Editorial
Guest Editorial
Marriage: How Do We Get There From Here?
The
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force has argued persuasively in its three-part
series that we must continue to work toward full equality - marriage rights
- for glb Vermonters. So, how do we get there from here? It's an ongoing
discussion, and our own thinking, as well as that of other leaders in
the Vermont freedom to marry movement, will no doubt continue to evolve.
We welcome your input. For what it's worth, our current view is that we
need to focus our collective energies on two important goals through the
coming months and, perhaps, years:
Rebuild and Retrain The Troops
We learned from Hawaii that marching into battle before the troops are
trained and ready can be dangerous. As a result, our organizing in Vermont
from 1995 to 2000 became a national model. For nearly two years before
we filed the Baker case, the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force recruited
volunteers, trained speakers, produced a video, sent speakers to churches
and civic associations, organized regional chapters, and began quietly
educating our allies in Montpelier. In December 1999, when the Vermont
Supreme Court handed down its surprise mixed decision, we were ready.
Although our success in the statehouse was mixed, there is no doubt that
the reason we were able to accomplish as much as we did (i.e., the civil
union law) was that we had taken the time to organize, train, and lay
the groundwork.
We're starting a new chapter now. Vermont's
a different place; people have come and gone; and the issues involved
in the transition from civil union to marriage are different in many ways
from the question of moving from nothing to marriage. We need to learn
from our own successes and begin vigorously, but patiently, laying the
groundwork (both within our community and beyond) for the next step.
The Vermont Freedom to Marry Task
Force, which has led the public education effort since 1995, is reinvigorated
with this goal in mind. Get involved! Get trained, come to a regional
meeting, host a gathering, speak to a local organization, and keep telling
your story to friends, co-workers, and neighbors.
No matter what form the next step takes
- whether a lawsuit or a bill in the legislature- we know it would be
a mistake to jump too soon, before we've gotten our ducks in a row. (We
just can't get away from ducks - little yellow ones - when it comes to
this issue...)
Restore a Gay-Friendly Legislature
We don't need to remind anyone who was
here in 2000 of the mean-spiritedness of the backlash, or the toll it
took on our support in the statehouse. Anti-civil union forces staged
a dramatic takeover of the House in November, 2000. As a result, we spent
much of 2001 working hard in the Legislature to hang on to the civil union
law.
Freedom to marry boosters worked incredibly
hard in the 2002 campaign, and helped restore the Senate firmly to friendly
hands. We played a role in turning the tide in the House as well, yielding
a House that was nearly evenly divided between civil union foes and supporters
(though still controlled by foes).
The 2004 election will be vital. We have
a shot at returning Vermont's House to supportive hands, hanging on to
the Senate, and electing a Governor and Lieutenant Governor more deeply
committed to our rights. Does this mean that if we can just win back a
few more seats in the Legislature, we'll quickly get marriage? Probably
not. We're still far from a pro-marriage majority in the House, and probably
in the Senate, though the national tide is turning.
But the 2004 election is vital for several
reasons: First, all five Vermont Supreme Court justices face retention
hearings in 2005. It is absolutely essential, both for us here in Vermont
and for the movement nationally, that these justices remain secure in
their jobs after their groundbreaking, albeit quite conservative, Baker
decision. Justices in Oregon, Washington, California, New York, and New
Jersey will be watching closely (there are marriage cases pending in all
of these states). Our own ability to rely on the Court in the future to
correctly answer the question it left open in Baker (Do same-sex couples
have a constitutional right to a marriage license, in addition to the
other tangible benefits of marriage?) depends in part on the confidence
of the justices that they can safely do the right thing.
Second, the possibility of a federal constitutional
amendment that would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages,
as well as civil unions and domestic partnerships, is very real. We might
find ourselves in a ratification struggle here in Vermont. We need to
build the strongest political position possible in the event that happens.
Third, when the time comes - when the grassroots
is organized, trained, and ready, when we've engaged our friends, neighbors
and coworkers, and when it's time to press the issue in the courts or
in the legislature - we know it will be vital to have as supportive a
legislature as possible.
As November approaches, volunteer for the
best possible candidates in your district, or contact Vermont Fund for
Families www.vermontfundforfamilies.org,
to figure out how you can help.
Beth Robinson and Susan Murray
Beth Robinson and Susan Murray co-founded the Vermont Freedom to Marry
Task Force in 1995, represented the plaintiffs in Baker v. State, led
the lobbying effort that culminated in the passage of the civil union
law, and ran two political action committees dedicated to electing supportive
candidates.
Editorial
Moving Forward on Several Fronts
Four
events of note demand mention - and in fact deserve more than that. The
first is the signing into law of H.113, the school anti-harassment bill.
The bill was passed by the Senate without changes from the House version,
and Governor Douglas signed it in mid-April. It defines harassment and
outlines a clear process for school staff and administrators to follow
in dealing with threats to student learning based on "a student's
or a student's family member's actual or perceived race, creed, color,
national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or disability."
This bill was supported by lgbt organizations
both for "our" inclusion and as allies for the Vermont Anti-Racism
Action Team and other organizations who were the prime movers behind the
bill. And despite the removal of a school choice provision held to be
indispensable by VARAT, its passage is a triumph for all the organizations
involved.
The second event was the eighth annual Day
of Silence on April 21, a protest organized by the United States Student
Association and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
to recognize and make unacceptable the harassment faced by lgbt students.
Founded in 1996 at the University of Virginia, the demonstration of the
silencing effect of harassment has grown to encompass 2600 schools and
universities. Last year then-Governor Gray Davis (remember him?) proclaimed
a state Day of Silence in support of the students' goal.
Participants at UVM wore stickers, handed
out cards, and sponsored a lunch for supportive students and faculty who
could not fully participate for the whole day. These students are our
community's future - and it's in good hands.
The third is the energized opposition to
SB427 in the New Hampshire legislature. This mini-DOMA refuses recognition
to same-sex marriages or any arrangement "that is treated as a marriage
or the legal equivalent of marriage" in other states. In addition,
it defines marriage as solely involving "one man and one woman as
husband and wife."
New Hampshire Freedom To Marry has been
organizing opposition to the Senate-passed bill that at press time was
awaiting votes in the House Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the
House. According to Brian Rater of NHFTM, the chairman of the committee
says his gay friends had advised him that they supported passage of an
amended version of the bill. Really? We hope Freedom to Marry is successful
in defeating the bill, yet another mean-spirited intrusion of Christian
fundamentalism into the civic life of lgbt folks throughout New England.
When we published in February the account of a woman seeking a potentially
life-saving mammogram at a hospital across the river in NH which refused
to accept her civil union partner as her next of kin, it clarified for
all of us what's at stake.
The fourth event is astounding, something
many of us never thought we'd see. While the marriages performed in San
Francisco in February and March, and in Portland, Oregon, and briefly
in several other cities may be validated by future court rulings, the
marriages that will be celebrated this month in Massachusetts have already
overcome that hurdle.
To the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court, to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who argued
the case, and especially to Mary Bonauto and Jennifer Levi, to the seven
plaintiff couples - Julie and Hillary Goodridge, Ed Balmelli and Michael
Horgan, Gina Smith and Heidi Norton, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Richard
Linell and Gary Chalmers, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, and David Wilson
and Robert Compton - to all the gay and lesbian couples in the Commonwealth:
Thank you for leaping over Vermont's lead and showing the rest of the
nation the way to full equality. May your marriages bring you joy, dignity,
respect and equal treatment in all areas of your lives.
Euan Bear
Editor