 |
|
"The state cannot and does not justify the disabilities the law imposes on gay and lesbian Vermonters and their families with reference to some broad, collective community purpose but, rather, essentially relies on community prejudice against gays and lesbians and their families in support of its discrimination. Simply put, in its various attempts to rationalize its discriminatory regime, the state essentially suggests that same-gender couples, and the families they form, are not worthy of the protection, supports and obligations available to different gender couples. ... The Vermont Constitution does not allow the state to codify community prejudice in that way."
"The plaintiffs in this case do not seek to take anything away from different-sex marriages; they simply seek for their own families the same legal protections and obligations enjoyed by other families in the state of Vermont."
"The state's claimed interest in promoting child-rearing in a setting which provides males and female role models flies in the face of the legislature's own actions, does not state a valid purpose and is not reasonably related to the state's discrimination." "The state makes the circular argument that the protections and obligations of civil marriage should be limited to heterosexual marriage because they always have been so limited. While a history of discrimination against same-gender couples may explain the exclusionary nature of the marriage laws, it does not justify such exclusion." "The sate cannot merely assert a tradition of man-woman marriage in defense of its marriage laws: It must justify continuation of that tradition. The state attempts to do so by asserting that any change would somehow Îdestabilize marriage.'"
"The state's comparison of the social consequences of same-gender couples forming lifelong, loving, committed unions with one another to the effects of underage drinking, sexual relations with children, and prostitution, to name but a few ... is certainly unflattering, and, indeed hurtful the plaintiffs in this case as well as the thousands of other gay and lesbian Vermonters who work hard at their jobs, volunteer in their communities, live with integrity, and cherish their families. ... Particularly troublesome is the state's citation to Vermont's law prohibiting bigamy and polygamy. ... In raising the specter of polygamous marriages in response to the request of these three monogamous couples for access to the legal protections and obligations that a company civil marriage, without discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, the state distracts from the real issues in this case."
"Nothing about these plaintiffs, or the other same-gender couples in the state of Vermont who would marry, threatens to undermine the moral framework upon which the Vermont community rests. If the state believes otherwise, it is because it has embraced baseless myths about gay and lesbian lives. Such an irrational basis cannot validly support the state's discriminatory laws."
"Despite this evidence, plaintiffs have used the Legislature's decision not to afford marital status to unions of the same sex to claim that Vermont's laws show contempt for the gay population and merely codify societal prejudices. To plaintiffs, extending marriage laws to cover same-sex unions would not even constitute a dramatic development. The state cannot agree."
"Whether one is in favor of plaintiff's position or that of the defendant, it would be impossible to characterize permitting same-sex marriages as anything other than a watershed change in the law."
"What plaintiffs ask the court to do here is change the name of their relationship in order to use it as a mechanism for obtaining rights and obligations under hundreds of other statutes. Plaintiffs cannot rely upon statutes that are not contested in this case as a basis to claim the right to marriage."
"The Legislature's choice to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples can be justified by the recognition that this union is unique. Not only is it a union of differences, but it is a union in which children are commonly raised. Therefore, it plays a particular role in teaching children. ... Current marriage laws could be seen by the Legislature as a way to recognize the significant contribution that both sexes can bring to parenting and family formation."
"Plaintiffs twist the declaration of the Legislature's support for the institution of marriage into the statement that Îheterosexual couples and their families are morally superior to gay and lesbian couples and their families.' ... This insulting, demeaning statement is not the state's. It is an invention of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs use these histrionics to undermine the Legislature's legitimate goal of enacting legislation to express and support its preference to encourage family formation through married opposite-sex couples because of their unique and long-standing contributions to the foundation of society."
"The Vermont Legislature has been responsive to homosexuals in numerous
ways, including prevention of discrimination, permitting adoption of children,
not enacting a local Defense of Marriage Act and not regulating intimate sexual
contact among adults. While homosexuals may not have achieved all of their legislative
goals, it simply cannot be said that homosexuals in Vermont Îhave no ability
to attract the attention of lawmakers' (quoting a previous court case) or that
they need Îextraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.'
(quoting another precedent)"
