Group calls marriage of gay couples harmful

By Sam Hemingway
Free Press Staff Writer

January 20, 2008
The president of a Utah-based traditional marriage advocacy group warned Saturday that if the Vermont Legislature passes a law to allow homosexuals to marry, it will undermine the marriage institution for heterosexuals in the state.

"Marriage is a vital social institution," Monte Stewart of the Marriage Law Foundation told a gathering of 100 people at the Davis Center. "There's a reason that marriage as an institution is virtually universal around the world."

Stewart said what he called "genderless marriage," or the union of any two people, would lead to a decline in the family unit and deprive children of the right to be raised by their own mothers and fathers.

"Marriage can be the union between man and woman or it can be the union of any two people," Stewart said. "Vermont cannot have both."

Patrick Fagan, a senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., and a former researcher for the Heritage Foundation, also spoke at the forum. Fagan ticked off a series of statistics he said support the theory that traditional marriages produce the most "competent and confident" offspring.

Fagan said children who don't grow up in a home with their biological parents are more likely to struggle educationally, socially and financially during their lives. He said there is not enough data to show how good same-sex couples are at parenting.

Saturday's event, sponsored by a newly formed, Rutland-based Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, drew a mostly negative response from students and community members who spoke during a question-and-answer session toward the end of the forum.

"It's nonsensical that marriage can't have multiple meanings," Paul Deslandes of Burlington told Stewart and Fagan. "That's simply scare tactics."

Stewart disagreed. "Yes, marriage has evolved in your lifetime and in my lifetime," he told Deslandes. "But one thing has never changed. It is the union of man and woman at its core. Now, that could be changed legally, sure. But would it be wise?"

The event Saturday was the first of several the Vermont group plans to host to challenge what its spokesman said is a pro-gay-marriage bias on the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, a legislative task force that has been holding hearings around the state.

"We're trying to deliver educational information that is either being forgotten or avoided in the public debate," Steve Cable, the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council spokesman, said in an interview Saturday.

Cable said the group was formed after Stewart was treated rudely by the legislative task force during an Oct. 29 meeting at the Vermont Law School. Stewart was interrupted by panel members as he tried to speak.

"It was very clear they were not interested in listening or understanding what he was trying to contribute," Cable said.

The legislative task force is considering whether to change the law in Vermont so same-sex couples can marry. It is expected to issue a report on the matter in April. Vermont currently has civil unions that provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

The staging of the forum on the UVM campus on Saturday itself created a campus controversy. UVM President Daniel Fogel issued a letter Friday to the UVM community expressing both his disdain for Cable's group and his support for having the forum take place on campus.

"I have deep empathy for those who are affronted by the ideas and positions opposing gay marriage," he wrote. "With that said, I do not believe the university can be in the position of vetting the ideas and positions of every group that uses campus facilities ... nor can UVM practice selective exclusion of certain points of view."

Dot Brauer, director of the campus Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Allied Services, said there were members in her organization who had "strong feelings" about having the event take place at UVM but she praised Fogel's statement.

"It's consistent with the principle that in a free society you support the expression of opposing views," she said.

Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com


Gay marriage debate is very civil this time

Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
By JOHN CURRAN
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — For many who lived through it, the memories remain painfully fresh: the hate mail, the threatening telephone messages, the tense public meetings.

This time around, the debate is noticeably more tame.

Eight years after its not-so-civil war over civil unions, Vermont — now weighing whether to legalize gay marriage — is enduring little of the vitriol and recrimination that surrounded its groundbreaking 2000 decision to legally recognize gay and lesbian couples.

It’s early: Lawmakers say they’re unlikely to push for a vote this year on pending legislation that would legalize gay marriage. A state-appointed panel crisscrossing Vermont to gather public input is to report to the Legislature in April, while a new anti-gay marriage group plans forums of its own to emphasize the benefits of traditional man-woman marriage.

The absence of an impending vote may be what’s keeping things civil. But those involved have noticed a difference between then and now.

“It’s a very different tenor,” said Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which supports gay marriage. “People have had an opportunity to come to terms. Vermonters have had eight years to see the two guys next door, or the two women down the street who have a legally recognized relationship under the civil unions law,” said Robinson, who argued the case that led to civil unions.

On Dec. 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to bar same-sex unions, ordering the Legislature to come up with a law accommodating them and triggering a pitched yearlong battle in which a state that prides itself on tolerance seemed to lack it.

Supporters and opponents alike — from Vermont and beyond — streamed into Montpelier to rally, lobby lawmakers and participate in the debate.

When the law took effect July 1, 2000, it didn’t quell the controversy, or the fallout. Civil unions, though already enacted, became a central issue at the polls that year, with 17 incumbents who voted in favor losing their seats in the aftermath.

“It was quite rancorous,” said Stephen Cable, founder of Vermont Renewal, which opposed civil unions then and opposes gay marriage now.

“I have a box of hate mail you can’t imagine. We got dried feces and used condoms in the mail. We had people stalking our vice president, who had an armed guard at her house for three weeks, 24/7,” Cable said.

Thomas Little, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, remembers the telephone calls.

“A lot of foul language was left on voicemails at home,” he said.

“It was like warfare,” said David Moats, author of “Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage,” a book about Vermont’s civil unions controversy. “It was a time unlike anything since the Vietnam War era, when you had the sense that the whole world around you was divided.”

In a telling statistic, an Associated Press exit poll of voters that November found the state split 49 percent to 49 percent on whether civil unions were a good idea. Four years later, the poll asked voters to choose between three options for recognition of same-sex unions: full marriage, civil unions or no recognition. Forty percent said they support marriage, 37 percent civil unions and 21 percent neither.

Other states followed Vermont’s lead. Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have endorsed civil unions and California and Washington have enacted domestic partner laws. Only Massachusetts permits gay marriage.

Last summer, the Legislature appointed an 11-member Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection to explore the idea of gay marriage and hear how Vermonters feel about it. The panel, which opponents say is stacked with gay marriage supporters and have boycotted on principle, has held seven hearings and has three more scheduled.

The hearings have generated plenty of input, but no name-calling or personal attacks.

James LaPierre, a 43-year-old nurse from Burlington who has a civil union partner and two children, saw the contrast firsthand.

LaPierre, a St. Albans native, went to a 2000 meeting on civil unions intending to get up and speak. Intimidated by the atmosphere, he didn’t.

“People would stand up and go to the microphone and there was jeering and catcalling,” he said. “It was hateful, and scary,” he said.

Last month, LaPierre returned to the same Bellows Free Academy auditorium for a public hearing by the Commission on Family Recognition. This time, he got up and spoke, and says the gathering was “supportive.” But it had fewer people — about 100, by his count, compared with about 500 at the 2000 event.

“Instead of a hateful, unruly, mob-like meeting, it was civil and organized. There was representation of the other side, but only two or three people,” he said.

Opponents believe the change in tone may have more to do with their boycott — and the lack of impending action — than acceptance of gay marriage.

“If they’d announced they were going to move on it this year and these hearings were on a bill we intend to have a vote on this year, you’d be seeing a much different scenario,” said Rev. Craig Bensen, president of Take It To The People, which promotes traditional marriage.

Bensen, who has called on opponents to boycott the state panel’s meetings, says that the move toward gay marriage is “activist-based” and out of touch with what Vermonters want. If the state truly wanted to know how its citizens felt about gay marriage, it would hold a nonbinding referendum, he said.

But he notes that some of the “Take Back Vermont” signs — which dotted the landscape of Vermont in 2000 as a symbol of opposition to civil unions — can still be found.

“The ‘Take Back Vermont’ signs were extremely durable. They’re left over. The sentiment’s not left over. It’s live sentiment,” he said.

Little, who’s no longer in the Legislature but chairs the Commission on Family Recognition, acknowledges that some gay marriage opponents are staying on the sidelines — for now.

“Most people don’t expect the Legislature to take any action in 2008, and opponents, therefore, are keeping their powder dry until some point in the future, when it’s more likely to become a legislative debate,” he said.

On the Web

Blip.tv; OITM

Take it To The People: www.takeittothepeople.com

Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force: www.vtfreetomarry.org

Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection: www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/FamilyCommission/

Critics says commission makeup lacks diversity

August 2, 2007

By Brent Curtis Herald Staff

A commission formed to hear the width and breadth of Vermonters' thoughts on gay marriage isn't diverse enough to satisfy some Rutland County legislators, who noted the lack of any local representation.

Last week, leaders of the Vermont House and Senate announced the formation of a special commission tasked with gauging Vermonters' thoughts on expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

The 10-member commission is made up of Republicans and Democrats, legislators, former legislators, a former governor, a college president, a quarry owner and an Episcopal minister.

But for all the diversity of their backgrounds, geographically the members are more clumped with only one member, former Bennington Democratic state Sen. Mary Ann Carlson, living south of White River Junction.

Four of the commission's members, including Chairman Tom Little, hail from Chittenden County — two from Burlington and one from South Burlington. Two more members are from Windsor County, while Orleans, Lamoille and Caledonia counties are each home to one other member.

That leaves the majority of counties in the state, including Rutland, the second most-populated county in the state, unrepresented on the commission.

To some Rutland County legislators, the lack of broader geographical representation on the commission represents a weakness in its credibility.

Rep. Steven Howard, D-Rutland, said he questioned House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, about what he described as both the geographical and philosophical failings of the group.

While he said he respects the members that Symington and Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin of Putney assigned to the commission, Howard said the views of Rutland County and much of the rest of the state aren't included.

"My perspective is if you want a credible opinion at the end of the day, you need all different kinds of representation," he said.

And while he would have liked to have seen a Rutland representative on the commission, Howard, who is gay, indicated that he wasn't necessarily talking about himself.

Howard, who works as a political consultant, said he wouldn't mind if Rutland, which has historically voted more conservatively than the rest of the state, were represented on the commission by someone with the same political leanings as the bulk of the county.

He said a contrary view is needed to balance out what he said appears to be a commission made up mostly of gay-marriage supporters.

"There are liberal and moderate Republicans on the committee but no conservatives," he said. "I would have made sure there was a more diverse grouping. Perceptions in politics sometimes become the reality. If they go back recommending gay marriage to the Legislature, no one would be surprised. It's only if they say 'no' that the makeup of the committee gives it more clout."

Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, said he, too, was disappointed that Rutland wasn't represented.

The day before the commission was announced last week, Mullin said Shumlin called him to let him know what was coming.

When Mullin said he thought the body needed more regional representation and more political balance, he said Shumlin told him jokingly that he could join.

Mullin said Shumlin told him organizers had asked John Bloomer, a former Republican senator from Rutland, to serve but he declined.

However, Bloomer said Wednesday he was never asked. Had he been, he said he would probably have accepted the position.

"You need to have people with reservations on the committee," he said. "You need individuals who have contrary opinions. If you don't have that then any recommendation for gay marriage is going to be harder for those with a contrary opinion to accept."

Shumlin couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

However, Symington said critics who focus on the makeup of the commission are missing the point of what it's tasked to do.

"The way we structured it was to put it in the hands of Vermonters rather than politicians," she said. "We really wanted to turn the conversation over to Vermonters."

To reach people across the state, Symington said the commission would hold at least six hearings statewide before delivering a report on the issue to lawmakers in April 2008. The communities that the commission will visit haven't been decided yet, but Symington said Rutland and Bennington are candidates to host hearings.

"The expectation is to cover a broad cross-section of Vermont, including communities in the southwest," she said.

As for the political and philosophical leanings of the commission's membership, Symington said those attributes were secondary to their ability to listen and keep an open mind.

"I honestly don't know if everyone on the commission has made up their mind on (gay marriage)," she said. "I just know that it's stacked with good listeners … my main criteria was finding people who would listen."

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, the lead sponsor of a bill drafted in February that called for making same-sex marriage legal in Vermont, says his support for gay marriage won't affect his or the commission's ability to hear and weigh contrary views.

"I want Rutland County residents and people living in other areas of the state to understand that they will have a voice in what we go back to the Legislature with," he said. "It's not just a rubber stamp."

Contact Brent Curtis at brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com.