Chittenden Superior Court Judge Linda Levitt surprised observers when she issued her decision quickly on the motion to dismiss by the Attorney General. The suit was thrown out citing only one of the seven arguments the Attorney Genral mentioned in his brief. In the seventeen page document, the judge adressed the rest of the points as "Invalid," "Speculative," "Difficult to grasp," and "With out common sense or logical basis."

The one point that was accepted was the states interest in maintaining a link between marriage and child rearing.

The plaintiffs will file an appeal sometime after the first of the year, according to Beth Robinson, one of the attorneys for the three couples suing the state. She expects the Supreme Court to start hearing arguments this spring.

The attorney general's office and lawyers seeking the right of gays and lesbians to marry have exchanged a series of sometimes pointed and sarcastic legal arguments. The three couples' lawyers last filing totaled 108 pages of arguments, legal analysis and citations of previous cases. The state responded with a final 29-page volley.

The state has made clear that it would oppose a swift decision without testimony and possibly a full-blown trial. Instead, it would seek an exchange of evidence and potentially a trial.

In his final response, Sorrell said he would argue that gays and lesbians are not hurt by the denial of marriage rights because they can obtain the benefits associated with marriage elsewhere and he would seek to prove that in the runup to a trial.

"Many of the statutory Îbenefits' described by plaintiffs can be obtained through private contracts," he wrote. "Indeed, if this case were to proceed to discovery, it might be learned that some or all of the plaintiffs already possess some of the benefits they seek in this case."

There was not a lot of new ground broken in the final filings of the two sides. The couples continued to maintain that marriage is a fundamental foundation of society and should not be denied to gays and lesbians. "This case involves one of the most fundamental of all our human and civil rights: the right to marry the person we love, the person with whom we want to share our lives," the couples said. But then they went further, accusing the state of bigotry and discrimination even if those precise words were not used in the court documents. "The argument that the (couples') right to marry should be subject to legislative determination puts the Vermont attorney general in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the Virginia Supreme Court of 1966, which upheld a law against interracial marriage, claiming it was the province of the legislature, not the courts, to change the law," the couples said. "The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned laws outlawing interracial marriage. The couples' case boils down to the simple belief that society has changed and banning same-sex marriage is no longer reasonable. "In light of the changing social mores in the state of Vermont, it would be unjust and unreasonable to construe Vermont's marriage statutes to exclude same-sex couples," they said. Any other reading of the law, they said, would be unconstitutional.

Sorrell's response, summed up, was that the couples were misconstruing his response to the original suit. He said Vermont tradition and history, as well as the language of state laws, has limited marriage to one man and one woman.

"Vermont's history and traditions do not support including same-sex unions within the fundamental right to marriage," the state said. "Marriage in this state has always been composed of one man and one woman."

Retaining the distinction between men and women for the purposes of marriage does not amount to discrimination, in the view of the state. "Whereas equality can provide members of both sexes with full educational and employment opportunities, it cannot change the biological fact that marriages require opposite-sex partners."

The attorney general suggested that the judge tell the couples that their case belongs not in the courthouse, but the Statehouse. "This is an issue best left to the legislature," he wrote. "(The couples') claims in this case involve complex and unresolved issues going to the core of human relationships, human nature and the structure of society."

Copyright © 1997 Mountain Pride Media, Inc.