Posts tagged ‘Jim Douglas’

April 4th, 2009

Letter to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas – Righteous Republicans

Governor Jim Douglas
109 State Street, Pavilion
Montpelier, VT 05609-0101

April 3, 2009

RE: Civil marriage bill S.115

Dear Governor Douglas,

The mayor of San Diego was about to veto a bill very similar to S. 115, a statement in support of same-sex marriage in California. He wound up signing it. He said:

For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community. As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night I could just not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.

It is not too late for you to consider what message you are sending if you veto S. 115. I would be disappointed if you chose to tell some Vermonters that they are less deserving of their religious freedom simply because of their sexual orientation.

Sincerely,

Attachment: Mayor Sanders’ statement

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Statement on the City Council Resolution Supporting Same Sex Marriage

“With me this afternoon is my wife, Rana.

“I am here this afternoon to announce that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage.

“My plan, that has been reported publicly, was to veto the resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans right now an explanation for this change of heart. During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.

“I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinions on this issue have evolved significantly, as I think the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life have. In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.
“The arrival of the resolution, to sign or veto, in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart, to do what I think is right, and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.
“For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community. As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, than anyone else — simply because of their sexual orientation.

“A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years. I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that’s natural, and certainly it is true in my case.

“Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed. The concept of a “separate but equal” institution is not something that I can support.

“I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today. All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right. I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff. I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones, for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back, someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s experiences. And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana. Thank you.”

Share
April 3rd, 2009

Letter to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas – Civil Sameness

Governor Jim Douglas
109 State Street, Pavilion
Montpelier, VT 05609-0101

April 2, 2009

RE: Civil marriage bill S.115

Dear Governor Douglas,

You have said that Vermont’s civil union law has extended the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

I invite you to dissolve your marriage with Dorothy and replace it with a Civil Union.

If that is unappealing to you then I suggest that you “do unto others” and sign S. 115 to end marriage apartheid in Vermont.

Sincerely,

Share
April 2nd, 2009

Letter to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas – April’s Fool

Governor Jim Douglas
109 State Street, Pavilion
Montpelier, VT 05609-0101

April 1, 2009

RE: Civil marriage bill S.115

Dear Governor Douglas,

Today was April Fool’s day, so when I first heard that the Governor of Vermont was going to veto S. 115, “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage,” I didn’t believe it.

But sure enough, you did promise to veto it. Imagine that – you are just another Republican who thinks that he knows better than I do how to live my life; another Christian who thinks he is more worthy of civil sacraments than I am; another American who does to others as he would not do to himself.

I hope that you are really just fooling and that you will at the end of the day you will do what’s right, and sign S. 115.

Sincerely,

Share
April 1st, 2009

Letter to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas – No Excuse

Governor Jim Douglas
109 State Street, Pavilion
Montpelier, VT 05609-0101

March 31, 2009

RE: Civil marriage bill S.115

Dear Governor Douglas,

What I don’t get is why in a state with its long history of accepting gays and lesbians on par with heterosexuals, you are unwilling to take the final step towards full equality?

The excuses that you give – that it is a “personal” decision, that it “interferes” with lawmakers’ attention to the economy – all ring hollow to me.

I would like an explanation that I am not embarrassed to tell my kids. One that explains why an American would deny freedom to another; why a Republican would meddle in individual personal relationships, or why a Christian would go against even the teachings of his UCC Church and treat others as he would not like to be treated himself.

Sincerely,

Share