“It’s time,” Rell said, her voice breaking. “I want to thank the people of Connecticut for the honor of serving as their governor.”

Rell has been Connecticut’s governor since 2004, when former Gov. John Rowland resigned in a corruption probe that would eventually lead to a conviction and prison time. She was elected to her own term in 2006, becoming the first Republican woman elected the state’s chief executive.

Her announcement came as a surprise at the Capitol and to her staff. Though her family knew of her plans, she said she gave them about an hour notice that she was going to make the decision public.

Saying there was no single reason for her decision, Rell said she’s not trying to dodge a fight, but said the state’s budget problems will require her full attention.

Connecticut did not pass a budget until September, which Rell allowed to become law without her signature. The budget is already in deficit, and the governor has said she plans to call lawmakers back to make more cuts.

“It’s not going to be a pretty year,” Rell said. “That’s why I need to focus right now, my attention on getting our budget in balance and dealing with the legislature.”

The 63-year-old Rell said her health and her husband’s health are fine. Both have had successful battles with cancer during her term. The governor, in 2004, underwent breast cancer surgery while her husband, Lou, had a small cancerous growth removed from his esophagus in 2007.

Connecticut’s only other woman governor, Ella Grasso, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1980 while in office, and died of the disease in 1981.

Over the past year, Rell has welcomed her second and third grandchildren, prompting speculation among some Capitol observers that she might not seek re-election.

“I know you’re all looking for one particular thing, or a whole host of things,” Rell told reporters assembled for an early evening news conference. “It isn’t just that we had such a difficult, bad budget year, and it’s not getting better.”

Rell, who does not have a college degree, began her career in politics on the local parent-teacher organization in Brookfield, Conn. She was elected to the state House in 1984, and lieutenant governor in 1995.

As governor she cultivated a folksy image, shopping for her clothes at discount stores and greeting voters in her stocking feet after a long day of campaigning. Her job approval reached an all-time high of 83 percent in a Jan. 13, 2005, survey.

Rell choked up while listing her favorite memories while in office, including meeting those affected by the passage of public health insurance for the poor, updates to mass transit, and improvements to the state’s education system. She cited a gay couple who hugged her at Stafford Motor Speedway after she signed the nation’s first voluntarily passed civil union bill.

“All they said was, ‘Thank You,” she said.

But her numbers have dipped in recent Quinnipiac University polls, due mostly to the state’s budget problems. A Sept. 16 poll showed 59 percent approve of how she’s handling her job while 34 percent disapproved – the lowest approval number during her tenure.

Rell’s administration has also become the focus of two investigations into the hiring of a University of Connecticut professor to oversee a two-year, $220,000 project aimed at streamlining state government. Democrats say e-mails first obtained by The Day of New London show that at least part of the work conducted by Professor Ken Dautrich, former director of the school’s polling institute, was done to help the governor politically.

Her departure, a week after Republicans won the statehouses in Virginia and New Jersey, leaves the party without a candidate with strong statewide credentials in Connecticut, where a Democrat has not been governor since William O’Neill left office in 1991.

The Democratic Governors Association said it was moving the race near the top of its list of potential pickups, meaning it will get more attention and funding.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr. of Norwalk, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney of Fairfield and Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a political unknown before being named Rell’s running mate in 2006, are all considered potential GOP candidates.

Cafero and McKinney said they were surprised by Rell’s announcement, and had hoped she would run.

“The timing sort of took me aback,” said Cafero. “I had absolutely no idea.”

McKinney said: “I think the state needs her.”

Fedele said it’s “a pretty good bet” he will run.

Among Democrats, businessman Ned Lamont, who became a national political figure in 2006 by defeating Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary, announced last week he was forming an exploratory committee.

“Now is the time for a fresh start,” he said in a statement Monday night.

Former House Speaker James Amann has already declared his candidacy, and exploratory committees have been formed by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, state Sen. Gary LeBeau and Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi.

“Clearly this does open it up even more for Democrats,” said state party chairwoman Nancy Dinardo.

It was an easy set up. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman contacted thinkers and writers who have penned a lot of words on the ills of gay marriage and asked them to make predictions of what social problems will happen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire now that those states have marriage rights.

You would think that given an opportunity to warn of the apocalypse would have these folk jump at the chance, but alas heavy hitters like Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz demurred. I’m surprised at Kurtz and will give him  a pass. He is the only marriage rights foe I can think of who does not come from the topic with anti-gay animus.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and author of “The Future of Marriage,” nibbled at the bait, but declined to give any specific predictions.

“I disagree with those who say it will have no impact at all,” Blankenhorn said. “But beyond that, I don’t think you can say.”

Proclaim same sex marriage will destroy the country but you can’t tell me how. Riiiiiight.

Those in favor of marriage rights played along.

M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of  “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” made this observation:  “In Europe, there’s no evidence that patterns have changed for marriage, divorce or non-marital births because of same-sex marriage or registered partnerships.”

I’m disappointed in the anti-gay marriage team. You would think after Chapman put down the gauntlet,  they would have swung for the fences.

And you wonder why we are winning the debate.

Post-script: this really shouldn’t be added but Gallagher did respond with some weak mess. Come on gurl. You can do better than people who don’t like same sex marriage will feel uncomfortable.

“Rip it from his throat!” a woman yells. “Come on, you homosexual demon! You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!”

The 20-minute video posted on YouTube by Manifested Glory Ministries is being called abuse by gay and youth advocates, who are demanding an investigation. But a church official this week denied that the teenager was injured or that the church is prejudiced.

“We believe a man should be with a woman and a woman should be with a man,” the Rev. Patricia McKinney told The Associated Press. “We have nothing against homosexuals. I just don’t agree with their lifestyle.”

The church posted the video on YouTube but has since removed it; it is still available on some Web sites that copied it. The church declined to make the video available for distribution by The Associated Press.

It shows church members standing the youth on his feet by holding him under his arms, and people shouting as organ music plays.

“Come out of his belly,” someone commands. “It’s in the belly – push.”

Later, the teenager is back on the floor, breathing heavily. Then he’s coughing and apparently vomiting into a bag.

“Get another bag,” a participant says. “Make sure you have your gloves.”

As the youth lay back on the ground, limp, church members put a white sheet over him.

It’s nearly impossible to say how often similar exercises occur in churches nationwide. But Kamora Herrington, who runs a mentoring program at True Colors and has worked with the youth, said she believes it’s fairly common.

“This happens all the time,” she said. “This is not isolated.”

Robin McHaelin, executive director of True Colors, an advocacy group for gay youths, said her organization is aware of five cases in recent years in which youths in her program were threatened with exorcism.

In one case, she said, a child called to report that his caregiver had called a priest who was throwing holy water on his bedroom door.

“I think it’s horrifying,” McHaelin said of the video by Manifested Glory. “What saddens me is the people that are doing this think they are doing something in the kid’s best interests, when in fact they’re murdering his spirit.”

McHaelin said she planned to report the situation to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. An agency spokesman said the agency does not comment on complaints or investigations.

“They have this kid in a full nelson,” she said. “That just seems abusive to me.”

McKinney said the youth was 18. The boy confirmed he is 16 but otherwise declined to comment, citing the advice of his pastor.

McHaelin said the boy told her staff that the church performed the ritual three times at his request. She said the boy has been engaging in risky behavior that she blames on the church’s treatment.

McKinney said the youth went to the church last year and collapsed on the floor during a service.

“He was out of control in the church,” she said. “This young man came to us. We didn’t go to him.”

McKinney denied the ritual was an exorcism, describing it instead as a casting out of spirits. She said the church took care of the youth, providing him clothes.

“He was dressing like a woman and everything. And he didn’t want to be like that,” McKinney said.

The teen had been in reform school for stealing but was eager to get out and go to the church to have what he thought were his demons driven out, Herrington said.

Exodus International, a Christian group that believes gays can become straight through prayer and counseling, does not advocate the church’s approach, said Jeff Buchanan, director of church equipping.

The Rev. Roland Stringfellow, a minister in Oakland, Calif., said he was subject to demon casting in the 1990s when he was at a Baptist church and was struggling with his sexuality. He said he was put in front of the church as members shouted “demon of homosexuality come out of him.”

“It caused nothing but shame and embarrassment,” Stringfellow said.

McKinney also has a weekly radio program. She talked on Wednesday’s program about being “persecuted” in recent days but did not mention the video specifically.

“It’s been a hard time for me, but I’m looking good and I’m standing strong because when you have a mandate like mine you’re not going to say what you want without the adversary coming after you,” she said. “If you are a true prophet you’re not going to be popular with the people.”

Requirements for marriage licenses vary from state to state, and couples  determining where to get married can find it baffling. Here’s a state-by-state equal marriage guide:

Connecticut:

The “Constitution State” followed Massachusetts  on Nov. 12, 2008, in allowing same-sex marriage. On Oct. 1, 2010, all existing civil unions will be automatically transformed into marriages.

* Where: Connecticut allows couples from out-of-state to get married, though they must apply for a license in either the town in which one of the individuals lives  or in the town in which the couple plans to marry. Couples can get the license from a local vital records office.
* How: Both partners must be present and must apply for the license in person.
* Out of state couples: Connecticut allows non-residents to get married.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $35, cash only.
* ID: In addition to a photo ID (divers license, visa, passport, or military ID), those wishing to get a license will need to know their social security number, their mother’s maiden name, their parent’s birthplace, the date and location of the wedding, and the contact information of the wedding officiant.
* Other: The license expires after 65 days.

Iowa:

As of April 27, 2009, Iowa allows  gay residents and non-residents of the state to get married.
* Where: Couples should contact the county clerk’s office in the city they live in or wish to get married in to find out where to apply for a license.
* How: Both partners wishing to get married must be present when applying for the license.
* Out of state couples: Couples from out of state are allowed to marry in Iowa, though couples should contact the county clerk’s office to make sure no additional information is needed for non-residents.
* Waiting period: Iowa requires a three-day waiting period.
* Cost: $30, cash only. This does vary from county to county.
* ID: Along with a photo ID and social security information, Iowa requires one witness over the age of 18 be present when applying for the license.
* Other: Licenses are valid for six months.

Maine:

Though the state passed an equal marriage bill on May 6, 2009, the law will not go into effect until Sept. 14. A  people’s veto could prevent the law from taking affect – conservative activists are working to overturn the law now.

* Where: Couples should contact the local county clerk office to find the location of the town office where they need to get their license.
* How: Both partners must be present at the town office in order to get a license
* Out-of-state couples: Out-of-state residents can apply in any city or town office in the state;  it does not have to be in the same town as the wedding.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $10 per person, cash only. Couples must also pay the cost of the certified documents, which varies.
* ID: A photo ID may be required, along with social security information.
* Other: The license is valid or 90 days, and no blood tets are required.

NEXT PAGE: Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire

“Are the people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire more sexually literate than Californians?” asked the National Sexuality Resource Center, a San Francisco-based think tank, naming the states where gays can or soon will be able to wed.

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, in a state that’s home to 14 percent of the nation’s same-sex couples and was the first to offer gays the spousal rights of marriage without being ordered to by a court.

Voters in 2008 passed the constitutional amendment, which trumped an earlier state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

In spite of the setback in the state, gay rights advocates say they still believe what happens there is important no matter the outcome. Supporters and opponents spent $83 million on the Proposition 8 campaign last year, making it the most expensive election on a social issue in the nation’s history.

“Certainly California remains very important in this epic struggle just because it’s so big,” said Richard Socarides, who served as President Bill Clinton’s adviser on gay civil rights.

And because of its size, gay rights advocates say they’ll continue their campaign to win over more voters. Leaders of Equality California and Courage Campaign said they have started canvassing in more conservative parts of the state, working with religious and ethnic groups and otherwise learning from mistakes made during last year’s failed campaign.

“The biggest thing California can do is win back marriage at the ballot box,” said Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director of Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which brought the lawsuit that led to Massachusetts becoming the first state to sanction same-sex marriage.

“We have won marriage in courts, we have even now marriage winning in legislatures,” she said. “To win it with the people would crumble the right wing’s whole house of cards.”

Bonauto said that if California advocates succeeded in getting Proposition 8 reversed, it would mark an unprecedented milestone: 28 other states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage but none have been challenged with a popular vote.

As California gay rights groups prepared to launch a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box next year, two lawyers announced Tuesday they had filed a federal lawsuit challenging the initiative in the hopes of getting the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the lawyers who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, said they think the high court is ripe to take on the issue. They filed on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.

“I felt it was very important we present the American people and the courts a unified front and tell the courts and the American people through our presence and our participation this is not about right or left or partisan politics,” Olson said. “This is about what we all share as Americans.”

But it wasn’t a move welcomed by all advocates. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the suit “sends a powerful message that the time for change has come,” but also warned the lawyers of the “only one shot at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

They and “any attorneys bringing a case that will affect the freedom and legal status of an entire community bear a very heavy responsibility to be certain they have fully considered the consequences,” Minter said.

Gay rights activists also were pressuring President Barack Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to work toward repealing the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.

The focus, however, remained on working though state legislatures and voters to win marriage rights, said Evan Wolfson, executive director of New York-based Freedom to Marry.

“Winning marriage in more states is crucial not only for the families living in those states, but for creating a comfort level that sets the stage for a national resolution,” he said.

Well the New Hampshire bill guarantees: “Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.”

And Conneticut’s marriage bill states:” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action, or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society”

Now we all want gay marriage laws to pass in New Hampshire, but this kind of language is redundant and just encourages discrimination by codifying a legislative approval of homophobia.

First, no religious institution in any country where gay marriage is permitted is ever forced to perform or participate in a gay marriage. Second, no private citizen is ever forced to perform or participate in a gay marriage. The only places that can’t discriminate against LGBT couples are public places that fall under the constitution.

Just like a synagogue can require it’s members to be Jewish before performing a wedding, a church can require it’s members to be straight before performing a wedding.

Gay marriage has never interfered with religious freedom. Not in any form proposed.

As for the responsibility to host a marriage ceremony if you are a public institution with a religious affiliation, you can’t refuse to rent your venue to gay couples for a civil union, the baptism of their child, a birthday party. Public institutions can’t get a license to discriminate just because they claim to be religious.

The important point is that the kind of language proposed for the New Hampshire Bill does not change the law. It does not change the fact that courts will look at a location or service provider and determine if they are, in fact, religious or public. All this language change does is make it clear to the public that the legislature thinks its ok to refuse services to same-sex couples. That public affirmation of bigotry is harmful.

Rudy Giuliani is a coward. Oh sure, he’ll talk about his leadership and bravery in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, but when he’s grovelling for votes the Rudy is all quisling. More than willing to throw friends under the bus. Even if those same friends let him stay in their place for 6 months during Giuliani’s very public divorce.

Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao tied the knot this week-end in Connecticut (congrats to them!). Giuliani and his significant other Judith Nathan (she was the reason for his public divorce) got an invite, but a secretary called on Thursday sending the regrets of America’s Mayor. We all know the Rudy man is mining the base of the GOP for support for a possible run as New York governor, and attending the wedding of two gay men who took you into their home is toxic. Oh it’s cheap and lowdown but Rudy is a pol and that is how they do (even the pols you like); I get that. But having a secretary make the call? Is Rudy scared of a phone? Worried about the attack ad some fundie will support?

If Giuliani responds to this kerfuffle, he’ll blame the media. Say how liberals really hate righteous men like him standing up for standards and marriage (yes the three time wed Rudy G will describe himself as righteous). This is a good tactic because it takes attention away from what really happened.

(Hartford, Conn.) A decade-long battle for same-sex marriage in Connecticut has ended with the governor’s signature on a bill updating the state’s laws.

“It feels so good. It really does feel like the book is closing,” said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a gay-rights group that has led the fight for same-sex marriage in the state.

A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she will sign the bill, which passed 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives, into law. While Rell, a Republican, signed the state’s 2005 civil unions law, she has said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The bill comes six months after the State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that same-sex couples have the right to wed in Connecticut, rather than accept the civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.

It redefines marriage in Connecticut as the legal union of two people. State law previously defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Even if the bill hadn’t passed, same-sex marriage would still be the law in Connecticut because of the court ruling. Proponents say the legislation is needed to phase out civil unions and make sure same-sex couples conform to the state’s marriage laws.

Three other states – Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa – also allow gay marriage.

The Connecticut bill transforms civil unions into marriages as of Oct. 1, 2010, unless they’ve been annulled or dissolved. Many couples with civil unions already have sought marriage licenses since the court decision.

In an effort to appease some gay marriage foes, lawmakers amended the bill to show they want to protect religious liberties. For example, it says religious organizations and associations are not required to provide services, goods or facilities for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

“We wanted to make it completely clear that the state of Connecticut fully embraces not only the rights of same-sex couples to marry, but we fully embrace the rights and protections afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution to the free exercise of religion,” said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, a gay marriage proponent.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes gay marriage, considered the amendment “a significant improvement” because the original bill did not include any protections for religious groups such as the Knights of Columbus, which often rents out halls for weddings.

“It made a bad bill better,” he said.

Carol Gignac, a 62-year-old Roman Catholic from Bristol, clutched her rosary beads as she watched Wednesday’s debate from the Senate gallery. She said she was praying during much of the day for God’s mercy on Connecticut.

While resigned to the fact that gay marriage is now the law, Gignac said it bothers her that the court made that decision.

“The sad day was the state Supreme Court changing the thousands-of-years definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, across cultures, across times,” said Gignac, who wore a sticker on her lapel that read: “Religious Liberty: Our Freedom First.”

Rep. Beth Bye, a West Hartford Democrat who is openly gay and recently married her partner, thanked her colleagues for supporting the bill.

“I’m grateful that this bill provides the respect and dignity that all marriages in Connecticut deserve,” said Bye, who received hugs of congratulations after the final tally.

Wednesday’s bill also strips language from a 1991 state anti-discrimination law that says Connecticut does not condone “homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle,” require the teaching of homosexuality or bisexuality “as an acceptable lifestyle,” set quotas for hiring gay workers or authorize recognition of same-sex marriage.

McDonald, who is openly gay, said the language is outdated and offensive to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

(Montpelier, Vermont) Vermont, which invented civil unions, on Tuesday became a pioneer again as the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislature’s vote, suggesting growing popular acceptance of the idea.

The House barely achieved the votes necessary to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill that will allow gays and lesbians to marry beginning September 1. Four states now have same-sex marriage laws and other states soon could follow suit.

Bills to allow same-sex marriage are currently before lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey. The three other states that currently allow same-sex marriage – Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa – each moved to do so through the courts, not legislatures.

“For a popularly elected legislature to make this decision is a much more democratic process” because lawmakers have to answer to the voters every other November, said Eric Davis, a retired Middlebury College political science professor.

Courts typically deal with arcane points of constitutional law. While legislatures debate some of the same principles, the process may become much more personal. In Vermont, some of the most gripping debate came when gay and lesbian lawmakers took to the House floor last Thursday and told their own personal love stories.

Getting gay marriage approved in a political, rather than purely legal, forum is a big step, said Boston University law professor Linda McClain, an expert on family law and policy. “What may give courage to other legislatures is that this legislature managed to do it,” she said.

She added that using the civil rights language of equality – the measure in Vermont was dubbed the marriage equality bill – could help make gay marriage more acceptable elsewhere.

Opponents said they, too, believe activists will be emboldened in other states. The action comes just days after the Iowa Supreme court ruled that not permitting gay marriage there was unconstitutional.

“To the millions of Americans who care about marriage, we say get ready: President Obama and Democrats will use Vermont as an excuse to overturn the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which waged a radio campaign against the measure. “The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and provides that states need not recognize the marriage of a same sex couple from another state.

To date, the same-sex marriage movement’s main gains have been in New England, which some attribute to Yankee liberalism and the gradual acceptance of gay relationships after Vermont’s groundbreaking civil unions law took effect in 2000.

Douglas had announced his intent to veto the gay marriage bill two weeks ago, saying he believed marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and calling the issue a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

In Tuesday’s vote, a “yes” was needed from two-thirds of those present to override the governor’s veto. The goal was easily achieved in the Senate, which voted 23-5, but in the House it was much closer, 100-49.

The speaker’s announcement of the results to a packed Statehouse chamber, set off whistles and cheers among supporters whose hopes had been temporarily dashed last month when the Republican governor announced he would veto the measure if it passed the Legislature.

Among the celebrants: Former state lawmaker Robert Dostis and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

“It’s been a very long battle. It’s been almost 20 years to get to this point,” Dostis said. “I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we’re a couple like any other couple. We’re as good and as bad as any other group of people.”

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

“Is that a proposal?” Kletecka asked.

“Yeah,” Dostis replied. “Twenty-five years together, I think it’s time we finally got married.”

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said his side was outspent by supporters by 20-1.

“The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen,” he said. “The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding.”

The measure had only 95 “yea” votes when it passed the House on Friday. But some changed their votes Tuesday.

Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who voted no twice because he’s philosophically opposed to gay marriage, joined most other Democrats in voting to override Douglas’ veto.

“I think if I wanted to continue my career here and have any chance of being effective, I had to vote with my caucus,” he said.

“You have some pet projects, you think you can help your district back home with things that need to happen,” he said. “I want to get a railroading bill through. I wouldn’t even have had a chance to testify, let alone get it through. Now, people will listen to me. It’s the way the political game is played.”

House Speaker Shap Smith said he didn’t use any specific arguments to get lawmakers to switch. He said he had argued mainly that they should support the will of the legislative majorities on the bill’s initial approvals – 95-52 in the House and 26-4 in the Senate.

“I thought it was to some degree just a vote to recognize the work that the Legislature had done,” the speaker said.

Sitting next to him was Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, a gay man who championed both the 2000 civil unions bill and this year’s gay marriage legislation.

“It’s been an incredibly powerful personal journey,” Lippert said. “I consider it my personal great good fortune to be a member of the Vermont Legislature under the leadership of speakers who have in fact prioritized civil rights for the community of which I’m a part. It touches me deeply.”