Over in Montpelier, America’s smallest state capital, legislators – about to return after town meeting recess – are bogged down (as are their counterparts across the nation) trying to cut spending quickly enough to keep pace with the plummeting economy.

While walking, the Democratic-controlled bodies have signaled their intent to also chew gum. In this case, the gum is a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Vermont has experience in this department.

In the much snowier winter of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union to legalize same-sex civil unions. (No state had legalized gay marriage at the time.) We were inundated by partisans from both sides of the issue. The “anti” crowd predicted that if civil unions were made law, chaos would ensue, it would be the end of marriage as we’d known it, Vermont would turn into the new Sodom.

The law was passed; then-Governor Howard Dean (D) signed it behind closed doors. (Strange metaphor, Howard.) Then, people got hitched in something that was sort of, but not quite like, marriage. Chaos did not ensue. Marriage as we knew it did not end. Vermont is not new Sodom.

What did happen is Democrats lost control of the state house of representatives in 2002, thanks in part to anti-civil union backlash. Two years later, the backlash subsided and the Democrats took back the house.

In the years intervening, Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage and California grapples mightily. Here in Vermont, the debate doesn’t exactly rage. There are, to be sure, opponents of same-sex marriage, but it seems the legislation will pass both deliberative bodies. Republican Governor Jim Douglas told an editorial board the other day that he sees no need to go beyond the existing civil union law – but he did not say he would veto the bill.

Mr. Douglas, whose wet finger is always in the political wind, will count votes when the bill passes. If he thinks a veto will be overridden, he will let the bill become law without his signature and Vermont will seep, rather than march, into the future. So be it.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage no longer predict doom will follow in its wake. Instead, we hear it might open the door to legalized polygamy. I don’t see that happening, for two reasons. One, although Vermont is the birthplace of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, there’s not a big constituency for polygamy. Second – and more important – same-sex marriage is good law and polygamous marriage is bad law.

The only real interest a state should have in the marriage is law and order, with the emphasis on order. The law has an interest in seeing all citizens treated equally, regardless of whom they choose to marry. The law has an interest in seeing the most interested party (a spouse) has the right to make medical or legal decisions for an incapacitated person. The law has an interest in the orderly transfer of property upon a person’s death.

For all those reasons, it makes sense to allow a person to marry another person, regardless of whether they are of the same or opposite sex (or anywhere in between). In the case of polygamy, well, you can see where it would tend to confuse legal issues.

The other argument to which the “anti” crowd has been reduced is that one man and one woman are the necessary ingredients for making children. While I agree stable families are in society’s best interest, I haven’t seen any evidence that same-sex parents are less stable than dual-sex parents.

Worse, if the only justification for marriage is the production of children, a notion that sounds very Middle Ages, then not only should same-sex marriage be illegal, but also marriage for post-menopausal women or women who have had tubal ligations or men who have had vasectomies or people who are just plain infertile.

The problem with grasping at straws is, you wind up with a handful of straw. Law and order; equality before the law. Think about it.

© 2009, Mark Floegel

In the month since Barack Obama’s inauguration, we’ve been (mis)treated to some of the worst displays of puerile politics in recent memory, which might be amusing, if the stakes – both immediate and long-term – were not so high.

We all know the immediate stakes are the success of the stimulus package and the health of the economy. You know, can you keep your job, stay in your house, feed your family. Stuff like that.

The long-term stakes have to do with which party will run the United States in the remainder of the 21st century. It works like this: the Constitution says we will have a census every ten years. The next one’s due in 2010. Based on census information, state legislatures redraw congressional districts within their states. We all know this process, gerrymandering, is the worst example of political sausage making we have. Those of us who believe in good government long for the day when the courts step in and prescribe a fair system, so we don’t wind up with congressional districts that look like the Illinois Fourth.

That day will come. It won’t come in time to stop the next re-apportionment. So the question is: which party will dominate state legislatures in the years 2010-2015? Answer: whichever party stops playing stupid political games and at this point it’s unclear either party will do that.

The Republicans, the party of “no,” would rather wreck the economy than allow President Obama and the Democratic majority to accomplish anything. When times are good, people have more important things to do than watch Congress. When keeping one’s job depends on Congressional action (or inaction), voters pay attention and right now there’s not much love out there for the GOP in Congress.

Republican governors, like California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vermont’s Jim Douglas are vocal about the need for federal money to keep their states going. Some Republican governors, like South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Texas’s Rick Perry, grumbled and criticized the stimulus package, then stuck their hands out for their states’ share.

It’s odd to watch normally lock-step Republicans acting all confused and fratricidal (i.e., like Democrats). I don’t think it will play well at the state-level ballot box in 2010.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to screw up and they rarely let one pass. Howard Dean – a former Vermont governor – rode a wave of grassroots support to become chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2004, much to the chagrin of the DC beltway Dems. As chair, Mr. Dean forced his “50 state strategy” down the protesting throats of the congressional campaign committee. Rahm Emanuel, then chair of that committee famously left a meeting with Mr. Dean in a cloud of blue language.

After sweeping Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, it’s clear Howard Dean was right, but beltway Dems have thick heads. Although Mr. Obama has gone to great lengths to be gracious to the likes of Joe Lieberman and Judd Gregg, he’s allowed chief of staff Mr. Emanuel to freeze Mr. Dean out of the new ascendancy, even leaving him uninvited even to the installation of his successor at the DNC.

Spats worthy of seventh grade are nothing new to DC and if Howard Dean doesn’t have a thick skin, he should. What is more important is that new DNC chair Tim Kaine acknowledge Mr. Dean’s vision and keep the pedal down on the 50-state strategy or he stands a good chance of returning to Republicans their dream of a permanent majority.

© 2009, Mark Floegel

In 2005, Mr. Dean won the chair of the Democratic National Committee, much to the dismay of the Clinton clique and the Democratic Leadership Council.

Mr. Dean portrayed himself – as a candidate and DNC chair – as a champion of outside-the-beltway politics. He was the one who beefed up the staffs of every state committee, helping the Democrats take control of Congress in 2006, even though Democratic Congressional and Senatorial Campaign Committee chairs Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer did their best to minimize his contributions.

Although Mr. Dean is neutral in party primaries, both Barack Obama and John Edwards have been striking Dean-ish themes in their stump speeches. And both beat Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean may come to be remembered as a Barry Goldwater figure, who did more in defeat to change the tone of his party than many victors ever did.