Features
Community
Profile:
Virginia Renfrew
State of the States
State of the States
Vermont Helps Mass. Marriage, While a Partial Victory Is
Won in New Jersey
by Margaret Porter
Remember
the date February 11. That's when the Massachusetts legislature, acting
as a constitutional convention, is scheduled - as of press time - to debate
and vote for the first time on an amendment that would prohibit legal
recognition of marriages other than between a man and a woman. It's the
next battle in the war for gay and lesbian equality.
Hired last month by MassEquality.org
- a coalition of pro-gay marriage groups -Vermont political organizer
and consultant Marty Rouse is one of the behind-the-scenes strategists
for the campaign in our neighbor state to the south. In addition, attorney
Beth Robinson contributed to an amicus brief filed with the Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial Court opposing the idea that any domestic partnership or civil
union proposal would satisfy the Court's own ruling for equality.
Rouse and MassEquality.org
- working out of the Boston offices of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders,
who litigated the case resulting in a repudiation of the state's policy
of excluding same sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses - have
been focusing their campaign on defeating "any anti-gay amendment
to the constitution."
"I don't think the LGBT community understands
the importance of the amendment vote, because on May 17, licenses will
be issued, and we won," Rouse said during an interview at his Richmond
home between stints organizing the Bay State campaign. "But there's
this movement afoot to take that away."
The amendment must be voted on once each
in two different legislative sessions - where a simple majority moves
the amendment forward - and then passed in a public vote during a general
election. The earliest an amendment could take effect is November, 2006.
"Our opposition is well organized and
well funded, and they have made this their number-one issue," Rouse
declared. "That's why it is so important for Vermonters to call their
friends and their families in Massachusetts to ask them to contact their
legislators before February 11. This issue will be decided in the hearts
and minds of the legislators. It is incumbent on us to share our stories."
Rouse repeatedly emphasized the importance
of contacting "the people we know" in Massachusetts, gay or
straight, to let them know why the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling must
stand.
Having an actual "marriage license"
makes it easier for businesses and agencies in other states to recognize
and accept the validity of a same-sex relationship, Rouse said. And, Rouse
pointed out, calling it marriage paves the way for a possible legal challenge
to the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). According to
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 36 states have passed their own
"mini-DOMAs."
Among the differences between this struggle
and Vermont's three years ago is that "polling has shown that the
majority of Massachusetts citizens support same-sex marriage rights,"
Rouse said, explaining his increasing optimism, "and they are overwhelmingly
opposed to amending the constitution. Our goal is to get to July 31 without
a constitutional amendment being passed."
Some sources have suggested that the Constitutional
Convention vote of the legislature will be delayed if the Supreme Judicial
Court has not ruled on the question of civil unions. Rouse, however, suggests
that the Court is likely to rule before February 11. "A vote will
take place, and it is expected on February 11. The message for legislators
is 'Vote No on any anti-gay amendment.'"
Back in Court
Helping the Court defend its original November
18 ruling in favor of full marriage equality rights, a number of groups
have filed amicus briefs, as have groups and individuals opposed to the
ruling. GLAD's basic contention, reflected in the amicus brief Beth Robinson
contributed to, is that civil unions are inherently separate and unequal.
One of the benefits of marriage is the status
of being married, the brief argues, a status denied same-sex couples joined
in civil union.
Asked how she felt about that characterization
of the rights for which Vermont lesbians, gay men, and allies fought so
hard, Robinson said, "I never felt like civil unions was a victory.
There's some irony in that there was a flaw in the political calculation
behind civil unions" - that it would head off some of the more extreme
backlash. "The hell we went through was not any less because it was
civil union and not marriage."
The real question, she continued, is "do
we in the gay community have the same range of choices" as heterosexual
citizens. "People in our community ought to have the choice of marriage."
Robinson said, "The Massachusetts court
ruled that same-sex couples would be marrying on May 17," and she
"would be shocked if the court said anything other than marriage"
was acceptable under their ruling.
"We ought to be tremendously proud
of the step forward we made in Vermont. I am excited by the extent to
which the ground has shifted since 2000. We are at a tipping point where
we'll find out whether civil unions are a floor or a ceiling. I hope it's
a floor."
A Step in New Jersey
Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Governor James
E. McGreevey signed a limited domestic partnership registration bill that
awards some rights but falls far short of marriage equality. Some commentators
saw this as a move to head off a Supreme Court ruling in a same-sex marriage
case now working its way through the state's judicial system.
The law makes New Jersey the fifth U.S.
state to give some measure of legal protections to same-sex couples, following
Hawaii, Vermont, California, and Massachusetts. The law also commits the
state to recognizing the partnerships established in other states.
As in Massachusetts, the New Jersey legislature
was given 180 days to develop the registration procedure. The bill does
not authorize "gay marriage," which according to a report in
the Advocate is outlawed. In addition, this law allows mixed-gender couples
over 62 to register their partnerships.
The bill is far from Vermont's civil union
measure. To register, a couple must share a residence and show proof of
joint financial dealings, such as by designation of the partner as a beneficiary
in a retirement plan or will. Its benefits include hospital visitation,
emergency medical decisions, exemptions on state income tax filings, and
exemption from the state inheritance tax. The state must provide dependent
health insurance coverage to its employees' domestic partners, but private
companies are not required to follow suit.
"States like New Jersey would do the
country and its families a favor if they avoided the detour of separate
and unequal and went right to the clarity, security, and equality that
comes only with the freedom to marry," declared Evan Wolfson, executive
director of the national Freedom to Marry organization, in a press release.
" One of the major benefits of marriage
is being able to say to your family, your kids, the community, the government,
and those you do business with wherever you are, 'I am married,'"
said Wolfson. "There is no verb for civil union, and nobody writes
songs about domestic partnership."
Freedom to Marry is organizing around Freedom
to Marry Week February 9-16, including Valentine's Day.
Back in Vermont, the Vermont Freedom to
Marry Task Force posed the question at a recent Queer Summit of whether
it should begin the push for full marriage equality this year. A majority
of those present at the meeting raised their hands to vote yes.
For more information, visit www.glad.org
or www.freedomtomarry.org.