.
In the end, the Commission could recommend a real sea change, or it could recommend the status quo. Either way, there will be those who will be disappointed, even angry. The important thing to remember, however, is that the Commission is not looking to make people happy. It is not looking to protect marriage or to destroy it. It is looking at how to protect Vermont families, of all types.
This is truly a worthy goal, and on that, hopefully, we all agree.
On Marriage and Civil Union
Almost a decade ago, an issue swept through Vermont, an issue that many predicted would trigger a sea change in Vermont politics and in Vermont's political leadership.
In December, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws were inherently unfair to gay couples, and it told the Vermont Legislature to decide how to resolve the issue.
The legislature considered expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples, but it eventually decided that the best solution for the time was a new institution, civil union. In April of 2000, civil union became law.
As all of this was unfolding, the Take Back Vermont effort was launched, with two planks in its platform: that native Vermonters were fighting back against flatlanders foisting unwanted changes on the state; and that the majority really didn't want civil unions, but the elected members of the government had a different agenda. Many speculated that in the elections later in 2000, incumbents would be tossed out in droves.
The first civil union license was issued in July of 2000, and by November, most Vermonters realized that civil unions would not cause the state to come crumbling down. That predicted sea change never materialized, and very little changed in Montpelier that year.
Today, it is not uncommon to still see Take Back Vermont signs dotting the rural landscape, a reminder of those interesting days. But bringing up more memories than the occasional detritus of grassroots campaigns of the past are the public hearings that the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection held since August, culminating in a final hearing held in Williston earlier this month.
The Commission is charged with studying the laws concerning same-sex unions, the families those unions form, and how to best protect those families.
Most opponents of same-sex marriage decided that the Commission was stacked against their position from the start. Rather than offer reasoned arguments against same-sex marriage, organized opposition stayed away. The most common suggestion offered, then, was to do away with civil union and do as Massachusetts has done: extend marriage to same-sex couples.
My own personal suggestion, though, is nearly the opposite. Instead of extending marriage to same-sex couples, Vermont should extend civil union to opposite-sex couples.
The reason is this: marriage is currently shared by the church and the state, creating two kinds of marriage - religious and civil. Marriage, however, should be the exclusive purview of religion. My suggestion would do just that, make marriage a religious institution only.
Today, when a couple marries in a church, there is a religious ceremony that joins the couple in the eyes of that church. At the same time, however, the celebrant signs a civil certificate that declares the couple married in the eyes of the law.
If civil marriage is eliminated, couples would still marry in a church, if they wish, and as part of the process, the celebrant would still sign a civil certificate, but one that declares the couple joined, not married, in the eyes of the law.
The idea may seem radical, but really, it is simply renaming what already happens, and in doing so, removing a primary objection to extending marriage to same-sex couples: the use of the word "marriage."
Now, there are several issues that will open up with a change such as this. For example, if you are a couple joined in civil union, same-sex or not, what box do you check on federal tax forms? What do we do with couples who are now civilly married, or with married couples who move to Vermont from out of state?
These are big questions, with implications that extend beyond our borders, and they will not be easy to answer - I certainly don't pretend to know the answers. We are, however, Vermonters, and we like a challenge.
In the end, the Commission could recommend a real sea change, or it could recommend the status quo. Either way, there will be those who will be disappointed, even angry. The important thing to remember, however, is that the Commission is not looking to make people happy. It is not looking to protect marriage or to destroy it. It is looking at how to protect Vermont families, of all types.
This is truly a worthy goal, and on that, hopefully, we all agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)