Essex Junction – Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre are two women whose political stature far overtops their five-foot physical height. They worked tirelessly for the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force in support of the issues framed by the Baker lawsuit. They were deeply disappointed with the civil union compromise that came out of the political struggle following the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling. But they took the opportunity for legal recognition that was offered and had a civil union in August, 2000. Bobbi's 90-year-old mother walked them both down the aisle and danced at their reception.
      But when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled late last year that excluding same sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses violated the Commonwealth's constitution, their next step was obvious: they were going to get married, really married. On May 17, 2004, the first day they could apply, they asked for their marriage license in Provincetown. The town clerk there had announced that he would not deny licenses to out-of-state applicants, despite ominous announcements from Republican Governor Mitt Romney that such marriages would be held invalid, based on a 1913 law.
     That law, sometimes called the "Reverse Evasion Act," was enacted to prevent mixed-race couples from marrying by excluding from marriage in Massachusetts any couple whose marriage would be void in their own state. The law had not been enforced in decades - until this year.
     The Cote-Whitacres had to drive from Provincetown to Barnstable to get a waiver of the customary three-day waiting period from a probate judge. "The judge asked us why we couldn't wait the three days. We said, 'We've already waited 37 years.' He looked down at his desk filled with divorce cases and said, 'I won't be seeing you back here.' We said, 'Nope, not after 37 years.'" Bobbi and Sandi tell the story together, each jumping in to finish the other's sentences.
The town clerk's office had closed by the time they got back to Provincetown, so they were married the next day by Justice of the Peace Joan Drysdale.
     Asked whether - after 37 years and a civil union - being married felt any different, Bobbi said, "It felt different the first day." Sandi: "It's the intangibles, the emotion, a connection at a different level. After 37 years, you wouldn't think there would be anything new." Bobbi: "The civil union had a bit of that feeling." Sandi: "It's a permanency, a comfort zone when each partner commits themselves." Bobbi: "Not that I think she's going to stray or anything..."
     But the second day after their marriage was different, that familiar feeling of being not quite good enough. Bobbi recalled, "That's when the governor said he'd pull our license. We contacted GLAD." Sandi: "There was a notice with an 800 number to call 'if you have any trouble.'" Bobbi: "Of course, there was also the notice saying 'Don't come if you're from out of state.'"

The Lawsuit

     The lawsuit filed by GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) on behalf of eight out-of-state couples is named after them: Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Health. The couples - three gay couples and four other lesbian couples - come from the rest of the New England states and New York.
     A second lawsuit on behalf of the town clerks seeks a summary judgment lifting the state attorney general's cease-and-desist order requiring the clerks to refuse licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples. There's a discussion of the legal issues on GLAD's website (www.GLAD.org), but for the Cote-Whitacres, the issues are simple. Bobbi: "Now they're even refusing licenses to [same-sex] couples with one member who lives in Massachusetts. Massachusetts shouldn't be in the position of enforcing other states' laws." Sandi: "No state can get away with treating non-residents differently."
     The hardest part is the waiting. The first hearing on Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Health was held on July 13. Sandi: "The state filed an 89-page brief, then we filed a response, and the state has to file a response to our response... It'll have to be kicked up to the Supreme Judicial Court."
As OITM was going to press, a preliminary ruling was issued by Superior Court Judge Carol S. Ball, denying a request for "immediate relief" - in essence asking that the State be barred from enforcing the 1913 law until the lawsuit is resolved on th merits of the case. The couples and the town clerks plan to appeal the ruling. "Whoever lost was going to appeal it. I'm sorry [this judge] didn't get it," Sandi said, "but we're more concerned about the constitutional issues anyway." Meanwhile the lawsuit continues.

Why Marriage After CU?

     Some of the reasons the Cote-Whitacres pursued marriage - even after their civil union got them access to marriage rights and responsibilities in Vermont - were practical. "We're concerned about social security," said Sandi. "Bobbi is a state employee, and there's no question of our status as a couple [with civil union]. But I work for a federal agency, so with marriage, we'll see."
     Bobbi's mother had a stroke earlier this year, and she lives with them. Their home-care aide stayed with her while they went to Provincetown. Bobbi is on parental care leave from her state job. Both women are 57 years old, within striking distance of retirement. Because the federal government does not recognize same-sex relationships - whether marriage or civil union - their social security income will likely be much less than it would be for a heterosexual married couple.
     "When we went down to Massa-chusetts for the [hearing], we had to take our civil union certificate for Vermont, our marriage license for Massachusetts, and our power-of-attorney documents because we went through New Hampshire," Bobbi noted with a wry smile.
     "On a purely emotional level, it's the equality, like Brown v. Board of Education. Equality means give us a choice," Sandi responds. "Civil union makes us prisoners of Vermont, just like the governor of Massachusetts wants to make marriage for gays exclusive to his state. Rights are only absolutely guaranteed if you fight for it."
     "Some of it is our age," Bobbi admitted. "When you grow up and find the person you love, you get married."
     The lawsuit is an investment, Sandi adds, "putting our lives, our personal feelings out there in public to agree or disagree with. And after the [civil union] public hearings where [gay and lesbian] people bled all over the place [telling our stories] - that's enough of a price to pay."
      "If anything, it made me more determined, despite the toll that it takes," Bobbi rejoined. "We can't stop now. This [discrimination] is wrong. We can fix it."
     "If not us, who? If not now, when? We have an obligation to be out in front because our story has an impact. When you've been together 37 years it gets the attention that's needed. We have a compelling story to lend to the struggle," Sandi explained.

Back in the Day

      Sandi Cote and Bobbi Whitacre met in the Women's Army Corps in 1967 ("No, it was 1966," corrected Bobbi). "She 'inprocessed' me at Fort McClellan, Alabama. I was headed to Maryland for intel training. Bobbi pulled some strings to get my orders changed," recalled Sandi.
     "And she eventually forgave me," rejoined Bobbi with some satisfaction. "It was the Sixties. We had to hide everything. There was a bar called Tito's in Birmingham where we'd go." The women managed to ride out their enlistments to receive honorable discharges in 1970, though Sandi was in and out of the reserves until 1988. Sandi had intended to make a career in the military - and left when it came to a choice between her career and her love.
     "That was the first time we had to choose between a career and our relationship," Sandi pointed out. "There were several others. In 1975, I graduated from college and wanted to become a cop. Every decent-sized police force required a new officer to take a polygraph." Bobbi: "And the first question on the test was 'Are you a homosexual?'"
       Sandi recalls that ironically, both of them at one time held security clearances to work for the federal government. "We weren't supposed to be able to do that." Bobbi: "We did a lot of things we weren't supposed to. We were always bucking the system."

Who Took These Rights Away?
      "I'm actually a naturalized citizen," said Sandi Cote-Whitacre. "
And I feel like I'm not quite a full-fledged citizen until I have these rights [to marry]. The mountains are still up there, the sky is up there and we've had civil unions for four years. My neighbors' marriages worked or didn't work, and it had nothing to do with me."
     "I was born here," Bobbi pointed out. "I was born with these rights. What I want to know is who took them away?"