Why Vermont's Marriage Equality Matters

The Nation: Vermont Isn't The First State To Legalize Gay Marriage, But It's The First To Do It Through Its Legislature

(The Nation)  This column was written by Michael Corcoran.

---

Vermont may not be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. In fact, it's not even the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in the past week--that designation belongs to Iowa, where the State Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage last Friday.

But nonetheless, when the Vermont Legislature overturned a veto from Republican Gov. Jim Douglas and legalized same-sex marriage, it was indeed a historic moment. Vermont is the first state to permit gay marriage rights through a democratically elected legislature, as opposed to Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa, where courts ruled it unconstitutional to ban the practice. And many feel that this victory is a sign of things to come in the battle for marriage equality.

"The fact that Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation is very significant," said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. "Eventually, there will be marriage rights for everyone in the country, but it will take years of work and lots of education."

The legislation is significant, but it was not easy to pass. Despite Vermont's largely liberal citizenry, the passing of S.115 was far from certain. While there was no doubt the Vermont State Senate would be able to overturn Gov. Douglas's veto--it supported the legislation 26-4 last week--the vote was much closer in the House.

House Speaker Shap Smith needed 100 votes to overturn Douglas's veto, despite only securing 95 yea votes in the original passing of the bill. But Vermont Democrats played hardball with the opposition in their own party.

Shay Totten, a columnist for Seven Days, Vermont's alternative weekly newspaper, reported that "Democrats who oppose the bill could also face primary challenges next year--it's that important an issue for some leaders."

And in the end, the leadership was able to whip several nay voters into the yea column, and finished with the 100 votes they needed, compared with forty-nine opposed. Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, a Democrat who opposed the bill due to his Catholic upbringing (and actually apologized to his colleagues on the floor for doing so), simply stayed home for Tuesday's override vote.

The passing of the bill marks another chapter in what is now a decade-long debate over same-sex marriage in the state. Vermont is only nine years removed from a contentious and emotional battle over civil unions, which saw Vermont become the first state to pass equal rights--if not equal recognition--for gay couples.

Advocates at the time celebrated the passing of the civil union legislation, but not without trepidation. "So many people felt that civil unions were not enough," Gilbert said. "There was always the implication that, at some point, Vermont would move on and that there was a promise of sorts to gays, that finally got fulfilled today."

Of course, much like in 2000 when civil unions prompted a "Take Back Vermont" movement that helped oust legislators who supported civil union legislation, there was intense opposition this time around. Hundreds of same-sex marriage opponents gathered outside the State House with "Thank you, Jim" signs, praising the governor for his controversial veto.

Much of the opposition came from outside the state. Several legislators got reports of "robocalls," deceiving constituents by wrongly telling them their representatives had changed their minds on the subject. Some calls were traced back to the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey based nonprofit dedicated to "protect[ing] marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."

"In they end, they were a waste of money," said Rep. Tom Stevens, a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the marriage legislation. "I received more calls that were generated by the robocalls urging me to vote for marriage equality than to oppose it. There was no onslaught, because we all recognized the ham-handedness that went into them. They caused a bit of a misunderstanding for some folks who didn't listen all the way through, but in the end I'd say they backfired."

Despite the tenacious efforts by same-sex marriage opponents, in the end marriage equality proponents simply proved to be too organized to lose this time around. Further, according to local polling, the majority of Vermonters favor same-sex marriage, and the debate reflected this reality.

During a key House debate on Thursday, supporters of the bill arrived as early as 7:30 am, to secure seats for a vote that would not occur until after 9 pm. Much of the organizing was done by the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which bused in supporters to the State House and even fed them granola bars as they sat through dry budget discussions, waiting for the bill to reach the floor.

Several of the four openly gay legislators in Vermont gave passionate-- at times teary-eyed--speeches asking for equal rights. Rep. Jason Lorber, a Democrat from Burlington, told his colleagues on the floor that he "shouldn't have to ask my coworkers for the right to marry the person that I love."

And liberal bloggers were as passionate as ever, according to John Odum, founder of Green Mountain Daily, a popular liberal political blog in the state. "The energy around this issue has been like nothing I've seen on the blog to date. The only thing comparable was a few years back when there was a push...for an impeachment resolution against George W. Bush," Odum said.

Even local businesses organized on behalf of the bill, arguing in a letter to legislators that their "vote[s] will move Vermont forward economically," referencing a study by the Williams Institute, that projected gay marriage would "boost Vermont's economy by over $30.6 million over three years...and create approximately 700 new jobs," as a result of gays coming to the Green Mountain State to marry.

This effort repudiated the governor's repeated statements that same-sex marriage debate was " distracting" the state from its significant fiscal problems.

But now that the exhausting battle in Vermont has come to an end, marriage equality proponents are enjoying their role in an important civil rights struggle. "If there's one thing I keep hearing over and over today," Odum observed, "it is people--both online and off--telling me how proud they are to be Vermonters today."

[honestabe8]

memesfamily: good post. i don't know that i agree with everything in it. but you come off as being much more well spoken than most who espouse the same viewpoint. have a great day.

[kansas1946]

"If there's one thing I keep hearing over and over today," Odum observed, "it is people--both online and off--telling me how proud they are to be Vermonters today."
***************************************

I only wish that I could be as proud of my state, Kansas, but unfortunately we still have an abundance of bigots here. God bless Vermont and the other states that have protected these families.

[Memesfamily]

Honestabe8
I just found this website so this is response to an older question of why is the government involved in marriage anyway?
Well, they have found that they make gobs of money selling marriage licenses. So since they are involved in the money part there has to be some sort of control either for or against.
If it was a simple question of letting everyone do what is right in their own eyes there wouldn't be so much controversy.
The trouble arises when the homosexual political agenda seeks to force the homosexual lifestyle and agenda on people who disagree whether they are from the religious viewpoint or not.
You will please note I did not say every homosexual or whatever variant that might be.
It is the political parts who see an avenue to make millions of dollars off lawsuits in behalf of some.
If a person has a rental property and their belief is not homosexual so they refuse to rent to a homosexual family, instead of them respecting the right of the property owner to refuse to rent to them some high faluting lawyer wants to sue them for their belief.
I do not know of any way that any variant of homosexuality is not given the same rights as any other American. That is just a "good sounding" phrase to try to tip the law scales in their favor. Actually what they are trying to gain is special rights under the civil rights movement.
Personally, I don't think anyone needs special rights under this law because I do not think it is any worse for a law enforcement officer, civil rights activist, or person of any or whatever religious or sexual persuasion to be spoken bad of, beat up or killed than for any ordinary person.
Another reason the government has to get involved because of another popular complaint. Homosexual couples saying we want our children to be eligible for insurance and Social Security benefits.
Well those children have a father or mother somewhere. They are not the children of two homosexuals. IF the children of a male couple have a mother somewhere, they still have all the benefits of their father so what right is being denied them? If the children of a female couple they have a father somewhere and they are entitled to all the benefits that their father is entitled to.. What benefit are they being denied?
If a pastor refuses tro marry a homosexual couple do they respect his and the church's right? No, the agenda people want to file a lawsuit forcing the pastor and his church to accept their chosen lifestyle.
And if they want to teach their children it is ok to be homosexual they have that right, but then they want to strip away the right of anyone else to publically teach their children their belief. And they push for the schools to drop all mention of a family being a father, mother and children but then want to make all the school's choices promote the homosexual lifestye.
And if a pastor preaches from the BIBLE he believes in that the GOD he believes gave the written WORD of GOD that teaches against homosexuality, do homosexuals respect his right? No. Their agenda pushers want to call him names and try to pass a law against ' his "hate crimes speech".
So the homosexuals themselves are to be blamed for getting the government involved.
They see $$$$$$$$. That is the top and bottom line of the problem.
Fyi...... We have homosexuality in our family. Some of us are religious and so do not agree with that lifestyle, some are not religious but they don't agree with that lifestyle. We love the person not the lifestle. We respect his belief and he respects ours .

[honestabe8]

Also, if you do not want your views challenged, why post them on a public forum?

[honestabe8]

I suppose I "pick them apart" because I find them unconvincing

[oldschool561]

This could go on forever. If you respect my opinions and beliefs, why do you pick them apart? Either you believe or you do not. There is no complications. Why do people have to complicate everything?
Have a nice life.

[honestabe8]

"It is Gods way that men and women have children."

What of infertile people? Did God not create them? Or did they sneak past the quality control people?

[honestabe8]

oldschool561: if God is as all knowing as "he" is made up to be, would "he" need to make every one of his creations primarily baby making machines? Would there be no need to toss in some enuchs to act as a population control mechanism?

[honestabe8]

Please don't condemn me for my beliefs.
Posted by oldschool561

I did not do so. I respect your opinions, even though I do not agree with them

"Our sexuallity is not a choice"
"Homosexuality is against God"

How can something that is not a choice be sinful? And, it is not a choice, who made them the way they are?

[oldschool561]

Whatever "orientation" is. It is Gods way that men and women have children. Our sexuallity is not a choice. It is just the way it is supposed to be. No, I never consciously made a decision as to my sexuallity. The way I am is just the way I am. You did not have a choice either, so why are you arguing with me. Homosexuality is against God and it is just one more thing that we are doing against his law.
I will not argue religion with anybody. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I will not condemn your beliefs. Please don't condemn me for my beliefs.

[honestabe8]

Whether I have faith is not the issue. I suppose you are asking if I share the same "faith" as you. Apparently, I do not. Please answer my question.

[honestabe8]

oldschool561: do you feel orientation is a choice? if so, when did you make yours?

[oldschool561]

Honestabe
Based on FAITH. Do you not have any faith?

[honestabe8]

Honestabe
He just did.
Posted by oldschool561

based on?

do you believe orientation to be a choice? i am a straight male, and i did not have a choice in my orientation. it sort of popped up watching tina turner, elizabeth montgomery, barbara eden, marcia brady, et al. if you feel it is a choice, at what age did you make yours?

[oldschool561]

Honestabe
He just did.

[tucano2]

the terms "same sex" and "marriage" do not make any sense, any more than "shack up" and "marriage" do.

[honestabe8]

oldschool561: "god" did not make everyone the same in all other manners, why would you think sexual orientation is one that everybody should be the same?

[oldschool561]

That is not the way God made us.

[honestabe8]

skyk: these folks also seem to make big boastful statements and then disappear. they do not attempt to converse, they want to deride and/or preach. but, being a public forum, i guess that is what those who want to participate. they are amusing, to some extent

[skyk-2009]

I'm sure that homosexuality could be cured if people took the time to search for one. Why placate a disease?
Posted by CnUHerMeNow at 7:01 AM : Apr 12, 2009

Are you sure you aren't in the closet there my friend? Now I remember the DAY, even the HOUR, I first felt those chemicals rushing through my body. You see I never had a Mon and Dad who were under the control of some preacher so my Normal Body Functions were NOT ignored. Anyway when those Chemicals rushed through my body, my best friend Ralph? He was NOT where or who I wanted to be with after school ANYMORE. Course Ralph was in the same condition... LOL Why don't you come out and be honest with people? That's what I find most disturbing about you folks... you have no honor! YOU want to control what OTHER people do, who they sleep with and eat with and watch TV with! I'm here to tell you that there is NO other explanation and the one YOU gave is absolutely RIDICULOUS!!