In a surprise announcement he attributed mainly to personal reasons, the 58-year-old Republican said he wouldn’t run for another two-year term next year but had no plans to seek other elected office.

“…As any farmer knows after many years working sunup to sundown, seven days a week, there comes a time to turn over the reins to fresh arms. For me, that time is approaching. After 36 years as a public servant, 28 of those years in statewide office, with what will be eight years as governor, and through 15 statewide elections, I will have held center stage long enough for anybody.’

Douglas, who’d said in recent months that he planned to run again, made the annoucnement midway through his fourth term in a room packed with longtime aides, supporters and some political opponents. He wasn’t specific in saying why he didn’t want to continue in the job, saying only he’d been in public service long enough.

“I know there will be some speculation as to what is next, so I want to lay a few questions to rest immediately: I am not running for president. (Wife) Dorothy has a divorce lawyer on speed dial if I ever utter that crazy idea,” he said.

Elected recently to chair the National Governors Association, he also has been an informal advisor to President Barack Obama on health care and other issues.

A fiscal conservative and social moderate who has bucked Vermont’s political tide for years, Douglas has endured an increasingly rocky relationship with the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature. In April, the Legislature approved gay marriage over his veto. The Legislature also overrode his veto of the state budget.

Three Democrats have already announced plans to run against Douglas in 2010.

On the Republican side, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie is seen as the most obvious candidate. He left the door open to a potential run Thursday.

“The Governor’s announcement today changes the political landscape in Vermont,” said Dubie. “As Vermonters reflect on this new landscape, I will contemplate my options. Right now, I will focus on doing my job. I will discuss my plans when the time is right.”

A fixture in Vermont politics since 1972, when he was elected to the House of Representatives as a 21-year-old fresh out of Middlebury College, Douglas went on to serve as secretary of state and state treasurer before being elected governor in 2002.

In a prepared statement, the governor attempted to portray himself as a moderate, putting the blame on the federal defense of marriage law.

“This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents,” the statement said. “Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same-sex couples in Vermont.”

Douglas said that the legislation does not provide any additional benefits not already available under Vermont’s civil unions law.

The veto sends the bill back to the Democratically controlled legislature, where it needs a two-thirds vote to override it.

The Senate will easily override the veto.  It approved the marriage bill by an overwhelming majority.  But the House is a different matter.  It passed the bill last week 94-52. It would need 100 votes to overturn the veto. Both sides on the issue have predicted it could come down to just two or three votes – possibly less.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then, LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two-tiered” system – marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

If the House overrides the veto, the bill would become law.

It would amend the existing civil unions law to allow marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

The bill also would guarantee that churches would not be obligated to marry same-sex couples.

Throughout the weekend, House Democratic leaders worked the phones attempting to build enough votes to override a veto. But as of Monday morning it was unclear if they had succeeded.

The legislation passed the House last week 94-52. It would need 100 votes to overturn a veto. Both sides on the issue predicted it could come down to just two or three votes.

While the Democratic leadership worked to build support ordinary citizens, both supporters and opponents of gay marriage, were flooding lawmakers e-mail boxes. Electronic mail to the State House has more than doubled in the days following House passage of the bill.

Adding to the uncertainty is what effect Friday’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa will have on Vermont. It has emboldened both LGBT activists and supporters of traditional marriage.

The bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority – enough to ensure it is veto proof.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two tiered” system – marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

If the House manages to override Douglas’ veto same-sex couples would be able to marry in Vermont beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

An impact study released last month suggests there is a link between the economy and gay marriage.

The study, by the Williams Institute at UCLA, found that approval of gay marriage in Vermont could generate $31 million in new spending and $3.3 million in state taxes over three years.

Last November, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based LGBT rights group that brought the successful legal challenges leading to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012.

The measure passed the House Judiciary Committee 8-2 on Monday, sending it to the full House, but not without several amendments.

One would guarantee that churches would not be obligated to marry same-sex couples.  Another preserves the words husband and wife on marriage licenses while affirming same-sex couples can marry, and a third allows private church-based organizations to refuse facilities and membership to gay couples.

One Republican and seven Democrats voted in favor of the bill.

The Senate already has overwhelmingly approved a marriage equality bill. But Douglas has said if the legislation passes the House, he will veto it.

The House version is expected to pass, but it remains unclear if it will garner enough votes to override a veto.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then, LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two tiered” system – marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

Under the marriage bill, the civil unions law would allow marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

Supporters cast the debate as a civil rights issue, saying a civil unions law enacted by the state in 2000 has fallen short of the equality it promised same-sex couples. Its appeal has declined, too: In 2001, the state granted 1,876 civil unions, compared with only 262 last year.

An impact study released earlier this month suggests there is a link between the economy and gay marriage.

The study, by the Williams Institute at UCLA, found that approval of gay marriage in Vermont could generate $31 million in new spending and $3.3 million in state taxes over three years.

Last November, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based LGBT rights group that brought the successful legal challenges leading to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012

In the first two days after he pledged to veto a same-sex marriage bill, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas’ mailbag and e-mail inbox runneth over, with about 1,500 letters and messages pouring in.

Some were critical:

- “(Vetoing the bill) would clearly show the deep feelings of discrimination, bigotry and hate you feel for a group of Vermont people who have already had to wait for equal marriage rights in our state too long,” wrote a Newport man.

-”Being ahead of one’s time is what brought slavery and racial discrimination to an end … please support the Freedom to Marry bill,” wrote a Putney man.

- ” … your choice to veto is a slap in the face and a firm reminder that in your opinion, my partner and I are worth less than others simply because we are of the same gender,” wrote a South Burlington man, saying he refuses to be “a second class citizen in this state.”

Some were supportive:

- “It takes courage,” wrote a woman from Ovando, Mont. “Keep up the fight. Our prayers are with you. You are setting an example for other states.”

- “Our children, grand children will be harmed by this bill,” wrote a Milton woman. “I’ve seen what their teaching can do to a impressionistic teenage (sic) like my nephew, who is very confused. Please, please, please veto this bill.”

- “Your stance is reasonable and not unkind,” wrote a Burlington woman. “It must have been a difficult political decision, but right nonetheless. There are many Vermonters who are with you, but simply don’t how to articulate it. Hold firm!”

The missives, made available in response to an Access to Public Records Act request filed by The Associated Press, show the ardor of both supporters and opponents on the issue and on Douglas’ planned veto of a bill legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

Democrats in the Legislature say they plan to pass the bill, but the Republican governor said Wednesday he will veto it if they do. His announcement has galvanized forces on both sides of the issue, prompting the flood of mail from around the nation.

The state Senate has approved the measure, and the state House of Representatives is expected to vote on it Friday.

Vermont would become the third state allowing same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut. The California Supreme Court lifted a ban on same-sex marriage there last spring, but voters restored the ban six months later.

“This is an emotional, divisive issue,” Douglas spokeswoman Dennise Casey said.

Before Douglas’ announcement, the letters and e-mails on gay marriage were running about 70 percent against the bill to legalize it, Casey said. Since the announcement, supporters of same-sex marriage have been outnumbering opponents, with 60 percent of the letters and e-mails received speaking in favor it and 40 percent against, she said.

Some supporters pledged to take out their displeasure at the ballot box, threatening to vote against Douglas.

“You have disappointed me,” wrote a Middlesex man. “I will vote against you in the primary if you choose to seek re-election, and I will not vote for you again in any election,” said the man, who said he was from a family now turning from “formerly loyal Republicans into Democrats.”

Hang in there, same-sex marriage opponents told him.

“I know you are under great pressure from all sorts of pro-gay lobbies/groups, but it’s time that people used some backbone and stood against these pressures, no matter what the cost,” wrote a man from Indianapolis.

Until now, Douglas has been silent on whether he would exercise his veto power, saying only that he thinks the state’s civil unions law is sufficient.

The gay marriage bill passed the Senate on Monday 26-4. The House began hearings this week on the legislation.

It is expected that the bill will encounter little difficulty in the House, but the vote will be much closer than in the Senate.

Whether it will garner enough House support to override the veto is unclear.

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Since then,  LGBT groups have criticized the law for creating a “two tiered” system – marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for gays.

Under the marriage bill, the civil unions law would allow marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1. Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.

Supporters cast the debate as a civil rights issue, saying a civil unions law enacted by the state in 2000 has fallen short of the equality it promised same-sex couples. Its appeal has declined, too: In 2001, the state granted 1,876 civil unions, compared with only 262 last year.

An impact study released earlier this month suggests there is a link between the economy and gay marriage.

The study, by the Williams Institute at UCLA, found that approval of gay marriage in Vermont could generate $31 million in new spending and $3.3 million in state taxes over three years.

Last November, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based LGBT rights group that brought the successful legal challenges leading to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012.

Opponents say gay marriage would undermine traditional male-female marriage, rendering men and women interchangeable and destroying the connection between children and marriage. They want the question put to voters in a referendum.

Vermont Senate Majority Leader John Campbell said earlier this week he would file the bill -  to amend the state’s civil union law to provide for full marriage – in the new session of the legislature.

But Campbell said the measure’s success with fellow lawmakers would depend on the governor’s support.

Douglas said Thursday that civil unions are adequate and that the legislature should be focusing on the economy.

“I think the current civil union law is sufficient,” Douglas said.  “It accords equality of rights to Vermonters in terms of their relationships and I think we should leave the law as it is.”

Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force chair Beth Robinson called the governor’s position unfortunate and said it implies he believes lawmakers can only deal with one issue at a time.

“The Legislature can absolutely do more than one thing at once,” Robinson told The Associated Press.

“The notion that working on civil rights takes away from these other issues really is a false one.”

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000. Last year, an 11-member commission was set up by the leaders of the Vermont House and Senate, both Democrats, to look into Vermont’s civil unions law to see if it is providing equality for gay and lesbian couples.

It submitted its report to the legislature in April, but made no recommendations on revising the law to allow for same-sex marriage.

The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection detailed months of hearings it held throughout the state, where same-sex couples complained they were still discriminated against because employers, hospitals and insurance companies do not see their relationships as the equivalent of marriage.

The commission was chaired by former state Rep. Tom Little (R). Little was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when it passed the law legalizing civil unions in 2000.

Little said the commission purposely decided not to include recommendations in the report. “That’s a decision for Vermont’s elected officials,” Little said at the time.

A public opinion survey earlier this year found that the majority of people in the state believe gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry.

Earlier this week, the Boston-based group that won equal marriage rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut announced an ambitious plan to fight for equal marriage throughout New England and predicted success in the four additional states by 2012.

Meanwhile, police are investigating a death threat against Campbell over his gay marriage bill.

The threat was made by an anonymous woman angry over the proposed bill who telephoned Campbell. Campbell said she threatened to blow up his home.

Campbell said the threat was not just against him but also his family.